It appears that Fresno County’s elected officials may be headed to court against each other for a legal battle over real estate fees.
Fresno County Assessor-Record Paul Dictos retained an attorney to respond to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors after the body threatened to sue him over his interpretation of how to apply real estate fees.
The backstory: Two weeks ago, the Board of Supervisors directed County Counsel Doug Sloan in closed session to tell Dictos to apply Senate Bill 2 how the county’s attorneys interpret it. The county said it will sue Dictos if he refuses to comply.
SB 2 was signed into law in 2017 and is also known as the Building Homes and Jobs Act. It enacted a $75 fee to real estate transactions that will go toward affordable housing projects.
Dictos has interpreted SB 2 to apply a $75 fee to each parcel being sold, resulting in large landowners facing fees in the tens of thousands of dollars range.
Sloan and the county interpret SB 2 to cap real estate fees at $225 per transaction.
A Bakersfield attorney approached the county after a client was charged around $10,000 on a property transaction. The Board of Supervisors agreed to return the money earlier this month.
Zoom in: SB 2 states that a $75 fee shall be paid at the time of recording, “per each single transaction per parcel of real property.”
The law goes on to state that the fee imposed “shall not exceed” $225.
Dictos responds: Attorney Patience Milrod penned a letter to Sloan on behalf of Dictos, saying she has consulted with parties involved in the drafting and passage of SB 2, as well as experts in statutory interpretation.
Milrod said there is general agreement that the language of SB 2 is ambiguous, leading to three interpretations:
The $75 fee could be levied per transaction, irrespective of the number of parcels.
The $75 fee could be levied per transaction per parcel, with the number of parcels dictating the application of the $225 cap, which is the Sloan’s interpretation.
The $75 fee could be levied up to $225 per parcel based on document count, which is Dictos’ interpretation.
Milrod defended Dictos’ interpretation, arguing that the law shows an intent to collect fees for each document recorded for each parcel, not for each transaction. The $225 cap ensures that the filer will not pay for more than three of the documents filed with any given parcel, Milrod argued.
Milrod argued that Sloan’s interpretation creates a perverse incentive for developers to bundle parcels into fewer transactions in order to reduce fees.
What they’re saying: Milrod said in the letter that the county’s threat of litigation leads the public to inquire, “For whose benefit is the County spending our taxpayer dollars to prosecute our County Recorder?”
“Unfortunately, the County’s threat looks suspiciously like carrying developers’ water, since Mr. Dictos’ official immunity for discretionary acts prevents the developers themselves from suing him,” Milrod wrote.
The county told GV Wire that it is unaware of any other county in the state that has taken the same position as Dictos.