Judiciary 2.5.26

Thanks. Alright.

Alright, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you all for being here. Got a little late start from what we've started to, at 01:00. But, to get us underway, I thought I'd call on the vice chair for a word of prayer.

Thank you.

Let's pray. Dear lord, with, literacy being the word of the afternoon, we pray for the students of Georgia, their teachers, and parents, and pray for your blessings on, education. Pray for these deliberations here in judiciary. In your name, we pray. Amen.

Amen. Alright. Let's see. Noel, you wanna come up and do yours? Sure.

Excuse me. Representative Williams.

I'll be here for

a question, mister

chairman. Okay.

Whichever one you got you. I will

I will be kind and, just just take that, from representative Kelly. This bill is l c four seven four nine three four. This has to do with the Cordele District where I live. Superior court judges, and the Cordele Judicial Circuit, all the judges in the area sent me a letter saying, please change these dates or or have this enacted. So, basically, I know you have heard the phrase of this being a simple bill.

Well, the Cordele Circuit, Ben Hill County, which is Fitzgerald, would

like

to change their dates to January 1 and July 1. For Crisp County, which is Cordele, January 1 and July 1. And then Dooley County, which encompasses Vienna, Pinehurst, Unadilla, and that's representative Patty Stinson's district. That would be January 1 and July 1, and the same for Wilcox County, Mhmm. January 1 and July 1.

Okay. And that's that would be effective 01/01/2027.

Okay. Is this being done because the code says or the code set the terms early on? Is that what's going on?

Yes, sir.

Because,

And and all the judges requested this.

Alright. When, my father became judge in the mountain judicial circuit, he did it by judicial order, and I did it by judicial order in the Anoda circuit. So Well, this came

by order by the judges in in my district, sir. You do.

That's right.

Alright. And you can call John Pridgen.

It's his fault.

Yeah. That's right.

Alright. Alright. Anybody have any questions?

Vice chair? Isn't it true that, UGA professor Perry Sentell grew up in that, circuit and then Walter George,

Mercer Law School? Yep. You're correct. And George Busby.

Okay. Alright. And who's got 14 over there?

Just real quick. Thank you for bringing this bill. Represent or chairman, just want you to know we've also been made aware of the situation with your public defenders down there, and I know the chairman's been made aware of it too. We're gonna do our best to help y'all down there for this too because you'll need even more with this change too.

Well, thank you.

Alright. Do I hear a motion?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Alright.

You're done. Thank you. Thank you.

Alright.

You wanna do yours? Sure. Okay. You like for me to go there so

she can stay here.

I think you could stay

here if you want to. Alright. I now call house bill ten forty two. Vice chair reads this. It's your bill if you would explain it, please.

Thank you, chairman Gunnar. And thank you, chairman Gunnar, members of the committee. We got a substitute for house bill ten forty two. The only changes on that substitute were for, for the foreclosure funds, and they were very, minor. This real estate, security and title bill have covers three matters.

The first is like to recognize, representative Kelly's work last year on judicial security. This is a follow-up on that. There was a tragedy in Indiana this year where a judge got shot, at the judge's home. This is a follow-up to make sure that judge's home addresses are redacted both on the address as well as the parcel ID, the spouse's name, and things like that, and phone numbers that could be used on the Internet to figure out where the judge lives. This is a follow-up on that from the judicial counsel.

It's been carefully, vetted thoroughly, vetted through title insurance companies, through the clerks like to recognize, clerk Greg Allen from Forsyth County who's here today and, really appreciate our judiciary and judicial counsel, going through this since last year on that. And this is actually the third judicial security support on the first two and request your support on this. The second component of the bill, we have Matthew Totten from the, real property law section of the State Bar of Georgia. He and his colleagues in that section, which, by the way, is the largest section in the state bar. So we've got a lot of real estate lawyers out there.

They identified an issue with a shortage of special masters under certain real estate special master statutes. There's kind of a mixed bag in Georgia law. Some of them say you gotta live in the county. Some say the circuit. What this does, it says the special master can live in the federal circuit, so that expands that.

There are three federal circuits in Georgia or districts in Georgia, and that expands the, eligible special masters. It's still done under judicial supervision, and so the judge is gonna get to review the qualifications of the special master. The third thing this bill does is right now in foreclosures, the lender who does the foreclosure, they can do a credit bid where they put a number out and then the money is transferred internally, not on the courthouse steps. And that's how 99% of foreclosure trans transactions occur. There's not a bidder, But, the actual bidders at the sale, they are required to bring good funds to the courthouse.

