House panel backs resolution opposing federal role in title insurance
February 17, 2025 | Business, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Representative John Schertz, sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 7, told the House Business Committee on Feb. 17 that the measure was intended to push back against what he called federal overreach into state-regulated title insurance.
The resolution, Schertz said, supports keeping title insurance regulation at the state level and expresses opposition to federal programs he and industry witnesses say would allow substitutes for state-regulated title insurance. “There has been some efforts previously to undermine the current state of our state based title insurance system and erode that the title folks and myself see this as federal overreach,” Representative John Schertz said.
Why it matters: the committee’s action sends a policy message to federal authorities and to state lawmakers, even though a concurrent resolution does not itself change state law. Schertz and witnesses described recent federal activity they said could recharacterize or supplant state-regulated title insurance products, which would affect how title risk is priced and overseen in Idaho.
In committee discussion, a witness who identified himself as a title-industry representative described two federal practices of concern: a title-waiver approach that eliminates title insurance on some loans and an “attorney opinion letter” practice that would allow attorney opinions or other insurance lines to substitute for traditional title insurance. “One waives the title requirement altogether. The other allows attorney opinion letters to be used in lieu of title insurance on government-insured loans,” the witness said.
Committee members asked procedural and strategic questions about next steps and whether the new federal administration might render the resolution unnecessary. Representative Wheeler asked how the state would react if federal agencies proceeded despite the resolution; Schertz replied that the measure was meant to be a proactive signal and that more robust responses could be considered later if federal initiatives moved forward.
Action: Representative Crane moved to send HCR 7 to the full House with a “do pass” recommendation. The committee held a voice vote and the motion carried.
Context and limitations: witnesses referenced activity by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and other federal actors; the resolution is an expression of state legislative opinion (a concurrent resolution) rather than a binding change in Idaho law. No public commenters signed up to testify during the committee’s public testimony portion.
The committee adjourned after completing its agenda for the day and slated additional meetings later in the week.
The resolution, Schertz said, supports keeping title insurance regulation at the state level and expresses opposition to federal programs he and industry witnesses say would allow substitutes for state-regulated title insurance. “There has been some efforts previously to undermine the current state of our state based title insurance system and erode that the title folks and myself see this as federal overreach,” Representative John Schertz said.
Why it matters: the committee’s action sends a policy message to federal authorities and to state lawmakers, even though a concurrent resolution does not itself change state law. Schertz and witnesses described recent federal activity they said could recharacterize or supplant state-regulated title insurance products, which would affect how title risk is priced and overseen in Idaho.
In committee discussion, a witness who identified himself as a title-industry representative described two federal practices of concern: a title-waiver approach that eliminates title insurance on some loans and an “attorney opinion letter” practice that would allow attorney opinions or other insurance lines to substitute for traditional title insurance. “One waives the title requirement altogether. The other allows attorney opinion letters to be used in lieu of title insurance on government-insured loans,” the witness said.
Committee members asked procedural and strategic questions about next steps and whether the new federal administration might render the resolution unnecessary. Representative Wheeler asked how the state would react if federal agencies proceeded despite the resolution; Schertz replied that the measure was meant to be a proactive signal and that more robust responses could be considered later if federal initiatives moved forward.
Action: Representative Crane moved to send HCR 7 to the full House with a “do pass” recommendation. The committee held a voice vote and the motion carried.
Context and limitations: witnesses referenced activity by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and other federal actors; the resolution is an expression of state legislative opinion (a concurrent resolution) rather than a binding change in Idaho law. No public commenters signed up to testify during the committee’s public testimony portion.
The committee adjourned after completing its agenda for the day and slated additional meetings later in the week.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting