Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection Real Estate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to ban recorded long‑term 'service agreements' that can cloud property titles
Summary
Senate Bill 164 would render certain long‑term recorded service agreements — marketed with small upfront payments and later asserted as liens — void and unenforceable; consumer, law‑enforcement and realtor witnesses urged passage while registrars asked to remove a proposed recording‑refusal duty.
A coalition of consumer and law‑enforcement witnesses supported Senate Bill 164, which would declare certain recorded long‑term “service” or listing agreements void and unenforceable and give homeowners a remedy to remove such recorded encumbrances from title.
Max Taylor, legislative aide to Senator Ricciardi, described the agreements at issue: out‑of‑state companies offer homeowners a modest upfront payment — often a few hundred to a few thousand dollars — in exchange for signing a long‑term agreement (sometimes 20–40 years) granting an exclusive right to provide future real‑estate brokerage or other services and recording that agreement at the county registry of deeds. Testimony described the agreements as a predatory practice that “clouds title,” can impose penalties (witnesses mentioned collection of amounts up to 3% of a home’s sale price in some instances) and can create problems for refinancing or transferring property.
Brian Townsend II, senior assistant attorney general and lead prosecutor of the state’s elder‑abuse and financial‑exploitation unit, said the Department of Justice views the practice as unfair and deceptive under RSA 358‑A and would support measures that render those agreements unenforceable and subject to consumer‑protection enforcement. “We view these agreements as unfair and deceptive,” Townsend said, and testified the AG’s office could bring enforcement actions and seek penalties.
AARP New Hampshire and retired law‑enforcement leaders described nationwide abuses by companies such as MV Realty and said more than 30 states have already enacted laws to ban or limit these agreements. AARP’s representatives asked the committee to make the law clear that such agreements are unenforceable and to add language making clear the agreements are a deceptive practice. Chief John Berfonski (ret.), former Bedford police chief and past president of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, described the practices as predatory and urged the committee to act to protect seniors and other vulnerable homeowners.
The New Hampshire Registry of Deeds Association said registrars cannot reliably determine fairness when a document is presented for recording and therefore opposed language that would allow registrars to refuse recording based on an assessment of fairness. The association recommended striking the recording‑refusal language and instead using the court/removal mechanism in the bill. Several real‑estate trade groups, including the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, supported the bill and said legitimate listing agreements and customary real‑estate practices would not be swept in; brokers noted this practice is not standard for licensed realtors.
Witnesses suggested technical edits: remove the word “maintenance” from the bill’s definition (to avoid overly broad coverage) and delete the registrar refusal clause in section 6(c). AARP asked the committee to add explicit wording that these agreements are unenforceable and to confirm the attorney general may pursue civil enforcement under RSA 358‑A. The committee closed the public hearing and indicated a subcommittee will consider language adjustments.
No committee vote was recorded during the hearing.
