Loading policy item
SB 1552
This proposal did not become law. The measure would have imposed a mandatory duty on county clerks to mail notifications to property owners whenever an instrument affecting title is recorded, unless the filing comes from exempted financial institutions, title insurers, real estate attorneys, or their agents. It would have authorized clerks to charge filers a fee capped at $20 or actual administrative cost. The material consequence is a new layer of direct owner notification for most property transactions, shifting administrative costs and processing steps onto non-exempt filers while preserving current recording workflows for exempted professionals.
Generated explanation · Introduced · Analyzed 8/19/2026 · Open official Introduced text
This proposal did not become law.
Generated analysis of Introduced text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This proposal did not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would have required if enacted.
The measure would have imposed a mandatory duty on county clerks to mail notifications to property owners whenever an instrument affecting title is recorded, unless the filing comes from exempted financial institutions, title insurers, real estate attorneys, or their agents. It would have authorized clerks to charge filers a fee capped at $20 or actual administrative cost. The material consequence is a new layer of direct owner notification for most property transactions, shifting administrative costs and processing steps onto non-exempt filers while preserving current recording workflows for exempted professionals.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure seeks to reduce unauthorized or fraudulent property transfers by ensuring owners receive direct notice of title changes, particularly from filers who operate outside traditional professional oversight channels.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would have received direct mail notifications when title-affecting documents are recorded against their property, increasing awareness of liens, deeds, or encumbrances but relying on the accuracy of county address records.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Would have had to implement a new notification workflow, verify last known addresses, and manage fee collection, with administrative costs offset by per-instrument charges.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Would have triggered mandatory owner notifications and might have incured fees up to $20 or actual cost, potentially adding delay or expense to routine transactions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Continue recording instruments without triggering owner notifications, maintaining existing filing efficiency and avoiding new compliance steps.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
County clerks would have had to track receipt of qualifying instruments and mail notices to the last known address on file. Filers would have had to anticipate potential fee assessments for non-exempt submissions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Filers might have paid up to $20 or actual cost per instrument; counties recover administrative expenses through these fees rather than general funds.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Notification would have applied to all instruments affecting title under ORS 205.130(2)(a) unless the filer qualifies for a statutory exemption.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Relies on clerks correctly identifying exempt versus non-exempt filers and maintaining accurate address databases; misclassification could have resulted in missed notifications or improper fee collection.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Owners with outdated addresses might not have received notices, while exempt filings bypass owner awareness entirely, creating uneven transparency across transaction types.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Property owners
Potential effect if enacted: A homeowner unaware of a secretly recorded fraudulent deed or predatory lien receives the clerk’s notification immediately, allowing them to file a restraining action and prevent irreversible loss of equity before a foreclosure sale.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Non-exempt filers
Potential effect if enacted: A legitimate private lender or individual transferring property repeatedly faces cumulative notice fees and administrative delays that effectively price out small-scale transactions or force reliance on exempt professionals, distorting market access for non-institutional actors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
The text would have legally permitted clerks to charge fees and mandates notifications only for non-exempt filings. Weak enforcement of the exemption criteria or deliberate misclassification of filers could have allowed exempt entities to record instruments without triggering oversight, potentially facilitating concealed transfers or priority disputes, while conversely, overzealous fee collection could have unlawfullied burden filers who do not meet the statutory threshold for notification requirements.
Sources · Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The measure enhances property owner transparency by mandating direct notification of title changes, but it does so by imposing administrative costs and processing delays on non-exempt filers while preserving unmonitored recording channels for exempted professionals and institutions.
