House Bill 361 appropriates a total of $33.3 million in nonrecurring General Fund money for fiscal year 2025-2026 to prevent and deter deed and title fraud in North Carolina. The bill directs $1.8 million to the Department of the Secretary of State, working with the North Carolina Association of Registers of Deeds, to provide antifraud training for county register of deeds employees. It also allocates $500,000 to the Department of Justice for a statewide public awareness campaign about real property fraud.
The largest share of funding, $30 million, goes to the Department of Information Technology to award need-based grants to county register of deeds offices for scanning equipment, digitization and storage of records, software upgrades, cloud storage and backup, digital security improvements, staff training, and network/hardware upgrades. The bill also sets aside $1 million for grants to counties that do not already have a fraud detection alert system. The Department of Information Technology must create criteria and an application process for the grants, and the act would take effect July 1, 2025.
The bill does not create new criminal penalties or change deed-recording procedures directly, but it substantially expands state funding and administrative support for county register of deeds offices and related fraud-prevention efforts. It would affect the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Information Technology, while also providing resources to county offices for modernization, cybersecurity, and fraud detection. In practical terms, it would support digitization of records, improved office security, and broader public education aimed at reducing real property fraud and identity-related misuse of recorded documents.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a broadly protective, anti-fraud initiative with likely bipartisan appeal. Its emphasis on safeguarding property records, helping county offices modernize, and educating the public suggests a generally favorable policy posture. No formal opposition is reflected in the available context, though the bill’s large appropriation and grant structure could invite scrutiny over cost, administration, and how funds are distributed among counties.
The main potential points of contention are fiscal and administrative rather than ideological. The bill authorizes a sizable $33.3 million in nonrecurring spending, which may raise questions about budget priorities and whether the funding levels are justified. Another possible issue is the grant allocation process: counties may differ in their ability to apply for funds, meet criteria, or implement technology upgrades, and the bill gives the Department of Information Technology significant discretion in setting those rules. Some counties may also be concerned about whether the funding is sufficient to cover long-term maintenance, interoperability, and cybersecurity needs after the initial grants are spent.