Members,

The Liaison Committee met Monday June 10 at Title One River Street.  Some of the issues discussed included:

1.      Cameron recapped the status of the DOI Temp/Proposed Rule project.  The Board and Legislative Committee has worked on the project and copies of the draft Rules were circulated to membership.  The DOI is good with leaving the $ numbers and limitations as is.  There was some consolidation and editing to meet DOI goals in conjunction with Gov. Little’s objective to reduce and consolidate.  Jim is going to see if the current draft can fit into the DOI omnibus package that will allow for a more streamlined approval process.

2.      John brought up a comment received as a proposed addition to the illegal inducement provisions.  The scenario in question is when a new transaction comes up and examination shows a prior deed of trust that still shows of record.  Inquiry to the underlying title company is made to determine if it was paid off and if so can a statutory reconveyance or indemnity be provided such that the new company with the order can move forward.  If the underlying company holds out and says the customer can always insure at our office the proposal would state this scenario is an illegal inducement.  This example was distinguished from a claim scenario where the underlying deed of trust is for example an unreleased HELOC or other liability scenario where liability should be maintained at the office where the liability originated.   Comment was that the inducement example of holding an order hostage for some order gain was not an intelligent strategy and that the new company should advise and request the consumer to get a copy of the closing statement that could be examined by the new company.  Consumers don’t necessarily want to get more involved and deal with these scenarios.  This proposal would be a comment that would go to the DOI in the Proposed Rule change review.

3.      The flat fee recording issue was discussed.  Last Session’s one fee for all docs failed as the fee was viewed as too much and the Counties could not justify the profit they would make.  A proposal is being drafted where a catch all category would be added such that all docs that do not fit within the identified categories fall into a $10 catch all.  The $ number is not set in stone but the thought is that this would eliminate County interpretations and varying calculations.

4.      The Remote Notary (RON) law was discussed with regard to privacy of data.  Idaho’s law passed without addressing privacy of data.  This wrinkle has become a national issue out of the proposed legislation this past session in Colorado.  It is on the radar for upcoming legislative proposals in other states such as Wisconsin.  In its basic sense RON was created to address the evolving digital technology and allowing for the remote online notary platform.  However, remote notaries and other related parties seem to be utilizing RON as an opportunity to capture consumer data for their own use and resale.  It was mentioned that a 60 page disclaimer was proposed by those in favor of no privacy of data inclusion into RON law.  The issue also left unclear what exposure title companies, who are still the primary closing agent, would have if third parties utilized privacy data in light of Best Practices and protecting consumer information.  Idaho‘s law would need a statutory amendment and it is feasible one will be coming in the future.  In the meantime we will monitor how the issue develops.

5.      In a related issue the general collection of data and privacy protection was discussed.  It was noted at the ALTA Advocacy Summit that a task force has been created to explore this issue in light of CA and a possible trend of implementing ultra-onerous requirements that may have the impact of stifling the normal course of business.

6.      Indigent Care Liens were also discussed.  The statute is poorly worded and there seems to be a split as to how the lien is treated as far as its notation in a state repository.  The statute indicates it is an automatic lien on all real and personal property (and states as much without regard to the County the lien originates).  The statute then goes on to state the County may perfect the lien as against real property by recording in the County records in the normal course.  The issue is being reviewed further inclusive of exploring seeking an Attorney General Opinion.

7.      A reminder was given to mark your calendar for the Pacific NW Convention August 1-3 at Skamania Lodge (about 30 minutes east of Portland on the Washington side of the Columbia River).  Save the Date Info and the latest Agenda are attached.  The Room Block expires July 1 so get your registration in.  Links to register are:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/2019-pacific-nw-land-title-convention-registration-59985112085

This link, along with the agenda, hotel reservation link and the mail in registration form is also on our website:

https://oregonlandtitle.com/pacificnwtitleconvention.php

8.      The next meeting is Thursday July 11 at Fidelity 3715 Overland. 

Thanks.  John