Overview
Title
To direct the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to establish a grant program to address deed fraud, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The Good DEED Act is trying to stop people from stealing house papers by giving money to places that help catch these bad guys and help people who got tricked. They want to make sure everyone knows when someone tries to cheat with these papers, and they set rules on how much money should go to help people and to buy tools to catch the cheaters.
Summary AI
H.R. 10475, also known as the "Good Documentation and Enforcement of Estate Deeds Act of 2023" or "Good DEED Act," directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to create a grant program to combat deed fraud. The program will provide competitive grants to eligible states and large political subdivisions for activities such as providing legal assistance to low-income individuals, improving technology to detect and prevent deed fraud, and supporting investigations and prosecutions related to deed fraud. The bill also mandates the Federal Bureau of Investigations to include deed fraud in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program and requires the United States Sentencing Commission to enhance sentencing guidelines for deed fraud offenses. It authorizes funding for these initiatives from 2024 to 2028.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the “Good Documentation and Enforcement of Estate Deeds Act of 2023” or the “Good DEED Act,” aims to combat deed fraud across the United States. The bill directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to establish a grant program that will fund initiatives to address deed fraud—a form of real estate fraud occurring when someone illegally transfers property ownership through forgery or impersonation. These grants will be awarded to states and certain political subdivisions for various activities, including providing legal assistance to low-income individuals, implementing technological solutions, and supporting the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill presents several issues that require careful consideration:
Percentage Allocation for Legal Services: At least 35% of grants must be allocated to legal services. This percentage appears arbitrary, and it may require analysis to determine whether this allocation is appropriate based on the actual need for legal services or other types of assistance.
Technology Acquisition Concerns: The bill allows for a broad use of funds for technology-related activities, which, if not closely monitored, might result in wasteful spending.
Privacy Concerns: A requirement for notaries to save video or pictures during electronic notarization raises potential privacy issues, as sensitive information might be improperly handled.
Vague Terminology: Terms such as "high actual or potential risk" and "repository approved by such State" are subjective or vague, which may lead to inconsistent criteria application and program implementation.
Broad Definitions: Definitions for "covered organization" and "low-income individual" may be too inclusive, potentially diluting the impact of funds by spreading them thinly across a wide range of recipients.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill could enhance protections against deed fraud, which is an increasingly prevalent issue as real estate transactions often involve complex documentation that can be manipulated. By centralizing efforts to tackle fraud through federal grants, the bill seeks to improve trust in real estate transactions, particularly benefiting low-income individuals who may lack the resources to protect themselves from such fraud.
Technological improvements funded through the grant could lead to smoother, more secure real estate transactions, benefiting all property buyers and sellers. However, these enhancements must be scrutinized to avoid unnecessary spending on ineffective solutions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Low-Income Individuals: The bill specifically allocates resources to assist those who are financially vulnerable, which could provide a critical lifeline for maintaining their property rights.
Legal Services and Technology Providers: Organizations engaged in legal services may see a significant increase in funding and demand for their services. Simultaneously, technology companies providing fraud detection and prevention solutions may benefit from increased business and funding opportunities.
Notary Publics: Requirements for notaries to maintain visual records of transactions are likely to expand their responsibilities and require investment in new technology or training. This might be seen either as a burden or a necessary step to improve the security of notarizations.
State and Local Governments: Governments at various levels will need to implement new oversight mechanisms to manage the grant funds and ensure compliance with the program's requirements. They will also need to define what constitutes an approved repository for notarization recordings, a task that could involve setting new standards and protocols.
Overall, the "Good DEED Act" is designed to provide structured support to combat deed fraud, with particular emphasis on technological and legal solutions. Careful monitoring and refinement of the bill's provisions would be crucial to ensuring that it effectively serves its intended purposes and yields positive outcomes for its stakeholders.
