Committee hears bill to stiffen penalties and speed relief for property and notary fraud
Loading...
Summary
Rep. Phil Amato told the committee HB 2103 would raise penalties for false deeds and notary‑seal misuse, create expedited judicial review for alleged victims and require recorder outreach; recorders, bankers and title agents generally supported the bill while flagging technical e‑recording and timing concerns.
Representative Phil Amato, sponsor of House Bill 2103, told the committee the measure is intended to curb growing property‑fraud schemes that can leave homeowners locked out of their titles.
Amato said the FBI’s 2024 Internet Crime Report included roughly 9,300 real‑estate‑related complaints and estimated losses of about $173 million. “You can steal somebody’s house today and you don't even need their Social Security number,” he said, arguing the state’s current criminal penalties for notary and filing fraud are too weak to deter organized offenders.
The bill would raise the penalty for filing false documents, add or increase penalties tied to notary‑seal vendors and impersonation, require recorders to post signage informing the public about penalties and create a clarified, expedited judicial review process for property owners who say they are victims of fraud. Amato said the language is written to avoid unintended consequences that would delay routine closings.
Jessica Petrie Telemaque of the Recorders Association of Missouri testified in support, saying existing penalties are ‘‘the proverbial slap on the wrist’’ and that the association backs higher fines and a new offense for non‑notaries who buy seals. She also stressed outreach to seniors and skilled‑nursing facilities and noted limits to cross‑state verification: checking a notary commission number online shows only whether the commission is active, not whether it was misused.
Representatives of banking and title industries — including David Kent for the Missouri Bankers Association and Andy Arnold for the Missouri Land Title Association — told the panel they generally support the bill but raised implementation risks. Kent warned that any provision that delays recording could force lenders to restart loan timelines, costing customers and lenders time and money. Arnold and title agents asked that language limiting modifications to submitted originals not be interpreted to block legitimate electronic recording processes (for example, plat formatting), and asked for a narrowly tailored fix so e‑recording is not impeded.
Arnie C, the state public advocate, urged strong enforcement and larger penalties for those who exploit seniors and vulnerable Missourians, calling the bill ‘‘common sense’’ consumer protection.
The hearing closed after members and witnesses discussed technical fixes and enforcement pathways. No committee action or vote was recorded during the hearing.
