Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee delays vote on subdivision deed-notice changes in HB 116
Summary
Lawmakers debated Second Substitute HB 116, which would require notice on deeds for property conveyed by meets-and-bounds and clarify agricultural exemptions; opponents said mandatory post‑closing notices would surprise buyers and urged deletion; sponsors asked to 'circle' the bill for coordination and it was set aside.
Lawmakers on the Utah House floor debated Second Substitute House Bill 116 on Feb. 21, 2000, a measure that would clarify state law on subdivisions and require a notice on deeds conveying property by meets‑and‑bounds that development is subject to local ordinances.
Sponsor Joseph G. Murray told the House the bill largely clarifies existing statute, standardizes terms (map vs. plat), expands an agricultural exemption for bona fide farming divisions and adds a prominent notice to deeds that land subject to meets‑and‑bounds conveyances may require local approval to be developed. "The intent of this notice is to provide people with, as a buyer, that the property owning the property does not give an inherent right to build on the property," Murray said during his presentation.
Representative Hatch objected to the section that would place a notice on deeds after closing, arguing buyers typically receive deed documents after a transaction and a post‑closing notice that property "may not be buildable or developable" could create undue alarm. Hatch moved to strike the lines containing that required notice. Supporters of the notice, including Representative Butters and others with experience in land title and recording, said the language is a non‑voiding disclosure that protects buyers and preserves title while alerting inexperienced purchasers to municipal requirements.
After back‑and‑forth about whether the provision should be retroactive and how it would interact with recorded plats and local ordinances, multiple members agreed the changes needed coordination with other sections of the bill. Representative Steiler moved that the House "circle" HB 116 to allow the sponsor and drafters to reconcile related provisions elsewhere in the draft; the motion passed and the bill was circled for further work.
Because the bill was circled rather than voted on to final passage, no enactment decision was recorded on HB 116 during this session. The sponsor said the measure is intended to reduce title disputes and make expectations about development more uniform across counties and municipalities.