So you either need to have a brief briefcase full of cash or, you know, a an envelope full of cashier's checks on the courthouse steps. And courthouse steps, that may be safe, but getting to and from your car, lawyers have been all around to different courthouses. That's just not a good security issue. It also presents money laundering issues and other things that, have been identified as as risks. So what this does is it allows the bidders at the foreclosure to do a credit bid where they could do a traditional, transfer of money so they're not having to bring cash or cashier's checks, to the closing.

So these are three real estate security and title issues, in this bill that have been carefully vetted through members of the bar and the judiciary and respectfully request your, support for this good bill. Chairman Smith.

To my mentee, I'm sorry I hadn't asked this question before. So if I show up with United States tender currency dollar bills, I can't do it under this legislation, or can I still do that?

You you

can, back at the office. But at the courthouse steps, you can't obligate the bidder to take it there at the courthouse steps.

Although I've got a note that's backed by the United States of America's treasury.

Not on the courthouse steps. K.

K. Vice chair Hong.

Thank you, mister chair. To follow-up with that, so I know you said not at the courthouse steps, But if you and this is a shawl tender certified fund, so you you have to have certified funds. Why would If anybody have certified funds and then

If you were the have

cash later. So you're basically saying you can't have cash.

If you were the winning bidder at the courthouse steps and you say, I wanna pay in cash, you and the, person doing the foreclosure can arrange to have that transferred, in in a way outside the courthouse steps. So, similar to how a closing would go now, they say, here's my brief case full of cash. I wanna pay for the property in cash. There would need to be a deposit with all the forms filled out and a transfer in the certified funds. There's a paper trail for that at a bank which has security and all that.

So you could pay you could still pay for your foreclosure in cash, but you've gotta do it the way you would at a closing where you're gonna have security and a paper trail and not just a briefcase full of cash.

So you can't have cash No. You

cannot you can you can no longer do cash at the courthouse steps under this bill. K. And and to to show the way to do it, if you're the winning bidder at the foreclosure and you've got the briefcase full of cash and you wanna do it, what you would do is the, the lender at the foreclosure and you would arrange for a deposit to be made and for a transfer to be made pursuant to that deposit and all the forms to be filled out showing I wanna pay for this $400,000 townhome in cash, but there would be, arrangements made. So that's a secure transfer of those funds. So you could pay for it in cash.

You just can't do it with anonymous cash on the courthouse steps. You've gotta go fill out the paperwork and have it transferred with certified good funds funds in the same way you would a

real estate closing. Representative Montahan.

Hi, Hey, mister chairman. I'm not gonna say the phrase everybody's expecting me to say right now. We're gonna skip right over that. In Portland County, I know we I mean, just this is not recent. It's over a 100 years ago at this point.

But a lot of old folks, they don't trust the bank. And so I'm trying to think if some of these older folks who and it's changed, y'all. But I think about the ones who put cash in their in their beds, buried in glass jars in the backyard. So they under this, they would not be able to purchase that if they didn't want to use the bank. And I just think of some people in my district who don't even have a bank account.

They're just totally cash people. So so they wouldn't be able able to to to purchase these things. Is that is that right? I just I hope.

No. They they could, but they and the, the lent well, first of all, they've gotta be the winning bidder at the foreclosure. And then they and the the lender would go get that deposit made in a secure way of that money. Okay, and have a transfer made pursuant to that. And they would have to say, you know, here, here's who I am, here's where I live.

Here's my Social Security number, taxpayer ID number, and have all that above board, just like you would in any other transfer of money. But right now, the flip side is the case. A a lender at a foreclosure, if someone is the winning bidder and a briefcase full of cash is presented, the lender can't inquire. So you've got, you know, a lot of, unaccounted for cash, on the courthouse steps that, present security issues, money laundering, and and also it's it's not equivalent. The lender who wins the bid, they credit bid.

Whereas this this would allow the borrower, or the bidders at the sale to credit bid and then transfer the money, later. And, also, this was brought by practitioners who do the foreclosures for all of these reasons. Because the the current system, there have been issues with having the cash, on these transactions. It's sort of become a haven for, unaccounted for cash.

Any further questions? That's right. Let's see. Okay. I got one over here.

Representative Evans.

Thank you, mister chairman. And and like, chairman Smith, I regret not talking to you about this before Mhmm. Representative. But foreclosure attorneys asked for which for who? Are we talking about people that represent banks?

Are we talking about people that represent consumers? Are we talking about people that represent both? Because one of the things that I think is just crystallizing for me is that we're potentially cutting out people that don't bank. But then I'm also thinking and I and I don't do this, so I don't understand. But logistically, it might be easier for me to have a a I hate to use the word bag of cash, but it might be easier for me to have a bunch of cash with me than it would be for me to have a certified check for an exact amount amount that I'm gonna need when I'm bidding.

