Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deed Notification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears widespread support, operational concerns for deed‑notification bill
Summary
Senate Bill 15‑52 would require county clerks to notify property owners when instruments affecting title are recorded; sponsors call it a consumer‑protection fix while county clerks warned of implementation costs and logistical challenges. Witnesses urged interim collaboration on statewide alert services and remedies for victims.
Chair Pham opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 15‑52 on Feb. 12. LPRO summarized the bill as requiring a county clerk to notify a recorded property's owner when an instrument that affects title is presented for recording, allowing the clerk to charge $20 per instrument or the actual cost to provide notice, and listing exemptions for trusted submitters such as title companies, financial institutions and the State Bar.
Sen. Fred Gerard, sponsor for Senate District 9, framed SB 15‑52 as a consumer‑protection measure to blunt a growing wave of deed theft and owner‑impersonation fraud. "This is, consumer protection bill," Gerard said, describing scammers who forge homeowner signatures, obtain loans against a property and leave older homeowners vulnerable to losing their equity.
Supporters from industry and advocacy groups recommended the notification approach be part of a broader, more comprehensive strategy. Andrea Meyer of ARP Oregon told the committee that deed theft and owner‑impersonation fraud have surged and that notification should be combined with improved document indexing, notary technology, front‑end fraud detection and stronger civil penalties.
County clerks — the offices that would carry out the mail notifications — urged caution. Dag (Darren) Robinson, Harney County Clerk and president of the Oregon Association of County Clerks, said 19 counties already offer voluntary property‑recording alert services but described SB 15‑52 as operationally challenging in its current form. "The bill is written is simply impractical and difficult to implement," Robinson said, citing electronic recording systems, a lack of comprehensive mailing databases, expected staff time to mail hundreds of letters daily and high rates of returned undeliverable mail.
Jackson County Clerk Chris Walker described local experience running a free alert service and recommended an interim collaborative process to identify workable, statewide solutions: free county alerts, better indexing of notaries and submitters, stronger criminal and monetary penalties, and expedited remedies and clearing pathways for victims.
Committee members and clerks discussed exemptions, a two‑year phase‑in for system conversions, county subscription alert services and possible statutory remedies for rapid title clearing. The committee closed the hearing and invited additional written testimony into the record.
What remains: SB 15‑52 drew broad support for the goal of protecting homeowners but also clear warnings from clerks about the bill's current operational feasibility. Several witnesses urged interim work to develop a practical statewide approach before requiring broad mail notifications.