Financial Assessment
The text of H.R. 10475, also known as the "Good Documentation and Enforcement of Estate Deeds Act of 2023" or "Good DEED Act," outlines financial allocations and appropriations aimed at combating deed fraud. Here is a detailed analysis of how money is being used or referenced in the bill:
Financial Allocations
The bill authorizes $10,000,000 annually from fiscal years 2024 through 2028 to support initiatives under the deed fraud grant program. This funding is aimed at addressing various aspects of deed fraud, including prevention, detection, and legal assistance related to such fraud.
Use of Funds
Funds from this program are designated for specific activities, which include:
Legal assistance services for low-income individuals dealing with deed fraud cases. At least 35% of the funds awarded must be used for these legal services. While this allocation aims to prioritize assistance to those most impacted by deed fraud, it may be considered arbitrary as it lacks empirical justification to support why this particular percentage is deemed sufficient or necessary.
The acquisition, upgrade, or implementation of technology to counter deed fraud. The broad allowance for technology-related spending could risk wasteful expenditures without rigorous oversight, as these tools and systems' actual impact and effectiveness are not explicitly examined within the bill's context.
Issues with Financial Allocations
Several issues arise from the financial references in the bill:
Arbitrary Allocation for Legal Services: The allocation of 35% of the grant funds for providing legal services could be seen as arbitrary without supporting data justifying this percentage. A more detailed analysis of the demand or need for such services might make this allocation more equitable.
Potential Waste in Technology Expenditure: The scope for spending on technology acquisition and upgrades is quite broad and may lead to ineffective or inefficient use of funds if not appropriately monitored. Establishing clear criteria for these expenditures could mitigate potential issues related to wasteful spending.
Subjective Allocation Criteria: The prioritization of grants for areas with a "high actual or potential risk" of deed fraud is subjective. This could lead to inconsistent application of the criteria, impacting how funds are allocated across different regions.
Conclusion
Through this allocated funding, the bill aims to systematically address deed fraud by bolstering legal support, improving detection technology, and assisting investigations. However, without clearer guidelines on the allocation percentages and technology spending, there is a risk of financial mismanagement. Enhanced clarity and rationale for the allocations would help ensure that funds are used effectively to combat deed fraud.
Issues
The broad allowance for technology acquisition, upgrades, or implementation could potentially lead to wasteful spending if not closely monitored. This pertains to Section 2(c)(3).
The allocation of 35% for legal services might be arbitrary without supporting data justifying this percentage, as mentioned in Section 2(d)(2).
The term 'high actual or potential risk' in the priority selection criteria is subjective and may lead to inconsistent application of the criteria, found in Section 2(d)(1).
The requirement for a notary public to save a video or picture during electronic notarization could raise privacy concerns, as highlighted in Section 2(b)(3)(B).
The definitions of 'covered organization' and 'low-income individual' might be too broad, potentially diluting the impact of the funds, discussed in Section 2(i)(1) and 2(i)(4).
The term 'repository approved by such State' is vague, and the requirements for what constitutes an approved repository should be clarified, as noted in Section 2(b)(4).
The sentence enhancements for deed fraud stipulated for the United States Sentencing Commission lack specific guidelines or deterrent effects, potentially leading to inconsistent application, as mentioned in Section 2(g).
The Act is presented with two names - the 'Good Documentation and Enforcement of Estate Deeds Act of 2023' and the 'Good DEED Act', which might lead to potential confusion, found in Section 1.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act indicates its short title, which can be either the “Good Documentation and Enforcement of Estate Deeds Act of 2023” or simply the “Good DEED Act”.
2. Deed fraud grant program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a competitive grant program led by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to fight deed fraud, prioritizing areas at high risk and ensuring at least 35% of funding goes to legal services. Eligibility criteria include maintaining certain records for notarized property transactions, and the program's funds can be used for legal help, technology upgrades, and supporting investigations. Additionally, the FBI will categorize deed fraud in its crime reports, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission will enhance sentencing for such offenses.
Money References
- (h) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2028.