SB 1335 amends Civil Code Section 1980, which supplies the definitions used in California’s optional procedures for disposing of personal property left after a tenancy ends. The changes are presented as nonsubstantive edits, but they adjust how key terms are framed — notably the scope of “records,” the content of “reasonable belief,” and the landlord definition’s phrasing.
Those semantic edits matter because they change what information counts as evidence, when a landlord’s belief must include the results of an investigation, and how broadly documents and electronic files are treated. Compliance officers, property managers, and counsel should flag these definitional shifts because they can alter evidentiary analysis and operational practices even though the bill does not itself change the disposal procedure timelines or notices.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1335 rewrites subsections (a)–(f) of Civil Code §1980 to tidy language, introduce gender-neutral phrasing, expand the definition of “records,” and modify the “reasonable belief” standard to expressly permit (and in limited circumstances require) consideration of investigative results.
Who It Affects
Landlords, property managers, attorneys handling abandoned‑property disputes, and tenants whose belongings remain after lease termination. Courts and enforcement agencies will also use the revised definitions when interpreting procedural compliance and evidence.
Why It Matters
Even framed as technical edits, the bill changes what counts as documentary proof and when investigations factor into a landlord’s obligations — issues that determine liability exposure and operational choices (e.g., whether to run public‑records checks before disposing of items).
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1335 replaces the existing text of Section 1980 with revised wording that mostly preserves existing concepts but tightens and clarifies how they read. The bill makes the landlord definition gender‑neutral and reaffirms that agents and successors are included; it leaves the broad categories of “owner,” “tenant,” and “premises” intact while explicitly including common areas in the premises definition.
The most consequential edits appear in the definitions of “reasonable belief” and “records.” The bill clarifies that “reasonable belief” ordinarily means what a prudent person would believe without conducting an investigation, but it adds a conditional rule: if a landlord has specific information suggesting that an investigation (including public‑records checks) would likely reveal relevant facts and the cost of that investigation is reasonable relative to the probable value of the property, then a prudent person’s belief should be treated as if that investigation had been done. That language imports an evidentiary counterfactual — in limited cases a landlord’s belief will be judged against what an investigation would have shown.On records, the statute now defines the term broadly as any material on which information is preserved, regardless of physical form, and expressly includes spoken words, graphic depictions, printed materials, or electromagnetic transmissions.
It also carves out one category: publicly available directories containing information an individual voluntarily consented to have published (for example, a voluntarily published name, address, or telephone listing) are not “records” for these purposes. Taken together, the changes expand the universe of material that can count as evidence while excluding some public directory information from that universe.The bill does not change the procedural steps, timelines, or notice requirements for disposition of personal property after tenancy termination.
Its practical effect will come through how landlords, tenants, and courts interpret compliance and evidentiary adequacy: whether landlords must run targeted investigations in some cases, how they treat electronic files and transmissions as records, and how privacy‑related directory data is handled.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Subsection (d) adds a conditional rule that “reasonable belief” can include the results of an investigation when a landlord has specific information indicating such an investigation would likely reveal pertinent facts and the investigation’s cost is reasonable relative to the property’s probable value.
Subsection (e) broadens “records” to encompass any material regardless of form — including spoken words, graphic depictions, and electromagnetic transmissions — increasing the types of evidence that may be used in disputes over disposed property.
Subsection (e) also excludes publicly available directories listing voluntarily provided personal details (name, address, telephone) from the statutory definition of “records.”, Subsection (a) updates the landlord definition to gender‑neutral language and preserves agents and successors in interest; subsections for owner, premises, and tenant largely remain substantively unchanged, with premises explicitly covering common areas.
The bill contains only definitional edits — it does not alter statutory disposal procedures, notice periods, or penalty provisions; its impact will arise through interpretation and application of the revised definitions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Landlord definition — gender neutrality and coverage
The amendment replaces gendered phrasing with a gender‑neutral pronoun while keeping the existing scope: an operator, keeper, lessor, sublessor, and their agents or successors. Practically, this is a textual modernization that does not expand who counts as a landlord, but it clarifies that agents and successors remain within the definition — important when determining who may exercise disposal rights or receive statutory notices.
Owner defined as non‑landlord with interest in personal property
This provision preserves the existing distinction between ‘owner’ and ‘landlord’: anyone other than the landlord who has a right, title, or interest in the personal property qualifies as owner. The language remains compact and functionally the same, but keeping the term explicit helps courts and parties identify third‑party interests when property remains on leased premises.
Premises includes common areas
The statute reiterates that ‘premises’ encompasses associated common areas. That clarity matters where personal property is found in hallways, shared storage, or other nonexclusive spaces — it confirms those locations are within the regime governing post‑tenancy disposition.
‘Reasonable belief’ standard and conditional investigative overlay
This subsection retains the baseline: reasonable belief is what a prudent person would think without conducting an investigation. Crucially, it then creates a conditional rule: when a landlord possesses specific information suggesting an investigation would likely uncover relevant facts and the investigation’s cost is reasonable relative to the probable value of the property, the landlord’s reasonable belief is measured as if that investigation occurred. That introduces a context‑sensitive investigative expectation that could affect decision trees around whether to verify ownership before disposal.
Wide definition of ‘records’ with a narrow exclusion for public directories
The bill expands ‘records’ to any material form — written, spoken, graphical, printed, or electromagnetic — thereby explicitly bringing electronic files and voice or visual records within the statute’s evidentiary sweep. It also states that publicly available directories containing voluntarily published details (such as name, address, phone) are not ‘records’ under this chapter. That carve‑out narrows one avenue plaintiffs or defendants might otherwise use to establish facts about a person’s contact information.
Tenant definition kept broad
The tenant definition continues to include paying guests, lessees, and sublessees. No substantive change appears here, but preserving the broad formulation confirms that the disposal rules apply across common tenancy relationships, including informal lodging arrangements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing 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
- Tenants and former tenants — The clarified ‘records’ language can make it easier to admit diverse digital and oral materials as evidence that items belong to a tenant, and the exclusion of voluntarily published directory data narrows one route for third parties to claim or locate owners.
- Property managers and landlords seeking clarity — The updated definitions reduce ambiguity about what counts as a record and who qualifies as a landlord, which can help standardize internal procedures and contract language.
- Courts and adjudicators — Judges and hearing officers gain clearer textual hooks to resolve disputes over evidence and duties, particularly when electronic or nontraditional materials are at issue.
- Attorneys handling abandoned property claims — The changes give counsel more predictable categories for building evidentiary arguments, especially around electronic records and when an investigation should have been performed.
Who Bears the Cost
- Landlords (operationally) — The conditional investigative standard creates circumstances where landlords may feel compelled to run public‑records checks or other inquiries before disposing of property, increasing time and expense for property managers and small landlords.
- Property managers (compliance burden) — Updating forms, training staff on the narrower exclusions for directories, and preserving or collecting broader sets of records (including electronic files) will require administrative effort.
- Small landlords and self‑managed owners (litigation exposure) — Ambiguities in what constitutes ‘specific information’ and ‘reasonable cost’ could lead to disputes and defensive litigation, raising defense costs for smaller operators.
- Records custodians and IT teams — Because ‘records’ now explicitly covers electromagnetic transmissions and spoken words, entities that retain or process such data may face increased demands to preserve or produce it in disputes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks clearer language and modernizes evidence categories to reflect digital materials, but it simultaneously shifts the balance between protecting property interests and imposing investigative or record‑keeping burdens on landlords; the central dilemma is whether defining what counts as evidence and when investigations matter improves fairness or simply raises costs and litigation risk for small operators.
Labeling these edits as nonsubstantive does not eliminate practical effects. The conditional investigative standard in subsection (d) imports proportionality language — ‘reasonable in relation to the probable value of the personal property involved’ — that courts must operationalize.
That proportionality test is fact‑intensive and invites disputes over how to value abandoned items and what counts as a reasonable investigation. Landlords will need policies about thresholds (e.g., run a records check if items appear valuable) or risk after‑the‑fact challenges.
The broadened definition of ‘records’ modernizes the statute for electronic and oral materials, but it also raises data management and privacy questions. Parties may demand access to voicemail, photos, text logs, or cloud files to prove ownership or entitlement.
Conversely, the carve‑out for voluntarily published directory information is narrow and could create edge cases where publicly accessible online profiles or aggregated data are treated differently depending on whether consent can be proved. Finally, because the bill does not change disposal procedures, its effect will be felt unevenly: well‑resourced landlords and their counsel can adapt operationally and litigate favorable interpretations, while smaller owners may face compliance costs and uncertainty.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.