Alabama Senate committee gives favorable report to bill to regulate real estate wholesalers

An Alabama Senate committee voted to give HB586 a favorable report after a brief hearing in which supporters described the bill as consumer protection for elderly homeowners and opponents warned the measure could overreach and limit homeowners’ choices.

Representative Rolanda Hollis, testifying as a long‑time Realtor, said wholesalers often misrepresent themselves and take advantage of people who do not understand real estate transactions. "They do lie... and when they don't know what to do, they've taken the folks' money and they're stuck," Hollis said, describing instances in which she said seniors lost equity because they did not understand wholesaling arrangements. Hollis told committee members many Realtors support the bill because wholesalers currently are not subject to realtor licensing and continuing education requirements.

Iris Waters, a local real estate investor who said she conducts wholesale transactions, told the committee those business models serve homeowners who need fast, as‑is sales. "Homeowners should have the right to decide what's best for their situation," Waters said, arguing the bill "treats two different roles as if they're the same" and risks imposing broker‑level licensing on investors and owners. She noted that Alabama law already requires closings to occur through licensed attorneys and urged the committee not to erase consumers' options.

Von Poe, director of the Alabama Real Estate Commission, summarized the bill as "a consumer protection bill," saying regulators receive calls about troubling transactions that often involve elderly victims. He said the commission seeks to bring actors who sell other people’s property into the commission’s regulatory circle while remaining business‑friendly.

Jeremy Walker, speaking for the Alabama Association of Realtors, said the association supports consumer protection but raised technical drafting concerns. Walker urged lawmakers to clarify the statute’s definitions and exemptions; he noted earlier work on related legislation, including Senate Bill 292, and suggested a summer work group to reconcile conflicting code sections rather than enacting language that might have unintended consequences for builders, investors or owners.

Committee members questioned whether the bill’s definitions and exemptions preserve an owner exemption and whether the measure could criminalize or improperly require licenses for fact‑specific transactions such as assignment or resale by buyers whose circumstances change. Several members said they were sympathetic to consumer‑protection goals and to protecting seniors from scams but agreed the drafting needed careful review.

A motion to give HB586 a favorable report passed after a role call; the committee recorded the bill as receiving a favorable report. The committee did not announce a subsequent calendar or next committee step during the hearing.