Bill would create expedited administrative remedy for fraudulent UCC filings; industry and lenders discussed safeguards

2994901 · April 15, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 22 21 would expand remedies for victims of fraudulent Uniform Commercial Code financing-statement filings by allowing an affidavit-based termination process at the secretary of state, statutory damages increases and due-process protections for secured parties.

Senator Parker introduced Senate Bill 22 21, a measure to expand remedies for victims of fraudulent or forged financing statements under the Uniform Commercial Code. The committee considered a substitute that incorporated secretary-of-state language.

Sponsor explanation: The bill raises statutory-minimum damages for wrongful filings and clarifies that anyone harmed by a fraudulent filing — not just property owners — can seek restitution. It permits an injured person to file an affidavit of impermissibility with the secretary of state asking for a prompt administrative termination statement; the secretary-of-state office would notify secured parties and the agency would file a termination statement quickly while preserving secured parties’ due-process rights to contest an improper termination via expedited court procedures. The substitute exempts federally or state-regulated financial institutions from the affidavit process to reduce inappropriate challenges to legitimate filings and authorizes a filing fee to cover administrative costs.

Industry testimony included Ryan Fowler of GM Financial (corporate counsel) who supported the bill’s goal of reducing costly, time-consuming litigation for victims of fraudulent filings and said the current sole remedy — bringing suit — often costs $5,000–$10,000 and takes months. The secretary-of-state’s office was present as a resource and the committee adopted a committee substitute to reflect administration input.

The committee left the bill pending for further consideration.

Ending: Committee took testimony from creditors and consumer advocates, discussed due-process safeguards and administrative fee structures, and left SB 22 21 pending for subsequent drafting.