Committee hears bill to shorten enforcement window for old mortgages, sponsors cite consumer harms

House Bill 437 would shorten the time that certain recorded mortgages remain enforceable and create a statutory process for clearing obsolete liens, Rep. Bill Boyd told the House Commerce and Consumer Affairs Committee.

Supporters including the bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Bill Boyd, and cosponsors said the change would help conveyancers, title insurers and homeowners by reducing the number of “undischarged mortgages” that linger in county registries long after lenders stop servicing a loan.

“This is a consumer bill,” Rep. Bill Boyd said. “It’s going to provide a necessary remedy to consumers and attorneys and conveyancers that have had this particular problem with obsolete mortgages.” Boyd said the proposal follows models in other states — notably Massachusetts — and would void mortgages five years after a stated maturity date and make mortgages without a maturity date unenforceable 35 years after recording.

Mary Hacken‑Phillips, a real estate attorney and cosponsor, told the committee that title defects from old, unreleased mortgages often force homeowners or buyers to hire attorneys and file quiet‑title actions to clear titles. “These court cases take several months and thousands of dollars to complete,” Hacken‑Phillips said. She described the proposed statutory procedure as a less costly, faster alternative to repeated court petitions.

Industry witnesses described working with the bill sponsor during drafting. Ryan Hale, vice‑president for government relations at the New Hampshire Bankers Association, said his members reviewed the language and recommended an effective date delay to give lenders time to update recordkeeping; the bill’s draft includes a delayed effective date at a banker request.

Title‑insurance underwriter Michelle Rady Coffin and Susan Cole, president of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, told the committee they see frequent examples of mortgages that were paid but never properly discharged in the public record, causing cancelled sales and extra legal costs. Coffin said quiet‑title lawsuits can cost $8,000–$10,000 in some cases and that an administrative statutory path would reduce those burdens.

Committee members asked whether mortgage holders would receive additional notice before a mortgage became unenforceable. Rep. Peter asked whether the bill requires sending individual notices to mortgage holders; sponsors and proponents replied that New Hampshire is a “notice” recording state and that the statute would rely on recorded notices at the county registry rather than require new direct mail notice to lenders. Boyd and others said the bill would place an onus on lenders to renew recordings or lose enforcement rights, but they acknowledged industry governance questions about reassigned loans and lenders that are out of business.

What’s next: The committee took testimony and questioned multiple witnesses; no formal action or vote was recorded at the hearing. If the committee moves the bill forward, the language and the bill’s effective date will likely be discussed further to address lender operational concerns and county recording mechanics.

Ending: Supporters said HB 437 would reduce court dockets and title‑related transaction costs by creating a clearer, statutory path to clear obsolete liens; banks asked for implementation time and technical adjustments to ensure the recording system and reassignment chains are handled fairly.