OFFICE OF COUNCILMEMBER ANITA BONDS
CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION AND LABOR
THE JOHN A. WILSON BUILDING
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
February 20, 2025
Nyasha Smith, Secretary
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Secretary Smith,
Today, along with Councilmember Robert White, I am introducing the “Defective Deed
Recordation Clarification Amendment Act of 2025.” Please find enclosed a signed copy of
the legislation.
The Property Conveyancing Revision Act of 1994 included a standard curative provision, which
allowed instruments recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds with a defective
conveyance in the formal requisites to become effective. Curative provisions are necessary for
ensuring the reliability of the public record in cases where a deed is recorded with a harmless
technical error, such as a smudged notary seal.
The 1994 Act’s curative provision had two sections: one curing defective instruments recorded
before the act took effect on April 27, 1994, and one curing defective instruments recorded after
the act took effect. However, when the Council passed the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial
Acts Amendment Act of 2022, the Council inadvertently revised the latter section by replacing
the effective date of that provision with the effective date of the new act without making any
change to the former section. Because the former section applies only to deeds recorded before
April 27, 1994 and the latter section now applies only to deeds recorded after September 21,
2022, this change created a 30-year gap where recorded deeds cannot be corrected through any
curative provision.
The DC Land Title Association brought this issue to the Council’s attention, and explained the
challenges created by a 30-year gap in the law. In addition to diminishing the reliability of the
public record, the absence of a curative provision can create challenges for District residents
looking to insure their land title. Without a curative provision in effect, homeowners whose
deeds were recorded with a technical error during the past 30 years would have to correct the deed by contacting the previous title holder. In cases where the previous homeowner has moved
away or is deceased, this process can be difficult and costly.
This bill permanently addresses the issue by replacing the two curative provisions with one
section effective for all deeds recorded both before and after the passage of this legislation. The
bill maintains the same substantive language for curing a defective instrument, provides for the
opportunity to challenge a defective instrument within six months of recordation (a provision
which was present in the original 1994 act, but which was removed by the 2022 act), and
provides for the opportunity to challenge instruments recorded prior to this act within six months
of the effective date of this legislation. Language establishing an opportunity to challenge
instruments that pre-date curative provisions was also included in the 1994 act.
Should you have any questions about this legislation, please contact Kevin Chavous, Committee
Director, at kchavous@dccouncil.gov.
Thank you,
Anita Bonds
1
2
3
_____________________________ __________________________ 4
Councilmember R obert C. White, Jr. Councilmember Anita Bonds 5
6
7
8
9
A BILL 10
11
________ 12
13
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 14
15
______________________ 16
17
18
To amend An Act To establish a code of law for the District of Columbia to validate certain 19
defective grants. 20
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this 21
act may be cited as the “Defective Deed Recordation Clarification Amendment Act of 2025”. 22
Sec. 2. An Act To establish a code of law for the District of Columbia, approved March 23
3, 1901 ( 31 Stat. 1189, Chapter 854; D.C. Official Code § 42 -401 et seq.), is amended as 24
follows: 25
(a) Section 499a (D.C. Official Code § 42- 402) is amended to read as follows: 26
“(a) An instrument recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds shall be effective 27
notwithstanding the existence of 1 or more of the failures in the formal requisites listed in 28
Section 499c, unless the failure is challenged in a judicial proceeding commenced within 6 29
months after the instrument is recorded; provided, that an instrument recorded before the 30
effective date of this act may be challenged in a judicial proceeding commenced within 6 months 31
from the effective date of this act. 32 2
“(b) Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of instruments recorded before the 33
effective date of this act, which have been validated by prior law.”. 34
(b) Section 499b (D.C. Official Code § 42-403) is repealed. 35
Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement. 36
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement of the Budget Director as the fiscal impact 37
statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975, approved 38
October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a). 39
Sec. 4. Effective date. 40
This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the 41
Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of congressional review as 42
provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 43
24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of 44
Columbia Register. 45
46