AB2705 restructures the process for claiming excess proceeds that remain after a county tax-defaulted property sale. The bill imposes a one-year filing window for parties of interest, narrows how and when claims can be assigned, requires proof from anyone acting on a claimant’s behalf that the claimant was fully informed, and directs counties on the order in which excess proceeds are distributed.
The measure matters because it attempts to curb assignment-and-fee schemes that buy former owners’ rights while creating a uniform administrative framework for counties to process claims. It also spells out delays to distribution when a sale is the subject of a rescission petition or ongoing court proceedings, and provides a short judicial-review window for claimants or interested parties to challenge a board decision.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires parties of interest to file a claim for excess proceeds within one year after the tax collector’s deed is recorded and establishes mailing/postmark rules for timeliness. Restricts post-sale assignments by requiring a dated written instrument and mandatory disclosure among parties, and compels any agent filing on behalf of a claimant to submit proof that the claimant was informed and advised of their right to file directly at no cost.
Who It Affects
Former record owners and their heirs, lienholders of record, third-party claim facilitators and fee-seeking buyers, and county treasurer-tax collector offices and boards of supervisors that must process and adjudicate claims. Courts become indirectly involved when rescission petitions or §3725 proceedings pause distributions.
Why It Matters
It tightens consumer protections around sale-proceeds capture while creating new administrative steps for counties and compliance burdens for third-party claim agents. Practically, the bill reduces easy monetization of excess-proceeds claims and can delay distributions when title rescission or litigation is pending.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB2705 creates a clear, claim-driven path for recovering money left over after a tax-defaulted-property sale. A ‘‘party of interest’’ who held an interest at the time of sale must file a claim for excess proceeds within one year after the tax collector’s deed is recorded.
The bill makes timeliness depend on the mailing or shipment date: claims must be postmarked or show the independent carrier’s shipment date on the outside packing slip or air bill; if a mailed claim lacks an official postmark, the county’s receipt date controls.
After sale, the bill sharply limits the secondary market for excess-proceeds claims. Assignments of a party’s claim are valid only if executed in a dated, written instrument that explicitly transfers the right, and only after each proposed assignor and assignee has disclosed to the other all facts they know about the value of the claim.
The statutory restriction applies to assignments made on or after this subdivision’s effective date; attempted noncompliant assignments are void.Anyone who acts on behalf of a party of interest when filing must attach proof with the claim showing that the filer disclosed the amount and source of the excess proceeds to the party and advised the party they may file directly with the county at no cost. The bill also permits parties to enter into an agreement authorizing an agent to file on their behalf, but that agreement is subject to the separate rules set out in Section 4675.2.On distribution, AB2705 directs boards of supervisors to wait at least one year after recordation of the tax deed before distributing proceeds, and then to pay claimants in a defined order of priority: first, lienholders of record in the order of their recorded priority; second, persons with title of record to all or part of the property at the time the deed was recorded.
The bill pauses distribution if the board is considering a rescission petition under Section 3731 or if a court proceeding under Section 3725 has been filed; distributions resume only after the board decides not to rescind or after a final court order. If a named owner is deceased at distribution time, heirs may rely on a Probate Code affidavit to support their claim.
Finally, anyone seeking judicial review of a board or delegated county officer’s decision to accept or deny a claim must commence that action within 90 days.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Claimants must file within one year after the tax collector’s deed is recorded; timeliness is established by postmark or the independent carrier’s shipment date on the outside of the package.
Post-sale assignments of excess-proceeds claims are void unless executed by a dated, written instrument and accompanied by mutual disclosures of all facts known about the claim’s value; the rule applies only to assignments on or after the subdivision’s effective date.
Anyone filing on behalf of a party must include proof that they disclosed the amount and source of excess proceeds to the claimant and advised the claimant they could file directly with the county at no cost.
The bill sets distribution priority: first to lienholders of record in order of priority, then to record titleholders; counties must not distribute sooner than one year after tax deed recordation except as limited by rescission or litigation rules.
Distribution is delayed if a rescission petition under Section 3731 is pending or if a court proceeding under Section 3725 has been commenced; judicial challenges to board or delegated officer decisions must be filed within 90 days.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Filing window and timeliness by mail or carrier
Subsection (a) requires parties of interest to file claims for excess proceeds within one year after the tax collector’s deed is recorded. It treats the postmark or the independent carrier’s shipment date on the outside of the package as the date of filing for timeliness purposes, and directs that if a mailed claim lacks an official postmark the county’s received date governs. The provision also ties each claimant’s recovery to the claimant’s proportional interest among co-equal priority holders at the time of sale, which creates a proportional-distribution starting point for the board.
