Ricketts v. McCormack
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 10/20/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN DEBORAH A. RICKETTS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, B210123 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BC318044) v. CONNY B. MCCORMACK et al., ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING (NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT) Defendants and Respondents; JOEL ROSENBERG, Intervener and Appellant. THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 24, 2009 be modified as follows: 1. On page 10, after the sentence ending a bar code, a permanent recording number and the words Recorded/Filed in Official Records. add as footnote 9 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes: 9 Relying on the language of Government Code section 27322 The recorder shall record by legible handwriting, by typewriting, or by photographic reproduction process, in well-bound books or by such other means . . . . Ricketts and Rosenberg additionally argue the Recorder s failure to copy the original document presented for recording within two business days means the document has not been properly recorded. Because this argument was not presented to the trial court, it is forfeited. (See, e.g., Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1350, fn. 12; Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 869, 873-874.) In any event, their contention ignores the reality of modern recording procedures and thus lacks merit. As discussed, the trial court expressly found certified copies of the reconveyance could be obtained from the point of filing if the requestor has the recording number assigned to the document or within 24 hours by reviewing grey film or blotter film pending entry of a digital image of the document into the indexed database. In other words, the information contained in the document presented for recording is available to the public from the moment the document is stamped and the lead sheet is generated. These procedures are fully compliant with the Legislature s attempt to reconcile the impact of modern technology on recording procedures. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, ยงยง 27322.2 [ [a] system of microphotography, optical disk, or reproduction by any other technique that does not permit additions, deletions, or changes to the original document may be used by the recorder as a photographic reproduction process . . . . ]; 27322.4 [ The county recorder may cause any or all files or records in his or her official custody to be microphotographed or otherwise reproduced pursuant to Section 27322.2 as in the case of original filings or recordings or both. Every reproduction shall be deemed and considered an original; and a transcript, exemplification or certified copy, as the case may be, of the original. ].) There is no change in the judgment. Appellant s petition for rehearing is denied. ________________________________________________________________________ PERLUSS, P. J. ZELON, J. JACKSON, J. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
