Committee debates statewide notarial database to curb deed fraud

The House Committee on Rules held a public hearing Feb. 19 on House Bill 2951, which would require the Oregon Secretary of State to maintain an online database of notarial acts, generate a unique identification number for each act and require that number be used on certificates of notarial acts.

Representative Travis Nelson, sponsor of the bill, said the measure was prompted by examples of deed fraud in his district and elsewhere in Oregon and described the proposal as “designed to close loopholes, prevent fraud, and protect Oregonians from losing their homes and property through forged documents.” He said the bill grew out of conversations with the Secretary of State and county recording officials and asked the committee to consider it to protect homeowners.

Rochelle Long, Klamath County clerk and spokesperson for the Oregon Association of County Clerks, told the committee county recording officers currently must record documents that meet statutory recording standards and proper acknowledgement. “House Bill 2951 puts extra security measures in place to make sure that we can verify that that notarial act is valid,” Long said, adding clerks recognize creating a statewide database would require investment but that the bill was intended to begin a conversation about tools to reduce deed fraud.

Tom Powers of Multnomah County discussed local experiences with forged or suspicious documents and said the proposal would modernize notarial records (replacing paper journals) and that the Secretary of State's Corporations Division was a logical place to host the database. Powers acknowledged substantial cost and implementation questions and said the proposal would likely require further work and funding decisions at Ways and Means.

Kevin Christiansen of the Oregon Bankers Association said he appreciated the bill's intent but urged more work on scope and safeguards. “This is at the outset, I wanna make it really clear, this is a difficult, bill to come in opposition to because I appreciate Representative Nelson and also Senator Frederick bringing forth an issue because it is a growing issue,” he said in testimony. Christiansen warned the bill as written could capture many notarized documents that are not recorded — wills, trusts, loan documents and other private instruments — raising privacy and Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley concerns and calls for clearer access controls and limits on disclosure. He and other witnesses suggested a stakeholder work group or additional drafting.

Committee members asked whether other states have similar statewide notary databases; witnesses said they were not aware of any state with an identical system and that the proposal might make Oregon one of the first. No committee vote on HB 2951 was recorded in the hearing transcript; sponsors and stakeholder witnesses indicated willingness to continue to refine the proposal.