Limits on assignments of claims
Subdivision (b) invalidates post-sale assignments unless the transfer is memorialized in a dated, written instrument that explicitly assigns the right and is preceded by mutual disclosure of all facts known about the claim’s value. The clause expressly voids noncomplying transfers and limits its reach to assignments executed on or after the subdivision’s effective date. Practically, the provision aims to cut off the sale of claims to fee-seeking intermediaries unless the parties fully disclose valuation facts.
Proof required from anyone acting for a claimant; agreements subject to §4675.2
The bill requires any person or entity that acts on behalf of a party of interest in filing the claim to submit with the claim proof that the amount and source of excess proceeds were disclosed to the party and that the party was advised of their right to file directly with the county at no cost. The text also states separately that a party may enter into an agreement with an agent to act on their behalf and that such an agreement is subject to Section 4675.2, creating a compliance cross-check between these rules and the separate statutory framework in §4675.2.
Information and proof counties may require
Subdivision (d) grants boards of supervisors authority to specify the information and documentary proof claimants must provide to establish entitlement to all or part of the excess proceeds. That delegation creates local procedural variation: counties can define forms, identity and title proofs, and evidence for lien priority, but they must do so within the one-year statutory window and the bill’s other constraints.
Distribution timing, priority, and exceptions for rescission or litigation
Under subdivision (e)(1) the board of supervisors must not distribute excess proceeds sooner than one year after the tax collector’s deed is recorded and, if claims exist, must distribute them according to the statutory priority scheme: first to lienholders of record (in their recorded order) and then to record titleholders. Paragraph (2) suspends that distribution timetable when a rescission petition under §3731 is pending — proceeds cannot be distributed until the board determines the sale should not be rescinded — or when a §3725 court proceeding has been filed, in which case the county must wait for a final court order.
Heirs may use Probate Code affidavits
Subdivision (f) permits heirs of a deceased record titleholder to support their claim by submitting the affidavits authorized under the referenced Probate Code chapter. That cross-reference streamlines certain succession claims but ties county acceptance of heir claims to the Probate Code’s procedures.
Short judicial-review window
Subdivision (g) creates a 90-day statute of limitations for any action seeking review of a board of supervisors’ decision (or a county officer to whom authority is delegated under §4675.1) to accept or deny a claim. The strict timeline favors prompt litigation of disputes and reduces long-running uncertainty over distributions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Former record titleholders and their heirs — the bill preserves their ability to claim leftover sale proceeds, allows heirs to rely on Probate Code affidavits, and requires disclosure rules that seek to prevent undervalued buyouts of their claim rights.
- Lienholders of record — the statute explicitly prioritizes lienholders in distribution, protecting secured creditors’ recorded priority and clarifying the mechanics for recovering against excess proceeds.
- Counties and boards of supervisors — by defining filing timeliness, acceptable delivery methods, and a distribution order, the bill reduces discretionary uncertainty and gives counties a statutory framework to resolve competing claims.
Who Bears the Cost
- County treasurer-tax collector offices — counties must implement postmark/ship-date checks, evaluate proof of disclosure submitted by third parties, adopt or enforce delivery-service approvals, and handle potential litigation holdbacks, all of which increase administrative workload and recordkeeping.
- Third-party claim facilitators and fee buyers — the dated-instrument and full-disclosure requirements, plus the need to include proof of advising claimants, increase compliance costs and may eliminate some assignment-based business models.
- Claimants who miss technical mailing requirements — parties who rely on informal submission methods risk losing rights if postmarks or carrier shipment dates are disputed, creating practical risk for vulnerable or uninformed former owners.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is protecting vulnerable former owners from predatory monetization of excess-proceeds claims while preserving a workable, administrable process for counties and legitimate third-party assistance: rules that strongly protect claimants can create technical traps and heavier county compliance costs, whereas looser rules would permit faster monetization but expose claimants to exploitation.
The bill balances consumer-protection objectives against practical administration challenges. Tight mailing and postmark rules reduce late or fraudulent claims but create technical failure points: a lost postmark or a contested carrier shipment date could extinguish an otherwise valid claim.
Requiring counties to accept particular carriers or to validate postmarks places an evidentiary burden on local offices that vary in capacity and resources.
The assignment and disclosure rules reduce exploitative purchases of claim rights but are written in broad terms — ‘‘all facts of which that party is aware relating to the value of the right’’ and ‘‘proof that the amount and source of excess proceeds have been disclosed’’ are open to interpretation. Counties will have to develop standards for what constitutes adequate disclosure and acceptable proof, and those standards will likely vary by county.
The cross-reference to Section 4675.2 and reliance on Probate Code affidavits create interdependence with other statutes; implementation will require coordinated administrative guidance to avoid inconsistent outcomes. Finally, pausing distributions while rescission petitions or §3725 litigation are pending protects the public interest in correcting flawed sales but can leave proceeds idle for extended periods, potentially frustrating rightful claimants who otherwise meet filing requirements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.