Split testimony as committee weighs Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act (HB 6896)

The Insurance and Real Estate Committee heard sharply divided testimony on House Bill 6,896, which would adopt a version of the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act (URPTODA) allowing property owners to record deeds that transfer real estate outside probate on the owner’s death.

Why it matters: Proponents said transfer‑on‑death deeds offer a simple, lower‑cost option for modest estates; opponents warned the change could increase litigation, enable elder financial exploitation, and create gaps in public record and creditor notice that probate currently provides.

“Although I appreciate the intent of the proposed bill is to make transfer of real property to be a seamless and easier property, process, it actually has the opposite consequence,” said Beverly Scribe, identified in testimony as the Connecticut probate court administrator. She warned the proposal could “lead to increased litigation amongst family members in the probate courts at great expense” and could make it harder to identify outstanding liabilities and protect vulnerable adults.

Town clerks and title industry representatives echoed those concerns. Peter Smith, city clerk of Milford and a spokesman for the Connecticut Town Clerks Association, said land records are relied on to show ownership and said the association opposed the bill as written because it lacks beneficiary notification, a clear mechanism to confirm a grantor’s death on the land records, and protections for tax and lien administration.

Several probate and elder‑law attorneys urged caution and recommended a period of further review and stakeholder collaboration before enactment. Barry Horowitz, an estate‑planning lawyer, said the measure “avoids the protection of probate court without even the formality of a trust agreement or a conveyancing form with normal deed formalities.” He cited litigation and title complications arising in other states that have adopted similar laws.

Opponents also pointed to practical wrinkles in Connecticut law: probate fees, estate tax filings and creditor notice rules mean that beneficiaries of a transfer‑on‑death deed could still face probate‑related filings; in some cases, beneficiaries could incur greater costs if they believed the deed eliminated probate obligations.

Supporters, including Francis Pickering of the Western Connecticut Council of Governments and other municipal advocates, urged the committee to give Connecticut residents another non‑probate transfer option for real estate. Pickering told the committee that ‘‘URPTO DA was developed with input from estate planning, real property, title insurance, banking, and senior legal experts’’ and said many states have adopted transfer‑on‑death mechanisms.

“URPTO DA is not intended to replace comprehensive estate planning for larger, complex estates,” Pickering said. “For smaller estates where a home is a primary asset, a TOD deed is a straightforward and efficient option.”

Committee members pressed proponents and opponents about the empirical experience in other states. Several speakers disputed how many jurisdictions have enacted the uniform text versus earlier transfer‑on‑death statutes; witnesses gave differing totals during the hearing. Several attorneys urged the committee to coordinate closely with the Judiciary Committee, the Connecticut Bar Association sections, town clerks, title insurers, the probate administrator’s office and consumer advocates before any bill is advanced.

Where it stands: The committee did not take a vote. Multiple speakers asked for more time for stakeholders to review a proposed uniform text line‑by‑line and to address issues including notice to creditors, title insurance compatibility and protections against undue influence.