Ian Fitzpatrick

The meeting included discussions on address shielding for judges, a recap of a conference call with Minnesota regarding their Safe at Home program, and the implications of criminal versus civil penalties for non-compliance. The task force also explored the burden on the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP), Minnesota's deed recording law, and the recording process in Maryland. Legislative services provided insights on bill drafting, and working groups were formed to draft legislation and focus on the clerks and the recording process.

The task force discussed clerks' concerns regarding the ACP program and deed shielding proposal, focusing on uniformity across the state and proper implementation in each jurisdiction. The deed shielding process was outlined, including the creation of certified copies and the handling of title searches. Concerns related to Home Owners Associations and changes to bylaws were addressed, with a plan to provide ACP participants with relevant information. The task force also discussed shielding and co-ops, shielding and plats, and reviewed the most recent bill draft, proposing amendments to clarify intent and update notification timelines. The use of an ACP Notice to Private Entities was also discussed.

The task force meeting addressed the problem of LLCs and the loss of Homestead Credit for buyers, suggesting trusts as a better alternative. The possibility of the Secretary of State serving as the trustee was discussed, but deemed not viable. Subgroups presented findings on masking data versus adapting the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP) to the existing deed recording system. The revocable trust option was proposed, with the Department of Housing and Community Development as the lender, to maintain the integrity of public recording. The discussion also covered shielding information versus revocable trusts, the use of Mortgage Electronic Registration System, and the importance of credit freezes for ACP participants. The meeting concluded with a discussion on next steps, including a comparison of Minnesota's system for shielding participant information and the trust option, as well as a request for subgroups to provide a summary of the pros and cons of each approach.

The meeting of the Task Force focused on drafting and revising a bill to establish a procedure for shielding the deeds of domestic violence victims. Discussions covered the roles of circuit court clerks, the county finance office, and the Maryland State Archives in implementing a uniform process. Key points included how to handle electronic recording, potential issues with tax liens, and the importance of training personnel on the new procedures. The task force also considered the experiences of other states, such as Minnesota, with similar deed shielding systems.

The meeting of the Task Force to Study the Recording of Deeds for Victims of Domestic Violence included an overview of Maryland's Safe at Home Address Confidentiality Program (ACP). The discussion covered legislation creating the task force, Minnesota law protecting participants in Minnesota's ACP, potential barriers, the likelihood of abusers using deed recording to find victims, and shielding names and property information and exploration of other options. The roundtable discussion was summarized into four main subgroups requiring further review: Title Search, Financing, Current ACP law, and Review of other public records.