Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recording Fraud Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Recorder warns incoming fraud-review legislation would create heavy workload for office
Summary
The county recorder told the Taxes, Election & GIS Committee that draft legislation requiring recorders to implement a fraud-review-and-referral process (sometimes referred to as Daniels Law or similar proposals) would impose substantial new workload and liability considerations and that the office is pushing for more implementation time.
The County Recorder told the Taxes, Election & GIS Committee on Sept. 16 that pending legislation to require county recorders to run a formal fraud review and referral process would create substantial new workload, training needs and potential liability for the recorder's office unless implementation is delayed and resources are provided.
Recorder (identified in the meeting by her office) said state lawmakers and recorder associations are advancing a program that would expand the recorder's role from recording documents that meet statutory form requirements to flagging and referring potentially fraudulent deeds. “If that happens, that is going to put a huge workload on our office,” she said, and added the proposed effective date in the current drafts (January 1) would be “practically impossible” without more lead time.
The recorder said the office currently records documents that meet statutory requirements; it does not verify ownership. Under the proposed referral process, recorders would need staff trained to identify suspicious filings and an internal procedure for referral to prosecutors. The recorder told the committee she plans to consult with the state's attorney and the recorder association to seek a delayed effective date so counties have time to create proper processes and staffing.
The recorder also described related work the office is pursuing to mitigate fraud risks: indexing notaries so notaries can monitor documents filed under their names; a property-fraud alert program that sends notice after a document is recorded; and planning for possible software tools recommended by national recorder organizations.
Committee members asked practical questions about staffing and liability. The recorder said training would be required and that she would work with the state's attorney to develop a plan. She also noted there is at least one ongoing case now that is being handled by the state's attorney's office.
Background and next steps: the recorder said her legislative committee is trying to extend the proposed effective date by at least a year to allow counties to build processes and train staff. The recorder also flagged other recorder-related legislation under consideration, including proposals that would expand who can request redaction of public records and efforts to change the state real-estate transfer tax; she and association members are tracking those bills and planning advocacy and implementation work.
The committee did not take formal action on the legislation; members asked the recorder to return with updates on discussions with the state's attorney and on any technical assistance available from the state association.
