HJR90 sets up a structured review of Kentucky's real property statutes and the state's defenses against real-estate-related fraud, with the goal of producing concrete changes for the legislature to consider. The resolution charges a legislatively convened body to assess where statutes are dated and where statutory or administrative updates could reduce risk and improve transactional clarity.
The exercise matters because Kentucky's recording, conveyancing, and title practices still rest on long-standing statutory language; a focused review can surface technical fixes (for example, around electronic records, notarization, and title standards) and identify policy trade-offs that legislators will have to resolve before drafting bills for the next session.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the Legislative Research Commission to establish the Real Estate Modernization Task Force to study fraud-prevention measures, review the Commonwealth's real property laws, and consider other housing- or property-related topics the group deems appropriate. The resolution prescribes membership drawn from both legislative chambers, the Attorney General, the Public Protection Cabinet, and representatives of county clerks, realtors, mortgage brokers, and title companies. It requires at least monthly meetings during the 2026 interim and a written report, legislative recommendations, or memorandum to the Legislative Research Commission by December 1, 2026.
Who It Affects
County clerks and land-records offices, title companies, mortgage brokers, real estate brokers and associations, state enforcement agencies, and attorneys who handle conveyancing and closings. Local governments and technology vendors that support land-record systems should also treat this as relevant.
Why It Matters
The task force can produce narrowly technical fixes and broader policy proposals that change how property is recorded, how fraud is deterred, and how transactions are authenticated. Because the resolution builds a path for the LRC to refer legislative recommendations ahead of the 2027 session, the group's output can directly shape bills introduced next year.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HJR90 creates a short-term, legislatively sponsored effort to examine where Kentucky's property law and transaction infrastructure are out of step with modern practice and where fraud risks remain inadequately addressed. Rather than directing a single reform, the resolution gives the group a broad mandate: develop an inventory of problems, test possible approaches, and convert findings into recommendations the legislature can use.
The resolution requires a mixed membership designed to bring practical, enforcement, and policymaking perspectives together: members from both the House and Senate serve alongside the Attorney General and the secretary of the Public Protection Cabinet, while industry stakeholders—county clerks, realtors, mortgage brokers, and title companies—participate to supply operational knowledge. That mix is intended to surface issues that lie at the intersection of statutory language, business practice, and frontline administration of records and closings.Operationally, the task force must meet regularly through the 2026 interim and deliver written output to the Legislative Research Commission by a fixed deadline.
The LRC then has the option to route any legislative recommendations to appropriate committees ahead of the 2027 Regular Session. The group itself is advisory: it cannot change law but can frame legislative language and highlight implementation needs, including resource and technology implications for local governments.Substantively, the task force is likely to address technical and policy elements that commonly prompt modernization: electronic recording and notarization standards, identity-verification and fraud-detection practices at closing, title and lien-search procedures, whether statutory forms or filing rules need revision, and how to protect consumers without imposing disproportionate costs on rural counties.
The open-ended third charge—allowing the task force to study “any other topic or issue relating to real property or housing”—gives it latitude to tackle issues ranging from foreclosure mechanics to housing affordability measures that intersect with property-law reform.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution directs the Legislative Research Commission to convene a Real Estate Modernization Task Force charged to study fraud prevention, review Kentucky's real property laws, and consider other housing- or property-related topics.
Membership includes four House members (three appointed by the Speaker, one by the House Minority Floor Leader) and four Senators (three appointed by the President, one by the Senate Minority Floor Leader), with one House member and one Senator designated as co-chairs.
State officials on the task force include the Attorney General and the secretary of the Public Protection Cabinet; four stakeholder seats go to representatives of the Kentucky County Clerks Association, the Kentucky Association of Realtors, mortgage brokers, and title companies.
The task force must meet at least monthly during the 2026 interim and submit findings, legislative recommendations, or a memorandum to the Legislative Research Commission by December 1, 2026.