Potential effect if enacted: Increases immediate awareness of property encumbrances for owners who lack private title monitoring services.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Shifts administrative costs to transaction participants rather than general county funds.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Introduced
Would have created a two-tier transparency system where exempt professionals could have recorded instruments without triggering owner awareness.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Would have imposed recurring fees and processing steps on non-exempt filers that might have detered small-scale or private real estate activity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Model self-rating: high. The bill text explicitly defines the notification duty, exemption categories, fee cap, and emergency effective date. Revenue impact statements confirm no state or local revenue impact beyond the authorized per-instrument fee. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
If adopted, the amendment would restrict the bill’s mandatory county clerk notification requirement exclusively to noncommercial residential real estate, delay the law’s operative date to January 1, 2029, and authorize clerks to begin administrative preparations immediately. An emergency clause would permit immediate passage and enactment despite the delayed effective date.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The narrowing of the notification scope to noncommercial residential properties suggests a legislative focus on consumer protection for individual homeowners while excluding commercial or investment transactions, where market participants typically have greater capacity and existing professional channels to monitor title records.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would receive mandatory county clerk notifications when documents affecting their title are recorded, with statutory exceptions for transactions handled by financial institutions, insurers, or licensed real estate attorneys/agents.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Would no longer be covered by the notification requirement, leaving them to monitor title records independently or rely on existing professional services.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would face a narrowed administrative scope but gain explicit authority to implement systems and procedures before January 1, 2029. Clerks may charge a per-instrument fee up to $20 or actual cost for processing notifications.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Their transactions would remain exempt from the notification requirement under both the original text and the amendment.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
County clerks would have to develop or adjust recordation workflows to filter for noncommercial residential properties and generate notifications. Property owners gain a passive monitoring mechanism but would have to verify that notices are received and act on them.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: Clerks may recover notification costs through the authorized fee, potentially shifting administrative expenses from general funds to transaction participants. The Legislative Revenue Office notes no state or local revenue impact.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Revenue Impact Statement INTRO; IS_Impact SB 1552 INTRO
Potential effect if enacted: Notifications apply only to the owner of record at the last known address in county records, creating potential gaps if addresses are outdated or if properties change hands without updated filings.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Introduced
Compliance would depend on clerks correctly classifying property types and instruments. Misclassification could result in missed notifications for residential owners or unnecessary administrative burden for commercial filings.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Noncommercial residential property owners
Potential effect if enacted: A homeowner unaware of a fraudulent lien or unauthorized deed transfer receives a timely clerk notification, enabling them to halt the recording process or file a corrective action before the instrument matures or transfers equity.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
County clerks and commercial filers
Potential effect if enacted: A county clerk systematically misclassifies high-value commercial transactions as residential due to ambiguous parcel descriptors, triggering thousands of unnecessary notifications, straining clerk resources, and delaying legitimate commercial closings while actual residential filings slip through classification errors.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The statutory framework relies on accurate property classification and current owner addresses. If clerks lack standardized classification protocols or if filers intentionally obscure property use, the notification requirement could be bypassed for targeted residential properties while generating administrative waste elsewhere.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Introduced
Potential effect if enacted: The amendment trades broader market transparency for targeted homeowner protection and administrative feasibility.
Would reduce bureaucratic burden on clerks by limiting notifications to a narrower property class.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Lowers costs and delays for commercial transactions by excluding them from the notification requirement.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would create a focused statutory safety net for individual homeowners who may lack professional title monitoring services.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Leaves commercial investors and developers without statutory monitoring safeguards, increasing reliance on private title services.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would create potential coverage gaps if property classifications are ambiguous or owner addresses are outdated, undermining the notification system’s reliability.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Delays implementation until January 1, 2029, postponing consumer protection benefits despite the emergency enactment clause.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. The amendment text explicitly narrows the property scope, sets a delayed operative date with preparatory authority, and includes an emergency enactment clause. Revenue impact is officially documented as neutral. Inferences are strictly bounded by the supplied text. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
9 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Not a qualifying replacement
Only the introduced bill is available as adopted text; no qualifying replacement is established.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
Only the introduced bill is available as adopted text; no qualifying replacement is established.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2026 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 205.130 to 5 205.220. 6 SECTION 2. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the county clerk shall 7 notify the owner of record of real property upon receipt of an instrument that affects the 8 title to the real property and i”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2026 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 205.130 to 5 205.220. 6 SECTION 2. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the county clerk shall 7 notify the owner of record of real property upon receipt of an instrument that affects the 8 title to the real property and i”
Introduced
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
Not a qualifying replacement
The proposal keeps the deed-notice policy and was not adopted.
Policy purpose: broadly retained.
“SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2026 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 205.130 to 5 205.220. 6 SECTION 2. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the county clerk shall 7 notify the owner of record”
Introduced
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
Follow the official text for SB 1552 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
Delete lines 22 through 24 and insert:
Official records (1)
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
Chief sponsors: Senator Fred Girod
Regular sponsors: Senator David Brock Smith
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
9 events
Full timeline
9 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 2 · Room HR E · Requires the county clerk to notify the owner of real property when an instrument affecting the title to the property is presented for recordation unless presented by a financial institution, an insurer or an attorney, or an employee or agent of the professional person.
Amendment -1 proposed
IS_Impact SB 1552 INTRO
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Housing and Development.
Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
tion fee for programs administered by OTLB to support requests authorized under SB 1552 (2024), which allows individuals to petition a licensing board for a determinat
sts and the Board of Psychology. The fee will support requests authorized under SB 1552 (2024), which allows individuals to petition a licensing board for a determinat
tion fee for programs administered by OSBN to support requests authorized under SB 1552 (2024), which allows individuals to petition a licensing board for a determinat
cess fee for programs administered by OBOP to support requests authorized under SB 1552 (2024), which allows individuals to petition a licensing board for a determinat
rce Database, and the Art Therapist program authorized under HB 3761 (2025) and Senate Bill 1552 (2024): Psilocybin worker permit: $25 for one year (previously $25 for five
cess fee for programs administered by OBCE to support requests authorized under SB 1552 (2025), which allows individuals to petition a licensing board for a determinat
“Requires the county clerk to notify the owner of real property when an instrument affecting the title to the property is presented for recordation unless presented by a financial institution, an insurer or an attorney, or an employee or agent of the professional person.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.