Senate committee hears split testimony on bill to require recording of deeds with historic meets-and-bounds descriptions

BISMARCK — At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Industry and Business, supporters and opponents debated Senate Bill 2356, which would direct county recorders to accept and record deeds that use previously accepted meets-and-bounds legal descriptions rather than rejecting them and requiring replatting or a new survey.

Supporters — including title companies, banks and realtors — told the committee that rejected recordings can leave buyers exposed to federal and state tax liens, child‑support liens and other claims that can attach after a closing but before county recording. Opponents, primarily professional land surveyors, warned the bill’s language could allow ambiguous or new parcel splits to be recorded without subdivision review or necessary field surveying, creating risks for adjoining property owners and future boundary disputes.

Senator Scott Meyer, sponsor of the bill and a former mortgage lender, told the panel the measure is aimed at preventing late rejections of deeds that delay recording and expose new owners to liens and other claims. Representatives of the North Dakota Land Title Association and title practitioners described a recent example in which a deed previously accepted by a county was later rejected, triggering a required survey that cost about $3,200 and delayed recording roughly two months. In that case, a title insurer ultimately paid to resolve a lien that had attached during the delay, witnesses said.

Nick Hacker, president of the North Dakota Land Title Association, said the state’s race-notice recording regime makes prompt recording important to protect purchasers’ priorities. “When the deed is not recorded because the property owner is required to plat, significant risk arises to the new owner,” Hacker said, listing federal tax liens, state tax liens, construction liens, child-support liens and bankruptcy claims as examples raised during title checks.

Joe Larson, a Jamestown real estate attorney and licensed abstractor, urged the committee to avoid delays in filing deeds. Larson noted that NDCC 47‑19‑19 places instruments of record on notice to the public and said delaying recording can produce “significant financial and legal repercussions.” Rick Claiborne, president and CEO of the North Dakota Bankers Association, and representatives of the North Dakota Association of Realtors and independent community banks also testified in favor of the bill, saying it protects customers and reduces unexpected closing costs.

Opponents said the bill, as drafted, does not clearly distinguish between previously accepted legal descriptions and newly created or ambiguous descriptions that should be subject to subdivision review. Aaron Hummert, a registered land surveyor and legislative chair for the North Dakota Society of Professional Land Surveyors, said some descriptions are genuinely ambiguous on the ground and that surveying and subdivision rules exist to preserve an orderly, coherent land records system. “We do not want to see ambiguous land descriptions go on record,” Hummert said, adding that the bill’s wording could be interpreted to bypass subdivision requirements.

Blaine Johnson, a real estate attorney and chair of the State Bar Association’s real property section, testified in a neutral capacity and recommended a targeted fix: clarify that county auditors should not require a new survey or replat merely because a deed uses a meets-and-bounds description if that description has been previously accepted by county records for tax purposes. Johnson said that grandfathering previously accepted descriptions into the recording process would address much of the tension between timely recording and preserving accurate public records.

Committee members pressed witnesses on how often rejections occur and whether counties coordinate internally among recorders, auditors and planning offices. Witnesses estimated the problem occurs in many rural counties and said county practice varies: one speaker reported asking two members and finding 13 counties that handle the issue differently and suggested the problem affects more than 20% of counties, though witnesses did not provide a statewide statistical audit.

The committee closed the hearing on SB 2356 with no vote. The chair said staff and stakeholders should work on language changes and indicated the bill would be revised before further committee action.