Provides relative to fees charged by clerks of court for real estate mortgage certificates and lien certificates. (2/3 - CA7s2.1(A)) (8/1/20) (OR INCREASE LF RV See Note)
The enactment of SB348 would have a direct impact on the financial operations of clerks of court who serve as ex officio recorders of mortgages. By increasing the fees charged for these services, the legislation aims to provide additional funding that could enhance the efficiency of record-keeping processes. However, critics may argue that the increased costs could create barriers for individuals needing access to public information related to real estate, particularly for those with limited financial means. Therefore, the proposed changes could lead to discussions on access to public records and financial transparency in real estate transactions.
SB348, introduced by Senator Johns, seeks to amend existing statutes regarding the fees charged by clerks of court for real estate mortgage and lien certificates. The bill adjusts the fee structure for these certificates, increasing the costs for searching records over different time frames. Specifically, the bill proposes a fee of $30 for the first name searched for ten years of records, $40 for twenty years, $50 for thirty years, and $60 for forty years or more, with additional charges applicable for each extra name searched. This legislative move is seen as an effort to update the outdated fee schedule and ensure that clerks can adequately cover their administrative costs related to these searches.
The sentiment surrounding SB348 appears to be mixed. Supporters of the bill, likely including clerks of court and financial administration, would view the fee increases as a necessary adjustment to reflect current economic conditions and workloads in the face of rising operational costs. Conversely, opponents may express concerns that the fee increases could further complicate the process of obtaining essential documentation, which could disproportionately affect lower-income individuals or small businesses. This divide highlights broader issues regarding fiscal responsibility in government services and access to vital public records.
Notable points of contention within the discussions surrounding SB348 may center on equity in public service fees and the implications for access to real estate information. Opponents may question whether the increased fees represent an equitable approach to public access, while proponents might argue that necessary reforms require updated financial models to support administrative functions. Additionally, given the core focus of the bill on clerks' fees, it is possible that more extensive considerations around budget allocations within the court systems will arise during debates.