BILL ANALYSIS SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 670 SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: correa VERSION: 4/11/07 Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: no Hearing date: April 17, 2007 SUBJECT: Real estate transfer fees DESCRIPTION: This bill generally prohibits the prospective imposition against real property of any condition requiring the payment of a private fee upon transfer of the property. ANALYSIS: Since 1872, current law has provided that any condition restraining the transfer of real property, also referred to as alienation, is void when repugnant to the interest created. In Morris v. Allen (1911) the court described this section as "an expression of the policy of the law declaring conditions accompanying the absolute transfer of property and attempting to restrain the subsequent sale or alienation thereof to be void." This provision has been used, for example, to void a clause in a grant deed prohibiting the grantee from further conveying the interest in the property without the grantor's consent. Current law does allow, however, various required fees to be included in the price of a residential real estate transfer. These include public fees such as transfer taxes and document recording fees as well as private fees such as homeowner association processing fees. All of these required fees and payments must be disclosed on statutorily required forms. In addition, various types of voluntary fees, including escrow fees, title insurance premiums, and realtor commissions, as well as liens, including mechanics' liens, judgment liens, and lender liens, are all paid out of escrow. Recently, a new type of fee has been employed in certain SB 670 (CORREA) Page 2 situations: a private real estate transfer fee. Such a fee was first devised in Roseville three years ago when a project developer and the city agreed to a legal settlement with environmentalists allowing for the development of 8,400 new homes on the city's last large expanse of vacant land while preserving nearly 6,000 acres of open space. The $85 million needed to purchase the agreed-upon open space will come from a charge of % of the sales price each time a home within the development is sold over the next 20 years. The fee goes to the private, non-profit Placer Land Trust for the purchase of the open space. These fees are required as part of the covenants (CC&Rs) recorded against the property. Staff is aware of at least two other instances in which housing developers have imposed similar private transfer fees. To settle a lawsuit over housing development in the Martis Valley near Truckee, the developer and environmentalists agreed to impose transfer fees for the purchase of open space, mitigation of environmental impacts, and the development of affordable housing. In Orange County, Lennar Homes has used private transfer fees to direct funding to the Lennar Charitable Housing Foundation, a non-profit organization that supports the development and rehabilitation of homeless shelters. This bill prohibits any condition requiring the payment of a fee upon transfer of real property, unless that condition was in effect on December 31, 2007, by declaring such conditions as a restraint on alienation repugnant to the interest created. The bill exempts the following from this prohibition: Governmental fees or taxes Mechanics' liens Court ordered transfers, payments, or judgments Property agreements in connection with a legal separation or dissolution of marriage Fees, charges, or payments in connection with the administration of estates or trusts Fees, charges, or payments imposed by lenders or purchasers of loans Any assessment, penalty, or fee authorized by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act. The bill also states various findings relating to the current practice of imposing private transfer fees and the alleged problems and impacts of those fees. SB 670 (CORREA) Page 3 COMMENTS: 1.Purpose of the bill . According to the sponsors, transfer fees based on a percentage of the sales price of a home are increasingly being imposed by developers on homebuyers. Generally, these fees must be paid every time each home in a development is sold. Fees totaling 1.75 percent of a home's sales price have been seen. There is no upper limit on the percentage of a home's sales price, however, at which a transfer fee can be established. In addition, such transfer fees can be imposed by a developer for an unlimited number of years. While these fees are often imposed for 20 to 25 years, many are imposed in perpetuity. Finally, there is no guarantee that the funds generated by these transfer fees will be used to pay for projects that directly benefit the development or the immediately surrounding community. There is no nexus requirement nor is there any oversight of the entities receiving the transfer fee funds to ensure that they will accomplish that with which they have been tasked. The author and sponsors believe that there are a number of existing, more accountable mechanisms for funding local improvements including homeowner associations, Mello-Roos districts, and bond programs. 2.Transfer fees can provide beneficial resources . To date, California developers have used private transfer fees to purchase open space as environmental mitigation for a project or to support the development of affordable housing and homeless shelters. In the case of environmental benefits, the imposition of the fees in the two cases so far has ended litigation that threatened to prevent housing from being built at all. In any case, transfer fees can provide resources for important societal objectives. The sponsors of the bill do not necessarily object to these uses, but rather to the mechanism for collecting the funds. 3.The differences between funding mechanisms . To the extent that private transfer fees fund certain types of public benefits, local governments could collect funds for this purpose through other funding mechanisms such as assessment districts or Mello-Roos districts. Assessment districts may be used to fund public works and limited types of public services that directly benefit the property owners. Mello-Roos districts may be used to fund public works projects and a broader list of public services. A direct benefit to the property owners is not required for Mello-Roos districts. SB 670 (CORREA) Page 4 The establishment of such districts would be subject to a public process and a vote of property owners within the district. In most cases where developers have imposed these fees, however, the developer is the only property owner so that the outcome of a public vote is certain and future homebuyers are very unlikely to participate in public hearings. In essence, then, there are three main differences between the use of private transfer fees versus assessment or Mello-Roos districts. First, private transfer fees are not limited to statutorily enumerated uses. While open space acquisition and maintenance probably does qualify as an allowable use of Mello-Roos districts and maybe even assessment districts, other uses such as homeless shelter development almost surely do not. Second, private transfer fees are paid only upon sale. Mello-Roos and assessment district fees are paid annually. Third, assessment district and Mello-Roos fees are channeled through a local government rather than directly to a private third party. The sponsors point out that local governments are more accountable to the public. A local government, however, may not be the most appropriate entity to administer the desired funding. Land trusts, for example, are probably a better fit for purchasing and maintaining open space. If a non-governmental entity is the ultimate user of Mello-Roos or assessment district funds, then many of same accountability issues apply as with private transfer fees except that the local government would be in a stronger oversight role. To the extent that there is agreement funds are being used for a legitimate and beneficial purpose, all of these funding mechanisms are simply different means to the same end. It is unclear why one mechanism is any more appropriate than others. Property owners end up paying either way. 4.Another fee that the market will adjust to . Under current law, cities and counties may already impose taxes on the transfer of real property. In addition, many other fees and charges are paid out of escrow when a property sells. Private transfer fees are one more line item on the escrow instructions. To the extent that the existence of such a fee impacts the value of the property, as long as the fee is fully disclosed the market will adjust to the fee. A homebuyer who knows that she must pay such a fee upon subsequent resale will pay the developer less for the home than for a comparable SB 670 (CORREA) Page 5 property. Likewise, future buyers will pay less to the seller. 5.Potential abuses . The sponsors point out that private transfer fees are not limited to non-profit public benefit corporations but can also be imposed for the benefit of individuals or corporations. They point to a website that encourages homeowners to record transfer fee requirements against their own properties in order to receive a share of all future sales. While such fees should be reflected in the market value of the property, there seems to be little policy rationale to allow such fees. As an alternative to prohibiting such transfer fees, the committee may wish to restrict their use to non-profit entities for the provision of a public benefit. 6.More oversight of transfer fees beneficiaries needed ? The sponsors argue that, unlike local governments, non-profit organizations or others that receive private transfer fees are not accountable to the fee payers or to the public at large. This could be remedied by imposing various transparency and accountability requirements upon the entities that receive transfer fees. If the committee wishes to allow private transfer fees, it may wish to impose transparency and accountability requirements upon beneficiaries. 7.Disclosure critical . In order for the real estate market to adjust home sales prices to reflect the existence of transfer fees, it is critical that buyers and sellers be aware of the fee and its magnitude. Under current practice, the transfer fees are included in the covenants (CC&Rs) of a homeowner association. These documents can be long, and consumers and title companies may not catch such requirement early in the sales process. If the committee wishes to allow private transfer fees, it may wish to consider requiring recordation of such fee requirements on a separate form and disclosure of the fees on the existing real estate disclosure form. 8.What's good for the goose? In some cases, private transfer fees may not apply to the initial purchaser of a new home but only to subsequent buyers. Where the developer has already paid an equal or greater amount for the public benefit to which the fees accrue, this may be appropriate. In cases where the developer does not make such payments, however, this arrangement seems unfair. Why should the developer get a break on the fee when subsequent do not? If the committee SB 670 (CORREA) Page 6 wishes to allow private transfer fees, it may wish to require that the fee apply to both the first and all subsequent sales of the property unless the developer has paid an equal or greater amount. 