Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy Address Confidentiality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate expands address‑confidentiality program to allow shielding of land records, amid implementation concerns
Summary
The Senate approved an expansion of Connecticut’s Address Confidentiality Program to allow shielding of residential land records for eligible survivors; proponents cited models in Maryland and Minnesota and estimated fewer than 10 transactions per year, while town clerks and the Connecticut Bar Association urged further study of implementation.
The Connecticut Senate voted to expand the state’s Address Confidentiality Program to allow eligible participants to request that newly created land records be shielded from public indexes.
Senator Flexer, sponsor of substitute for Senate Bill 485, said the change mirrors similar protections in Maryland and Minnesota and is intended to protect domestic‑violence survivors who re‑housing can otherwise expose through public land records. She said the program would be survivor‑initiated and limit the number of transactions that qualify — the committee estimated roughly 10 or fewer per year — and that an adopted amendment clarified definitions and addressed concerns raised by financial institutions.
Several senators, including Senator Sampson and Senator Kissel, said they supported the goal but raised practical implementation concerns from town clerks, title insurers and the Connecticut Bar Association. Town clerks suggested a working group to design the process so that the integrity, reliability and searchability of the chain of title are preserved and to avoid unintended consequences for lenders and title insurance. Senator Lehi said the amendment sought to address stakeholder concerns and preserve protections while providing clearer definitions.
The Senate adopted the amendment and passed the substitute; the clerk announced the tally at 36 voting, 26 yes, 10 no.
Supporters emphasized the small number of anticipated transactions and that participation is initiated by survivors already enrolled in the address confidentiality program. Concerns from municipal clerks and title professionals centered on operational details — e.g., how shielded entries are recorded and how title searches will handle redacted names — and stakeholders asked for further guidance before implementation.
