AN ACT relating to real property purchased at a master commissioner's sale.
HB347 would add and amend Kentucky law governing real property purchased at a master commissioner’s sale and, in a new section of Chapter 426, property sold under certain court orders. The bill requires purchasers of recently occupied residential property to begin renovation within six months of obtaining title and to return the property to a state of occupancy within 18 months, unless the property is subject to a land bank authority, an existing lease, or a six-month redemption period. For properties under land bank authority, the occupancy deadline would follow the authority’s timeline for returning the property to effective use, with possible extensions if the authority’s procedures are met.
The bill defines “state of occupancy” broadly to include actual occupancy by the owner or a tenant, including certain short-term rentals allowed by zoning, or actively marketing the property for sale or rent with specified signs, contact information, and good-faith efforts. It also exempts vacant lots and residential property so deteriorated that it cannot be returned to occupancy. Noncompliance would trigger a civil fine of $100 per day, payable to the local government, and could lead to an order of sale under existing foreclosure-related procedures.
HB347 would change the legal consequences of purchasing certain residential properties through judicial sale by imposing post-sale rehabilitation and occupancy requirements on buyers, particularly in counties with land bank authorities. It would amend KRS 91.514 and create a new section in KRS Chapter 426, affecting master commissioner sales, court-ordered sales, local governments, land banks, purchasers, and owners of recently occupied residential property. The bill also ties enforcement to local fines and potential resale remedies, while preserving existing rights related to leases, redemption periods, tax liens, and certain federal or utility interests.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available record does not show a documented public debate or partisan split. The measure appears aimed at encouraging faster reuse of foreclosed or judicially sold homes and reducing vacancy, which suggests a policy focus on neighborhood stabilization and property maintenance. Because there are no transcripts or votes provided, overall sentiment cannot be measured directly from the legislative history in the record.
The main points of potential contention are the mandatory renovation and occupancy deadlines, the $100-per-day penalty, and the bill’s application only in counties with land bank authorities. Purchasers of distressed property may view the timelines as burdensome, especially where rehabilitation is costly or market conditions make resale difficult. On the other hand, local governments and land banks may support the bill as a tool to prevent speculation, reduce blight, and return abandoned or recently occupied homes to productive use. The exemptions for leased property, redemption periods, vacant lots, and severely deteriorated structures appear designed to address some of those concerns.