HB749 is a deed and title fraud prevention bill that would add new safeguards to Ohio’s property recording and real estate licensing laws. It requires photo identification from individuals presenting most conveyances for recording, with exceptions for licensed real estate agents, brokers, and title insurance agents. It also directs county recorders not to record conveyances when required county auditor endorsements are defaced, illegible, or incomplete, and it preserves existing affidavit procedures for intestate heir transfers.
The bill also creates a new county-level property protection program that county auditors may establish. Under that program, property owners could register a parcel and receive notice by email, phone, or mail when a deed transfer is presented for auditor review. The bill requires proof of residence and photo identification to register, and it imposes a 24-hour hold on transfer processing after notice is sent, unless the owner authorizes the transfer. The bill further amends real estate continuing education requirements to require at least one hour of instruction on deed and title fraud prevention, identification, response, and reporting.
In addition to these anti-fraud measures, HB749 would change continuing education rules for real estate licensees under Chapter 4735. It keeps the existing 30-hour continuing education framework, but adds the fraud-prevention training requirement for all licensees and a separate three-hour broker-focused course for brokers, broker-on-deposit licensees, and management-level licensees. For licensees age 70 or older, the bill also specifies a nine-hour continuing education package that includes fraud prevention, and it retains automatic suspension and eventual revocation provisions for noncompliance. The bill would take effect in stages, with the amendment to the real estate continuing education section delayed by six months after the effective date of that section.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is preventive and protective, with the measure framed as a response to deed and title fraud rather than as a major policy dispute. Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented public opposition or support in the record here. The structure of the bill suggests a broad consumer-protection purpose, especially for homeowners and heirs who may be vulnerable to fraudulent transfers.
The main points of potential contention are administrative burden and implementation details. County auditors and recorders would have new responsibilities for identity checks, property registration, notice systems, and transfer delays, which could raise concerns about cost, staffing, and workflow. Real estate professionals are partially exempt from the photo ID requirement when recording conveyances, which may be viewed as a practical accommodation but could also be questioned as a carveout. The bill also places the burden on county auditors to define what counts as an "official document" for proof of residence, leaving some operational discretion to local officials.
HB749 would amend Ohio Revised Code sections 317.22 and 4735.141 and add new section 317.43. It would tighten county recording procedures by requiring photo identification for most people submitting deeds or other conveyances, establish a voluntary county property protection alert program, and require a 24-hour pause on transfer processing after notice for registered properties. It would also expand real estate continuing education requirements to include deed and title fraud prevention training, affecting licensed brokers, salespersons, and certain older licensees, while leaving the underlying licensing and renewal framework in place.
The bill appears to have a generally favorable, protective policy posture, aimed at preventing fraud and improving notice to property owners. The available record shows no committee debate, testimony, or votes, so there is no documented partisan or stakeholder split in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the measure is presented as a consumer-protection and administrative safeguard bill rather than a controversial overhaul.
The most likely areas of contention are operational and procedural rather than ideological. County auditors and recorders may object to the added administrative duties, including identity verification, property registration, and managing a notice-and-hold system. Real estate industry participants may support the fraud-prevention goal but could question the scope of the new training requirement or the practical effect of the 24-hour transfer delay. The bill’s exceptions for licensed real estate and title insurance professionals, and the county auditor’s discretion to define acceptable proof-of-residence documents, could also draw scrutiny over fairness and implementation consistency.