WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 711

An Act providing for Public Transportation Trust Fund transfers and increases.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Amanda Cappelletti and 16 co-sponsors

SB 711 creates a court-based process to remove a county register of deeds for specified misconduct and requires third-party vendors to pay for government breach-notification costs

Referred to Transportation
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 711

SB 711 — ROD Removal / Government Security Breach Notice Costs (North Carolina, 2025 session)

Status: Committee substitute (Judiciary Committee Substitute adopted 4/30/2025). Bill summary reflects the committee substitute (Edition 2) and related provisions.

Main purpose

SB 711 creates (1) a statutory procedure to remove a county register of deeds (ROD) from office for specified misconduct or incapacity, and (2) a rule shifting the cost of certain breach-notification obligations to third-party vendors or contractors whose acts or omissions cause a security breach affecting a North Carolina governmental entity.

Key provisions

Part I — Removal of Registers of Deeds
- Adds a new statutory procedure (new G.S. 161‑11.7) authorizing removal of a register of deeds by the superior court upon written charges and a hearing.
- Enumerates grounds for removal, including:
- Willful or habitual neglect or refusal to perform duties;
- Willful misconduct or maladministration;
- Corruption or extortion;
- Conviction of a felony;
- Intoxication or conviction for being intoxicated.
- Filing procedure:
- Petition (entitled in the State’s name) may be filed by any five qualified county electors with approval of the county attorney, or filed by the county attorney or district attorney on their own motion.
- The county or district attorney must prosecute the proceeding.
- Court process and remedies:
- Upon petition filing, the judge may suspend the accused ROD pending hearing if sufficient cause appears.
- The cause is to be advanced and take precedence on the superior court calendar and heard at the next session (if timely filed).
- If the final outcome is favorable to the accused, the court may order the county to reimburse reasonable and necessary defense expenses (including attorneys’ fees) as fixed by the judge.
- If removal produces a vacancy, filling of the vacancy follows existing law (G.S. 161‑5).
- Cross‑references: Amends/clarifies provisions regarding the register of deeds serving as clerk to the board (G.S. 161‑23) where relevant.

Part II — Security breaches and notification costs
- Adds a new section to Article 2A of Chapter 75 (proposed G.S. 75‑67).
- Where a security breach or unauthorized release (as defined in existing law) results from the acts or omissions of a third‑party vendor or contractor, that third party must pay for or reimburse the affected North Carolina governmental entity for:
- The full cost of statutorily required breach notifications (G.S. 75‑65), and
- Any associated legal fees.
- Payment may be made via the third party’s cyber‑liability insurance or from the third party’s own funds.

Who is affected

  • Registers of Deeds and county governments (county attorneys, boards, and superior courts) — the bill provides a court‑based mechanism to remove and replace RODs for listed causes.
  • Third‑party vendors/contractors that handle government data or systems — liable for breach‑notification costs and legal fees when breaches are caused by their acts/omissions.
  • Local governments — relieved of direct notification expense in breach incidents caused by vendors; however, they may have prosecutorial duty in removal proceedings and may be ordered to reimburse legal costs if dismissal favors the accused.
  • Cyber insurers — potential increase in claims or premium exposure for insured vendors.

Effective dates and application

  • Part II (security breach reimbursement) is made effective upon enactment and applies to acts and omissions occurring on or after that date.
  • The remainder of the act (removal procedure and related provisions) is effective when it becomes law (i.e., upon enactment).

Potential impacts (practical considerations)

  • Establishes a formal, court‑supervised removal route for RODs (potentially increasing judicial caseload for these matters and clarifying removal standards).
  • Shifts financial responsibility for certain breach‑notification obligations from local governments to responsible vendors/contractors (may incentivize better vendor cybersecurity and prompt vendors’ insurers to adjust coverage/pricing).
  • May increase litigation or administrative activity (petitions for removal, prosecutions, and insurance claims).

If you want, I can:
- Produce a side‑by‑side comparison of the earlier (board‑based) version and the committee substitute (court‑based) version; or
- Draft a short plain‑language explainer for county officials or for vendors explaining compliance steps.

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

Sign in to ask a question.