9.Subordination . The sponsors argue that there is no requirement currently that transfer fees be subordinated to other liens or fees. In the event that a transfer fee is not subordinated and a home is sold for less than the total of liens and fees, it is therefore possible that the private transfer fee would be paid prior to some lienholders. If the committee wishes to allow private transfer fees, it may wish to consider requiring their subordination to liens on the property. 10. Placement of the restrictions or limitations . The bill currently places the prohibition on private transfer fees in the section of law relating to restraints on alienation. While this is a matter that falls more under the expertise of the Judiciary Committee, it seems unlikely that a court would find a transfer fee to be a restraint on alienation. A fee does not prevent a home from being sold but rather lowers the value of the home. The committee may wish to consider an amendment to place the restrictions or limitation of this bill into a stand-alone section. 11. Arguments in opposition . Opponents argue that funding community facilities and amenities is often required as part of the development process. In their view, "reconveyance financing" is a smart and equitable way to fund these facilities and amenities over time in order to avoid saddling buyers of new homes with huge up-front costs. If original homebuyer were required to pay the entire cost of required mitigation at the time of initial sale, the cost would be 10 to 20 times higher. Opponents further point out that the fees in existence to date have not deterred home sales at all. That said, opponents are willing to prevent individuals from imposing transfer fees for their own benefit and to improve disclosure. 12. Double referral . The Senate Rules Committee has referred this bill to both the Transportation and Housing Committee and the Judiciary Committee. If this bill is approved by the committee, it will be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee for a second policy hearing. SB 670 (CORREA) Page 7 RELATED LEGISLATION AB 1574 (Houston) requires a seller of a new home first sold after January 1, 2008, which is subject to a covenant requiring payment of a fee at the time of conveyance to make a specified disclosure and to record this disclosure in the chain of title. This bill is set for hearing in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 24. AB 980 (Calderon) states the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to ensure that home buyers are adequately informed about transfer fees that are imposed by developers on home buyers and that are based on a percentage of the sales price of the home. This spot bill is in the Assembly Rules Committee awaiting assignment to a policy committee. POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, April 11, 2007) SUPPORT: California Association of Realtors (sponsor) Atascadero Association of Realtors Atascadero Chamber of Commerce Barstow Association of Realtors Bay East Association of Realtors Berkeley Association of Realtors Beverly Hills/Greater Los Angeles Association of Realtors Big Bear Association of Realtors Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce Chico Association of Realtors Citrus Valley Association of Realtors Coastal Mendocino Association of Realtors Conejo Valley Association of Realtors Contra Costa Association of Realtors Corona Norco Association of Realtors Delta Association of Realtors Downey Association of Realtors East San Diego County Association of Realtors El Dorado County Association of Realtors Fresno Association of Realtors Greater Antelope Valley Association of Realtors Hetch Hetchy Association of Realtors Inland Valleys Association of Realtors Kings County Board of Realtors Laguna Niguel Chamber of Commerce SB 670 (CORREA) Page 8 Lassen Association of Realtors Mariposa County Board of Realtors Monterey County Association of Realtors North San Diego County Association of Realtors Northern Solano County Association of Realtors Orange Belt Board of Realtors Orange County Association of Realtors Pacific West Association of Realtors Paradise Association of Realtors Pasadena-Foothills Association of Realtors Paso Robles Association of Realtors Placer County Association of Realtors Rancho Southeast Association of Realtors Sacramento Association of Realtors San Mateo County Association of Realtors Santa Clara County Association of Realtors Shasta Association of Realtors Silicon Valley Association of Realtors Solano Association of Realtors Southland Regional Association of Realtors Tehama County Association of Realtors Tuolumne County Association of Realtors Ventura County Coastal Association of Realtors West Contra Costa Association of Realtors West San Gabriel Valley Association of Realtors Yosemite Gateway Association of Realtors OPPOSED: California Building Industry Association California Council of Land Trusts California League of Conservation Voters California State Parks Foundation Defenders of Wildlife Gray Panthers Housing California Macarthur Transit Community Partners Orange County Community Housing Corporation Planning and Conservation League Playa Capital Company Playa Vista Community Services Sierra Club Truckee Donner Land Trust Wathen Castanos Mazmanian