AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 43-23.5-01, 43-23.5-07, 43-23.5-08, and 43-23.5-15 and subsection 6 of section 43-23.5-21 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the regulation of appraisal management companies.
HB 1080 updates North Dakota’s appraisal management company law. The bill revises definitions for appraisal management companies, appraisal management services, appraiser panels, controlling persons, and related mortgage/appraisal terms, and it clarifies which entities are covered by the chapter. It also expands and refines exemptions for appraisal firms, federally regulated appraisal management companies, certain financial institutions, and smaller appraisal management companies that do not meet the statutory panel-size thresholds.
The bill tightens ownership and registration standards for appraisal management companies. It bars registration where ownership traces to individuals whose appraiser licenses were disciplined in certain ways, requires owners of more than 10 percent to be of good moral character and to submit to criminal background checks, and requires companies to certify that they have reviewed ownership structures for disqualifying interests. It also strengthens recordkeeping and board access by requiring companies to maintain detailed service-request records, retain records for five years, and make them available to the board on request. Finally, it clarifies panel-removal procedures by requiring prior written notice before removing an independent appraiser from a panel, except during the first 90 days after the appraiser is added.
In practical terms, the bill affects appraisal management companies, appraisers, lenders, and the North Dakota Real Estate Appraiser Qualifications and Ethics Board. It amends multiple sections of Chapter 43-23.5 of the Century Code, increasing regulatory clarity and oversight over who may own or operate an appraisal management company and how those companies must document and manage appraisal assignments. The changes are aimed at aligning state regulation with appraisal-independence and consumer-mortgage standards.
The overall sentiment around HB 1080 appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. It passed the House and Senate with overwhelming support, including unanimous Senate approval and only limited opposition in the House on a later vote. No committee testimony or recorded debate was provided, and the voting pattern suggests broad agreement that the bill is a technical regulatory update rather than a major policy dispute.
There is little visible contention in the available record. The only likely points of concern are the added compliance burdens on appraisal management companies, especially the ownership-screening, background-check, certification, and record-retention requirements, as well as the notice requirement before removing appraisers from panels. Any opposition appears minimal, and the final votes indicate that lawmakers largely viewed the bill as a routine professional-licensing and consumer-protection measure.
HB 1080 amends North Dakota Century Code Chapter 43-23.5 governing appraisal management companies. It changes statutory definitions, narrows and clarifies exemptions, imposes ownership and background-check requirements on significant owners, mandates certification of ownership review, extends record-retention obligations, and requires prior written notice before most appraiser-panel removals. These changes increase oversight by the North Dakota Real Estate Appraiser Qualifications and Ethics Board and affect appraisal management companies, appraisers, and certain financial institutions operating in the state.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and was treated as a technical regulatory update. It passed both chambers by large margins, with the Senate vote unanimous and only a small number of House dissenting votes on one reading. The absence of committee controversy or recorded opposition suggests general agreement with the bill’s consumer-protection and professional-standards goals.
No major controversy is reflected in the available materials. The main issues that could draw concern are the added compliance obligations for appraisal management companies, including ownership vetting, criminal background checks for larger owners, five-year record retention, and advance notice before removing appraisers from panels. These requirements may be seen as burdensome by regulated entities, but the voting record indicates little organized resistance.