If the task force submits legislative recommendations, the Legislative Research Commission may refer them to the appropriate committee(s) before the 2027 Regular Session, creating a short window for bill drafting and committee consideration.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Charge and study scope
This section sets the task force's substantive remit: study fraud-protection methods in real estate transactions, review the Commonwealth's real property laws for modernization, and examine any other real property or housing topics the group finds appropriate. Practically, the phrasing gives the body both targeted tasks (fraud and statutory review) and a broad catch-all, which allows pivoting to emergent issues but also means the task force must prioritize within a wide agenda.
Membership, appointments, and leadership
This section prescribes the group's composition: equal legislative representation from each chamber with co-chairs designated, plus the Attorney General, the Public Protection Cabinet secretary, and four named stakeholder seats (county clerks, realtors, mortgage brokers, title companies). Final membership is subject to approval by the Legislative Research Commission. That structure combines policy makers, enforcement officials, and industry practitioners—useful for producing implementable recommendations but raising questions about which public-interest voices are included or omitted.
Work schedule, deliverable, and referral path
The task force must meet at least monthly during the 2026 interim and deliver its findings, legislative recommendations, or a memorandum to the Legislative Research Commission by December 1, 2026. The LRC may then refer any legislative recommendations to relevant committees ahead of the 2027 session. The tight calendar pressures the group to produce usable drafts quickly and creates a clear pipeline from study to potential legislation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Homebuyers and property owners — clearer statutes and improved fraud-prevention protocols could reduce deed fraud and title disputes, lowering risk and potential transaction costs.
- Title companies and real estate professionals — statutory clarification and updated operational standards (for example around e-recording or acceptable proof of identity) can reduce litigation risk and streamline closings.
- County clerks and land-record offices — modernization proposals aimed at electronic recording and standardized forms can reduce manual processing burdens over time and improve record accuracy.
- Legislators and policy staff — the task force furnishes vetted policy options and draft language, shortening the legislative drafting cycle ahead of the 2027 session.
Who Bears the Cost
- County governments and clerks — implementing technology upgrades (e-recording platforms, cybersecurity, staff training) would likely require upfront costs and ongoing maintenance.
- Small mortgage brokers and independent title agents — new verification or documentation requirements may impose additional compliance time and expense, especially for smaller firms.
- State agencies (Attorney General's office, Public Protection Cabinet) — participation and follow-up enforcement work will consume staff time and may require budget adjustments if new regulatory roles are proposed.
- Consumers — if modernization shifts costs to transactional fees (for e-recording systems or enhanced identity verification), purchasers and sellers could see higher closing costs in the short term.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between modernizing property law and transaction infrastructure to reduce fraud and improve efficiency, versus avoiding unfunded mandates, uneven technical burdens on rural counties, and regulatory outcomes shaped primarily by industry participants; speeding reforms to inform the 2027 session risks producing workable fixes quickly but also risks overlooking distributional impacts and long-term implementation costs.
The resolution creates an advisory body with a broad mandate but no independent regulatory authority. That design makes the task force suitable for producing draft legislation and implementation roadmaps, but it also means any substantive changes will depend on subsequent appropriation decisions and committee action.
The December 1 deadline and monthly meeting cadence compress the policy-development timeline; complex technical issues (interoperability of record systems, standards for digital signatures, or chain-of-title modernization) may therefore receive only preliminary treatment unless the task force focuses its agenda tightly.
Membership balances legislators, enforcement officials, and industry players, which helps produce practical recommendations but raises disclosure and bias concerns: industry representatives (realtors, title companies, mortgage brokers) can supply vital operational knowledge while also advocating for commercially favorable rules. Noticeably absent from the mandated roster are explicit seats for consumer advocates, legal-aid organizations, or municipal technology officials, which may skew the group's priorities toward industry and state enforcement perspectives.
The open-ended authority to study “any other topic” helps the group address urgent problems but also risks mission creep that could dilute work on core modernization tasks.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.