Considering Statutory Titles in California

As a general rule, can the courts ignore headings because chapter, article, and section headings in California’s 29 Codes are not intended to change, expand, or restrict the actual meaning of the law? There has been a split of authority on this question.

Most of the 29 Codes that house the state’s over 156,000 statutes have preliminary or general provisions, including statutory construction guidance. For example, many of the Codes have a section similar to what we find in Section 6 of the California Government Code, which reads as follows:

“Title, division, part, chapter, article, and section headings do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions of this code.”

As a result, the Legislature for decades has provided explicit statutory statements to the courts of California that these headings “do not in any manner affect the scope, meaning, or intent of the provisions” of any of the 29 Codes. So, what have the California courts done with this statutory language?

The courts in California may consider statutory titles and headings in ascertaining legislative intent. This is according to a court of appeal decision in People v. Bilbrey (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 764, 771, fn. 9, which said that chapter and section headings of an act may properly be considered in determining legislative intent and are entitled to considerable weight when interpreting the act.

On the other hand, in the reported decision of Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1096, fn. 2, the high court ruled that a provision’s title is never allowed to enlarge or control the language in the body of the provision.

This is one of those instances in which the Legislature can attempt to instruct the judicial branch of how the legislative branch would like statutes interpreted. However, that determination ultimately falls upon the judiciary to decide.