WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 360

An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in postsecondary institution sexual harassment and sexual violence policy and online reporting system, further providing for policy for postsecondary institution sexual harassment and sexual violence.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Lisa Borowski and 29 co-sponsors

The act strengthens homeowners’ protection by boosting criminal penalties for residential property forgery and creating an expedited civil process to remove false or fraudulent rec

Referred to Education
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 360

HB 360 — "Homeowner Protection Act" (Summary)

Status: Passed 1st Reading
Introduced: November 12, 2024
Subjects: courts; crimes; deeds; fraud; housing; recordation of instruments; public records; real estate; victims’ rights

Purpose / Intent

The bill is designed to deter and remedy the growing problem of fraudulent or falsified records affecting real property (deeds, liens, mortgages, contracts, etc.). It (1) increases criminal penalties for certain forgery involving residential property and (2) creates an expedited civil process to allow property owners to clear title and obtain other relief when a false, fictitious, or fraudulent instrument has been recorded.

Key provisions — criminal law

  • Amends the state forgery statute (G.S. 14‑122):
    • Establishes a higher felony classification where the forgery involves a deed, lease, will, lien, encumbrance, or other conveyance affecting residential property. Under the amendment, forgery of instruments relating to residential property is charged as a Class D felony (significantly higher than the general forgery classification).
    • Retains/updates penalties for other forgery conduct (text shows an update to general felony classification; readers should consult the enacted code for exact class).

Key provisions — expedited civil remedy and recording rules (new § 47‑108.29)

  • Definitions: broad definition of “instrument” (deeds, mortgages, liens, financing statements, contracts, etc.) and “suspicious instrument” (an instrument recorded after a court order removing a cloud on title where the grantor is not the owner identified in that order).
  • Expedited relief procedure:
    • The actual owner can file a verified action in district court alleging a recorded instrument is false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
    • Upon filing, the clerk or register must record and index a “memorandum of possible fraud” where the instrument was recorded and the filing party must effect service (rules permit registered/certified mail where appropriate).
    • The court convenes a hearing; if it finds no legal basis for the instrument, the court declares the recorded instrument false and void and issues an order removing the cloud from title.
  • Possible remedies the court may order:
    • Removal of the false instrument from title (order to remove cloud).
    • Award of possession to a prevailing party and ejectment of unauthorized occupants.
    • Award of attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party.
    • Civil penalty up to $10,000 for frivolous or malicious filings (proceeds to established fund).
    • Pre‑filing injunctions against repeat filers and injunctions preventing listing or advertising the property.
  • Recording office duties and protections:
    • When presented with a court order declaring an instrument false, the register/clerk must record and cross‑index the order and may conspicuously mark the original record as false.
    • Instruments found to be “suspicious” after an order removing a cloud are declared void as to the described property; registers may refuse to record such instruments, require attorney verification, or refuse to index in certain names.
    • No fee is charged to record the memorandum of possible fraud or the court order under this section.
  • Additional consequences:
    • Presenting a materially false instrument for recording may constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice under G.S. 75‑1.1 (civil enforcement exposure).

Who is affected

  • Primary beneficiaries: homeowners and other lawful property owners whose title has been clouded by false or fraudulent recordings.
  • Also affected: prospective buyers, lenders, title companies, registers of deeds/clerk offices, district courts (new expedited dockets), persons who file instruments (including potential criminal or civil liability).
  • Real‑estate market and title insurers may see effects from faster resolution of title disputes and reduced incidence of clouded title.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • The statute creates an expedited civil process (clerk records memorandum; court convenes hearing after service). The bill text does not set precise statutory deadlines for the court to hold the hearing, but mandates immediate recording of the memorandum and authorizes prompt court action; courts will apply civil‑procedure rules for further timing.
  • The criminal penalty changes apply through amendments to the existing forgery statute; enforcement depends on prosecutorial charging decisions.

Potential policy impacts

  • Likely increases ability of victims to clear title quickly and obtain possession/fees; strengthens deterrence through increased criminal penalties and civil sanctions for fraudulent recordings.
  • Could increase workload for district courts and registers of deeds; likely to shift some costs to civil litigation and enforcement.
  • Provides tools to curb repeat or organized “title‑fraud” filings and to protect consumers and real property markets.

For the precise statutory language, sentencing classes, and any effective date or amendments, consult the enacted version of the bill in the North Carolina General Statutes once the bill is codified.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.