Summary#
HB 6433 would amend the Revised Judicature Act of 1961 and add four sections to create a court process for dealing with allegedly fraudulent documents recorded against real property. Its stated goal is to provide an expedited quiet-title process (a court process to determine interests in property). The bill is introduced and is not law.
- A property owner could record an affidavit claiming a recorded conveyance is fraudulent and send the grantor and grantee notice by registered or certified mail.
- If no one records a controverting affidavit within 35 days, the owner could petition the circuit court. A separate route is available when someone has been convicted of specified property-recording crimes involving the document.
- The court must schedule a hearing as soon as possible. It would review the petition, evidence and relevant public records, and make findings about whether the document conveys an interest in the property.
- The court’s findings must be recorded with the disputed document. The process does not, by itself, cancel a document or decide the parties’ other claims.
- The bill would exempt petitions under the new process from the usual circuit-court civil filing fee. It also directs the State Court Administrative Office to prepare forms.
What it means for you#
- Property owners: You could use the new process if you have reason to believe a recorded document falsely claims an interest in your property. You would need to file the required affidavit and mailing certificate, notify the grantor and grantee, and meet the petition requirements.
- Grantors and grantees named in a disputed document: You could record a controverting affidavit within 35 days, stating why the document is valid. If a petition is filed, you must receive hearing notice under court rules; one day before the hearing is enough notice under the bill.
- People responding to a petition: If you do not attend, the court may decide the petition from documents and public records alone if it finds that you were served or that the petitioner made diligent attempts to serve you. The bill allows a motion to set aside certain decisions made in your absence, but only under stated conditions.
- Courts and court staff: Circuit courts must hear petitions and make findings. The court administrative office must develop forms. Appeals must receive expedited review.
- Prosecutors, the attorney general and law enforcement: After a qualifying conviction or guilty plea, they may ask a court to void a fraudulent instrument tied to the crime. The court may do so if appropriate under applicable law; it is not required to.
- General public: The bill does not automatically transfer property, void every disputed recording, or decide underlying ownership claims. A judge must make findings under the bill’s conditions.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s estimated cost is included in the supplied material.
- Petitions under the new process would be exempt from the $150 civil-action filing fee.
- The State Court Administrative Office must prepare forms, and courts must handle hearings and records; the bill gives no staffing or cost estimate and makes no specific appropriation.
- The bill does not set a fee for recording the owner’s affidavit or mailing certificate.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define “fraudulent” or explain what evidence, beyond the listed qualifying routes, is enough to establish it.
- The supplied material does not include the full current Revised Judicature Act, so existing quiet-title procedures and how this process would interact with them could not be verified.
- The bill does not set a specific deadline for the hearing beyond “as soon as possible,” or explain how courts should prioritize these petitions.
- It is unclear how the process would work if notice is delayed, a person cannot be found, or multiple people claim interests in the property.
- The bill does not explain what happens to other recorded interests affected by the disputed document.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to give owners a faster way to challenge recorded documents that may falsely claim rights to their property.
- Requiring notice and allowing a 35-day response period gives the named grantor or grantee a chance to contest the owner’s claim before the owner can petition.
- Requiring a judge to review evidence and record findings could make the result visible in the same records as the disputed document.
- The separate route for prosecutors or law enforcement could allow a court to address a fraudulent instrument connected to a criminal conviction.
Case against#
- One concern is that, if no controverting affidavit is recorded within 35 days, the owner may petition based on that lack of response. The bill does not explain how courts should assess cases where a person misses the deadline despite having a valid claim.
- One day before the hearing is sufficient notice under the bill. A respondent who does not appear may face a decision based only on documents and public records.
- The bill does not define “fraudulent,” which may leave important questions to courts.
- The bill requires hearings and new forms but gives no cost estimate or staffing plan.