Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Real Property Recording topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel clears technical fix to let county recorders accept state patents without notarization
Summary
The committee unanimously recommended HB 211 to align the recorder's code with the governor's 'great seal' provision so county recorders can accept state patents (deeds) without a separate notary acknowledgment or jurat; SITLA and the county recorder supported the change as clarifying, not substantive.
Representative Chu introduced HB 211 to fix an inconsistency between the recorder’s code and the governor’s code concerning recording land patents. County Recorder Brenda McDonald told the committee that recorder law (since 1988) requires notaries for land transfers, while state patents executed by the governor and sealed by the lieutenant governor have historically not carried a notary. She said county recorders refer to recorder code and the discrepancy has caused confusion when accepting patents for recording.
Brenda McDonald explained the technical difference between an acknowledgment (establishes identity) and a jurat (an oath of truthfulness), and said the proposed change would insert the governor’s existing provision into the recorder’s code so both codes match and county recorders can accept patents without requiring separate acknowledgments.
Michelle McConkey, director of the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), told the committee SITLA supports the change and said clarifying the code removes ambiguity when the state conveys land by patent: “we just wanna take away any ambiguity so that it's clear that the county recorders don't have to worry about if they are also complying with what they need to do.”
The committee voted to favorably recommend HB 211 and later moved the bill to the consent calendar; both motions carried unanimously.
