SB1734

Two evidentiary routes: an owner who has reason to believe a recorded conveyance is fraudulent may file a verified petition with the district clerk in the county where it is recorded. The owner must attach the disputed document and evidence either of a person’s conviction under Penal Code Title 7 or 8 for conduct involving that document, or of the recorded owner’s affidavit and mailing certificate that went unchallenged under the new procedure. A bare allegation of fraud is not enough for these statutory routes. This adds a conveyance-specific process alongside the existing fraudulent-lien procedure. Final law, sections 1–2; Existing fraudulent-lien procedure.

Affidavit route and the 120-day response: the owner records an affidavit and certificate of mailing, using substantially the statutory forms. The owner must send the recorded affidavit and a notification letter to both the purported grantor and grantee—the transferring and receiving parties—at their last known addresses by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. The certificate includes the letter and proof of mailing. Either party may record a contrary affidavit by the 120th day after the mailing certificate was filed, asserting that the owner’s affidavit or certificate is untrue or giving another reason the conveyance is valid. Only if no timely contrary affidavit is recorded does this affidavit route permit the owner to petition for the specified ruling; silence creates a presumption, not an automatic court judgment. Final law, sections 1 and 3.

Court review: a district judge with jurisdiction over real-property matters in that county may decide from the documents, supporting evidence and public records, without testimony and without advance notice of the court’s review. This does not eliminate the affidavit route’s earlier mailing and response requirements. The judge must enter findings and legal conclusions, which are recorded and indexed with the original document’s record class. Copies must be sent to the petitioner and the document’s filer at their last known addresses within seven days after the judge issues the findings, electronically or by a delivery method described in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a. Appellate review must be expedited. Final law, section 2.

The district clerk cannot charge for filing this petition, and the county clerk cannot charge for filing the judge’s findings. Those waivers do not promise that all mailing, initial affidavit-recording or legal expenses are free. The statutory forms limit review to the document’s status rather than deciding all underlying claims and warn of sanctions for a frivolous petition. A good-faith purchaser or mortgage lender giving value, and their successors or assigns, may conclusively rely on a recorded finding that the document does not convey title or an interest. Final law, sections 2–3.

Amendment history: the Senate committee text corrected a punctuation mark; the substantive proposal stayed the same through the Senate-passed and House committee versions. Bhojani’s House third-reading amendment, adopted May 15, changed “motion/movant” to “petition/petitioner” and replaced first-class-mail-only delivery of the court findings with electronic delivery or a Rule 21a method. These changes survived; the Senate concurred May 20. The amendment did not replace the owner’s registered/certified-mail requirement. Introduced; Senate committee; Senate-passed; House committee; Bhojani amendment; Amendment index; Version index; Final law.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

The process could reduce procedural barriers for owners confronting fraudulent transfers and give qualifying buyers and lenders a recorded ruling they can rely on. Owners still must produce the required evidence and comply with notice and timing rules. People named in disputed transfers need to take the recorded-affidavit response deadline seriously; the court may later act without another advance hearing notice. The act does not guarantee a favorable ruling, compensation, criminal prosecution or resolution of every competing ownership claim. Final law.

The April 8 introduced and May 15 post-House fiscal notes say state fiscal effects cannot be determined because case-level data are lacking. They anticipate no significant local-government fiscal impact. That is not an estimate of zero state cost or a measured saving for owners. The bill creates no appropriation or compensation fund. Introduced fiscal note; Post-House fiscal note; Enrolled-linked fiscal note; Final law.