Property; require any seller of real property to make certain disclosures regarding flood damage to such real property
HB618 amends Georgia property law to require sellers of one-to-four family residential real property to disclose known flood impacts that occurred during their ownership. The required written disclosure must address whether the property suffered flood-related physical damage, whether the seller filed flood insurance claims, whether repairs were made because of flooding, whether the property was designated a repetitive loss or severe repetitive loss structure, and whether the seller was notified to obtain or maintain flood insurance under federal law. The bill defines “flood” broadly to include inundation from rising waters, storm surge, tidal events, hurricanes, tsunamis, and unusual rapid accumulation of standing water.
The bill also creates enforcement and penalty provisions. A willful failure to make the required flood disclosure is treated as an unlawful act under Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act of 1975, which can expose violators to consumer-protection remedies. In addition, the bill adds a new lien penalty provision: any lien filed under the referenced mechanic’s lien statute without substantial justification, in bad faith, with malice, or for a wrongful purpose is subject to a $1,500 fine per lien, plus reasonable attorney’s fees or court costs. The act is set to take effect on January 1, 2027.
HB618 would add a new seller-disclosure requirement to Georgia’s real property statutes and create a specific statutory remedy for nondisclosure of flood history in residential sales. It would also amend Georgia lien law by imposing a monetary penalty on frivolous or bad-faith liens filed under the cited mechanic’s lien provision. The bill affects residential sellers, real estate brokers and advisors indirectly, buyers seeking flood-risk information, and parties involved in lien disputes, while expressly stating that it does not require independent investigation by sellers or real estate professionals.
The available voting history suggests broad support in the House, where the bill passed 170-2, indicating strong bipartisan approval for the flood-disclosure provisions. The later Senate vote shown in the record was a motion to table remaining legislation on the Rules Calendar, which passed narrowly 24-21, reflecting procedural division rather than a direct final vote on the bill itself. No committee transcripts were provided, so the record shows overall support for consumer protection and transparency, with some uncertainty or resistance at the procedural stage in the Senate.
The main policy issue is the scope of seller responsibility for flood-related disclosures and whether the law should impose liability for omissions under the Fair Business Practices Act. Supporters likely favor greater transparency for homebuyers in flood-prone areas, while potential critics may be concerned about added compliance burdens, litigation exposure, and the practical limits of a seller’s knowledge. The lien penalty provision may also be contentious among contractors, property owners, and attorneys because it targets bad-faith or unjustified liens and adds a fixed fine on top of attorney’s fees and costs.