SB 1125 - This act requires a county recorder of deeds to provide notice to a property owner of record of a parcel of real property that a general warranty deed or quitclaim deed that affects the ownership of such parcel has been submitted for recording. The recorder shall delay the recording of any such deed for at least five working days in order to provide time to notify property owners. If each property owner of record provides written confirmation that the deed is legitimate, the recorder may proceed with the recording. If each property owner of record notifies the recorder that the deed is fraudulent, the recorder shall delay the recording for a further two days to allow the owner of record to seek an order from a court of competent jurisdiction to prohibit the recording of the deed. This act is identical to HB 323 (2025), and to a provision contained in HB 1943 (2026). TRISTAN BENSON, JR.

2026 Regular Session

Missouri bill establishes legal protections and enforcement mechanisms against real property fraud schemes including deed theft and forged documents.

Second Read and Referred S Select Committee on Property Taxes and the State Tax Commission Committee

Legislative bill overview

SB 1125 would establish the Real Property Fraud Prevention Act in Missouri, creating statutory measures to combat fraudulent activities related to real estate transactions and property ownership. The bill aims to provide legal frameworks and potentially new enforcement mechanisms to protect property owners and legitimate buyers from fraud schemes involving real property.

Why is this important

Real property fraud—including deed theft, forged documents, and identity fraud in property transfers—costs homeowners and legitimate buyers significant financial losses and creates costly legal disputes. Establishing clear statutory protections and enforcement mechanisms can help reduce these crimes, streamline victim remedies, and provide law enforcement with clearer authority to investigate and prosecute property-related fraud.

Potential points of contention

Scope and definitions: Disagreement over what constitutes "real property fraud" and whether the law covers all relevant schemes or focuses narrowly on specific fraud types

Implementation costs: Questions about funding for enforcement, victim assistance programs, and whether costs fall on counties, the state, or other entities

Liability and responsibility: Debates over whether title companies, escrow agents, lenders, or government offices should share liability for fraud prevention or victim compensation

Homeowner notification requirements: Potential concerns about mandated fraud alerts, credit monitoring, or notification procedures and their administrative burden