Panel backs bill to tighten recording rules for Address Confidentiality Program after several disclosure incidents

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill that would change how documents for participants in the Attorney General's Address Confidentiality Program (ACP) are recorded so that protected addresses are less likely to be inadvertently disclosed.

Sponsor and problem statement The bill’s sponsor said SB191 is intended to strengthen the Attorney General's ACP by preventing the inadvertent disclosure of a protected person's identifying information when deeds or mortgages are e-recorded without notice to the recorder. Matt Norris, speaking for the Indiana County Recorders Association, said instances have occurred in which protected individuals’ documents were e-recorded without the necessary ACP paperwork reaching the recorder, making those records discoverable online.

Recorders’ testimony and operational fix Joyce Loles, a county recorder, described the practical difference between in-person recording and e-recording: when documents are brought to the office, staff can place materials in an envelope, add a warning and coordinate with assessor/auditor offices before certifying; e-recorded documents are often timestamped and returned immediately, leaving no window to redact identifying information. Nicole Kiesling, Allen County recorder and treasurer of the Recorders Association, said the remedy proposed in SB191 is to require that documents associated with ACP participants be recorded in person so recorders can verify documentation and redact addresses before public posting.

Attorney General's Office and program scope Ellen Fuller of the Attorney General's Office said the ACP has been statutory under Title 5-26.5 since 2001 and that there are fewer than 500 households (fewer than 1,000 participants). The office provides a real property packet to participants who notify them that they intend to purchase property; Fuller said the packet and checklist are intended to guide participants and title companies through safe recording steps.

Debate over burden and liability Senators pressed whether the change would place an additional burden on compliant participants who already follow the process, and whether title companies’ mistakes should be remedied by litigation rather than statute. Recorders acknowledged the program is small in scale but argued slowing or disallowing certain e-recordings is a practical, preventive measure. The recorders and sponsor said the change also serves as a prompt to the Attorney General’s Office and land title companies to ensure participants receive instructions.

Vote and next steps The committee moved and seconded to advance SB191 and approved the measure by roll call, 9 to 0.

The committee action advances SB191 out of Judiciary for further consideration.