Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

That depends on what you mean by "record his/her property." The subdivision map act requires all property in California to be surveyed and the parcels recorded in the tax and title records of the county in which the property is located. There is no law requiring the recording of transfers of title, such as deeds, however. That is a service provided by the County Recorder, not a duty. Recorded title prevents anyone from claiming they did not know you own the property when it comes to taking out loans against it or even selling it to someone else. Transfer of title is effective when a properly signed and notarized deed is delivered either to the recipient of title, or to the recorder on their behalf, so transfer is legally binding either way as between grantor and grantee. Without recording, however, the grantor continues to hold record title and can transfer it again, or die and have it pass to heirs, or take out a loan against it, etc., and anyone who does not have actual notice of the deed will have priority over the grantee if the deed is not recorded. So that is why deeds are always recorded, to protect the new owner, not because it is required.

First, I agree completely with Mr. McCormick's answer.

Maybe some additional explanation would be helpful. In that respect, let me add the following comments.

Ownership of all real property in California is reflected in public records of one kind or another. The County Recorder records deeds and other transfers of ownership, and anyone trying to determine the current ownership of a particular parcel for any purpose will probably go to the Recorder's office first. In addition, however, rather closely related records of property ownership are maintained by the county tax assessor for purposes of assessing and billing annual property tax due. If those records are incomplete or faulty, and taxes are not assessed to the proper party and thus aren't paid, the property may be sold by the sheriff to enforce the tax lien.

So, the long and short of it is that there is NO law that REQUIRES recordation of property transfers, but the consequences of a failure of the records to reflect true and current ownership are not very pleasant. Taxes may be billed to the wrong party; non-owners may attempt to place liens or sell, and so on. The results of a real-property owner failing to assure that hius/her/its ownership is not properly reflected in the public records may include total chaos, loss of ownership, inability to resell later on, lawsuits of various kinds, and so on. Since the process of recordation is simple and relatively cheap, I can see no advantage whatsoever in failing to do so.

California has a "race notice" recording statute.

"Every conveyance of real property or an estate for years therein, other than a lease for a term not exceeding one year, is void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee of the same property, or any part thereof, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, whose conveyance is first duly recorded, and as against any judgment affecting the title, unless the conveyance shall have been duly recorded prior to the record of notice of action." (Civ. Code, sect. 1214.)

As you carefully read the statute, you will note that it does not require a person to record their conveyance. As my colleagues point out, however, it does have consequences if you do not record.