Financial transactions: escrow agents: exchange facilitators.
Summary
Existing law provides for the licensing and regulation of escrow agents by the Commissioner of Corporations. Existing law, until January 1, 2010, requires each escrow agent to pay an annual license fee of up to $2,800 for each office or location and authorizes the commissioner to additionally levy a special assessment of up to $500, which is required to be paid by the escrow agent within 30 days of receipt of notification by the commissioner, for each office or location in certain circumstances. Commencing January 1, 2010, existing law instead requires each escrow agent to pay to the commissioner the agent's pro rata share of the commissioner's annual administrative costs and expenses, as specified. This bill would repeal the provisions that would require an escrow agent, commencing January 1, 2010, to pay to the commissioner the agent's pro rata share of the commissioner's annual administrative costs and expenses. The bill would, instead, continue the requirement for an escrow agent to pay an annual license fee of up to $2,800 for each office or location. The bill would authorize the special assessment that may be levied by the commissioner to be in an amount of up to $1,000 for each office or location. The bill would require an escrow agent to pay the special assessment within 60 days of notification by the commissioner. Existing law provides that the license of an escrow agent remains in effect until surrendered, revoked, or suspended. Existing law sets forth the procedure for the surrender of the license of an escrow agent, and requires a surrendering licensee to, among other things, tender his or her license and all other indicia of licensure to the commissioner, and submit a closing audit to the commissioner, as specified. Existing law provides that a license is not surrendered until the commissioner has reviewed and accepted the closing audit, made a determination that there is no violation of law, and, in writing, accepted tender of the license. This bill would delete the requirement that the commissioner make a determination that there is no violation of law and instead require a determination that acceptance of the surrender is in the public interest. Existing law requires a person engaging in business as an exchange facilitator, as defined, to comply with certain bonding and insurance requirements that may include, among other things, maintaining a fidelity bond or bond and a policy of errors and omissions insurance executed by an insurer authorized to do business in this state. Existing law authorizes a person to file a claim to recover damages on the bonds, deposits, or letters of credit maintained by an exchange facilitator for a failure to comply with the provisions regulating exchange facilitators. This bill would authorize the fidelity bond or bonds and the policy of errors and omissions insurance maintained by an exchange facilitator to be executed by specified eligible surplus line insurers. The bill would require claims for damages to be subject to the terms and conditions of the bonds, deposits, or letters of credit maintained by an exchange facilitator and would provide that the amounts of those bonds, deposits, or letters of credit shall be reduced to the extent of any payment made.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Sep 2009
Senate Passage
May 2009
Assembly Passage
Sep 2009
Signed into Law
Oct 2009
Introduced Feb 23, 2009
Signed Oct 11, 2009
Floor votes · Senate May 6, 2009 · Assembly Sep 3, 2009
How they voted
30–1
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 35
May 6, 2009
D
Democratic22
81% Yea
R
Republican13
92% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
34
Key actions
9
Committee
9
Amendments
2
Oct 11, 2009
Signed into law
Approved by Governor.
legislature
Sep 9, 2009
Introduced
Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2336.) To enrollment.
upper
Sep 8, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: That the Assembly amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 11. Noes 1. Page 2352.)
upper
Sep 4, 2009
Committee
From committee: Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10 be re-referred to Com. on B., F. & I. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 2227.) Re-referred to Com. on B., F. & I.
upper
Sep 4, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.
upper
Sep 3, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (55-1-5)
assembly
Jul 15, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on July 15.)
lower
Jul 15, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.)
lower
Jun 30, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 29.)
lower
Jun 30, 2009
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 1.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 6, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (30-1-4)
senate
Apr 27, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 655.)
upper
Apr 20, 2009
Committee
Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 16, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 556.)
upper
Feb 23, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 2 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
JJ
John J Benoit
RRepublican
Co
Bob Huff
RRepublican
Co
CH
Curt Hagman
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 204
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 204. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline