Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Real Estate Recording topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends do-not-pass on bill that would require quitclaim deeds to state full consideration
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee voted 9-5 to recommend do not pass on House Bill 1271, which would have required quitclaim deeds to include a statement of full consideration except for certain enumerated exceptions; opponents argued the change would create burdens and unintended consequences for non-arms-length transfers.
BISMARCK, N.D. ' The House Judiciary Committee recommended do not pass (9-5) on House Bill 1271 after hearing technical and professional opposition from title and bar associations.
Representative Jim Greenheck introduced HB 1271 as a local taxing-authority request. The sponsor described the proposal as a means to improve transparency in property records for assessing fair market value: the bill would require a statement of full consideration on a quitclaim deed except when the transfer fits statutory exceptions such as certain family transfers or title-curative actions.
Blaine Johnson, chair of the Real Property section of the State Bar Association, testified in opposition on technical and practical grounds. Johnson noted quitclaim deeds serve many legitimate purposes beyond title curing, including corporate distributions, transfers into or out of single-member LLCs, estate-planning transfers, and charitable contributions; in many such cases parties do not negotiate a monetary sale price. He said the bill could force parties to purchase appraisals or report amounts that would be inaccurate or legally risky. Johnson also cited a statutory penalty: willfully falsifying the consideration is a class B misdemeanor under the referenced provision, and attorneys would be unwilling to certify a false number.
John Ward of the North Dakota Land Title Association echoed concerns that the change would shift burdens to buyers and sellers and raise closing costs in ordinary transactions.
After testimony, Representative Olson moved a do-not-pass recommendation, seconded by Representative Schneider. The clerk's roll call recorded a 9-5 do-not-pass recommendation.
Committee members discussed alternatives, noting the current statute already lists exceptions that define non-arms-length transactions; some members said the bill in its present form would create more problems than it solves.
The bill was recommended do not pass and will not move forward from the committee as drafted.
