Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Notary Recording Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers statutory changes letting clerks refuse suspicious recordings and requiring more notary details
Summary
House Bill 2952 would require certificates of notarial acts to include document type, page counts, parcel identification numbers and notary commission numbers and give county clerks authority to refuse documents that appear fraudulent. Clerks supported the changes; bankers and others warned about operational and legal side effects.
The House Committee on Rules on Feb. 19 held a public hearing on House Bill 2952, a companion measure to HB 2951 that would change recording and notarial certificate requirements and permit county clerks to refuse to accept documents that show characteristics suggesting they may be fraudulent.
Representative Travis Nelson, sponsor of the bill, said HB 2952 “provides county clerks with essential tools to detect and prevent fraudulent documents and property transactions,” highlighting requirements to include document type, number of pages, parcel identification numbers and notary commission information on recorded documents.
Rochelle Long, Klamath County clerk, told the committee the page‑count and document‑type requirement would let clerks verify a deed’s page count against what was notarized and said adding a parcel identification number (also referred to as a tax account in some counties) would allow searches to show all records associated with a particular parcel rather than indexing only by name. “It ties the property together,” Long said, adding the changes “are a step towards showing that we care about Oregonians and that we're trying to take a step to say, hey, we're trying to prevent this before it ever even happens so you don't end up in court after the fact.”
Tom Powers of Multnomah County supported the bill in concept but said section 4 — which would allow clerks to decline to record documents that exhibit characteristics of fraud — requires further drafting and stakeholder work. He said clerks want tools to prevent fraud but recognized this will be a multi‑session effort to balance access and error handling.
Kevin Christiansen of the Oregon Bankers Association reiterated industry concerns about the discretionary authority to refuse records and described potential unintended consequences for complex transactions, federally required disclosures and time‑sensitive filings such as construction liens. He urged narrower statutory language, clearer standards for refusal and additional stakeholder negotiation before granting broad refusal powers to clerks.
Committee members asked how clerks would detect forged or altered documents; clerks described routine checks (seal expiration, acknowledgment form, and checking whether an item is labeled as a copy) and said the bill aims to provide additional, easy‑to‑verify fields. The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2952 with no recorded vote; witnesses and sponsors signaled readiness to continue negotiating language and scope.
