AB157 would prohibit the filing or recording of “non-improvement contracts” and related documents with a county register of deeds. The bill defines a non-improvement contract as an agreement for work, labor, services, materials, plans, or specifications that are not used to improve real estate, but that nonetheless purports to create a lien, encumbrance, or other security interest on real estate. In practical terms, the measure is aimed at stopping attempts to cloud title or place improper claims against property based on obligations unrelated to actual real estate improvement.
The bill gives registers of deeds authority to reject such documents and return them unrecorded, while preserving several exceptions for legitimate real estate-related filings. Those exceptions include instruments securing repayment of loans or credit, filings authorized under specified statutes, documents related to homeowners associations and common interest communities, commercial leases, certain covenants tied to conveyances, and liens filed under s. 779.32. The bill also amends existing recording statutes to make clear that the new prohibition applies alongside the general rule that instruments affecting title to land are recordable.
AB157 creates both civil and criminal consequences for violating the recording ban. A property owner affected by an improper filing may sue, and if successful, the court must order the property released from the effect of the document and may award actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. Separately, a violator may be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned for up to nine months, or both. The bill applies prospectively to instruments filed or recorded on or after its effective date.
The bill’s overall impact would be to strengthen protections against abusive or fraudulent attempts to encumber real estate through documents that do not arise from actual property improvement work. It would affect property owners, title records, registers of deeds, and parties attempting to assert security interests tied to non-real-estate services or materials. It also adds a new statutory offense and expands the remedies available to landowners whose title is affected by an improper filing.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears focused on preventing title fraud and improper liens, with the main policy tension centered on balancing stronger anti-abuse protections against preserving legitimate recording practices for loans, common-interest communities, leases, and other recognized real estate instruments.
AB157 would create new statutory limits on what may be recorded with a register of deeds by adding s. 710.27 and amending ss. 59.43 and 706.05 to recognize the new prohibition. It would authorize registers of deeds to reject non-improvement contracts and related instruments, establish civil remedies for affected property owners, and create a criminal penalty for violations. The bill would primarily affect property owners, title companies, lenders, contractors, and anyone attempting to record a document that purports to create a lien or security interest on real estate without being tied to an actual improvement to the property.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate sentiment. The bill’s text suggests a generally protective, anti-fraud policy approach aimed at preventing improper encumbrances on real estate. Its inclusion of multiple exceptions indicates an effort to avoid disrupting ordinary recording practices, which may have helped make the proposal more targeted and administrable.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the recording ban and whether it could sweep too broadly into legitimate real estate transactions. The bill carves out exceptions for loans, common-interest communities, commercial leases, and certain covenants, suggesting concern from stakeholders that ordinary financing and property-management instruments not be affected. Another likely issue is the creation of a new criminal penalty and private right of action, which could raise concerns among recorders, lenders, and other parties about enforcement and potential liability.