And we're giving the banks an incredible leg up because they get to use credit so they can go whatever amount they want. Whereas if I've got a if if I've gotta have a certified check instead of being able to have cash or pull together people with me, that's

it

just feels a little bit unfair, and I'm a little bit concerned that we are not thinking through this all the way with, we're we're thinking maybe we're getting we wanted to be a little more logistically easy, but we might be really hurting

consumers here. Okay. McCullough Ramer, which does a high number of foreclosures in Georgia, that is who pointed this issue out. The creditors currently can credit bid, so this doesn't change it for them. And credit bid is you put your bid in and then the transfer is done after the transaction is completed.

So lenders currently do not have to bring the money there, but their books show the transfer of the money following the sale. The, on the borrower side, on the other hand, they are required now to have either cash or cashier's checks, not not certified checks, cashier's checks. So if if you lose one after you park your car or you're in the elevator, you're walking across the street, if you lose a cashier's check or if a thousand dollars falls out, it's gone. It's lost. Or if you get mugged.

However, what this would do is it would let the borrowers do the same thing the lenders can do now, which is credit bid with the money changing hands later. Right now, the borrowers are required to have funds. I think that's something that, there are some people who only like to use cash, and they certainly can deposit the cash and have the transfer. But right now, they can only do cash or only do cashier's checks.

And I

think there are probably more people who are excluded from participating in foreclosures through only being able to do that than who would have credit the ability to do credit bids.

But it doesn't sound like the consumer, a non bank purchaser could do a credit bid.

I mean, they're thinking right now.

Right. I know. But it sounded like you were implying that they can now after this. They've gotta have certified funds, which means they've gotta have an exact amount. They've gotta know what the bid's gonna be.

Well, that's how they right now, I mean, if the if the winning bid is 335018¢, They've got to have that exact amount now in either cash or a cashier or, yeah, cashier's checks. What this would allow them to do is to say, hey. I've been saving money for ten years under my mattress. I wanna pay you with that, and they'll say, listen. We let's get that deposit and transfer, and you've got the highest bid.

But it would change hands through the certified funds.

But you'd have to know that before you got there. You'd have to know that before you got to the steps.

The the the bid? Well, the lenders are prohibited by law to publicize the bid before the the sale. So right now, that would chill the bid under Georgia foreclosure law.

So

No. What I'm saying is you don't bid you don't bid till you get there. Right?

Correct.

And so I've gotta know I've gotta I've gotta guess right. I've gotta have my certified check. Let let's say I think, you know, I think the winning bid's gonna be a $100,000. I got my $100,000 check. If it's a 100,005, I can't pull $5 out of my pocket.

You bring up a good point. Right now, the way the practitioners say they do it is the borrowers or the, the bidders will bring increments. They'll have, like, $2,020,000 dollar cashier's checks, and very few of them bring cash, but some of them do. But usually, they'll have cashier's checks. They'll have them in increments.

So they'll show the, the person doing the foreclosure. Here's my good funds, and they'll they'll have to get change back there. I mean, it's it's a mess. Right? No other state does it that way.

This would allow the sale to occur and for the the winning bidder and the foreclosure, at, person doing the foreclosure, I'd say person because it's not required to be a lawyer right now. Mhmm. And they would, be able to, arrange for the money to be transferred and certified funds. It doesn't have to happen on the courthouse steps.

Okay.

So you have, all the documentation that you would at a traditional real estate closing.

Remind me why it is we don't wanna do cash anymore.

Safety. Safety is the biggest one.

Safety for who?

For the, both the, the people who were bidding and the people who were accepting the money. So you got two parties.

Okay.

And then number two, money laundering. You know, you have, the these issues with large amounts of, you know, unaccounted for money without a paper trail. The the custom of, you know, the, the lender being able to credit bid. This gives the borrower and the bidders the ability to credit bids, so it levels the transaction, playing field and then also, fear of money getting lost. You know, if you're bringing those 20 cashier's checks or large amounts of money, if it's lost, it's lost.

Whereas if it's secure, no money is gonna get lost through a criminal act or, you know, somebody dropping a cashier's check.

Last question. Is that happening?

I would I would defer to the the folks out in the market, but, these are the issues they have asked for this to be, updated for security and other reasons.

Representative Kelly. Thank you, miss

thank you, mister chairman. Chairman reads out. I think I understand the security aspect. I think it's a unsecured transaction for the people who take the take the funds on behalf of the lender, especially if it's cash. And I I understand the liability of what it would be like to carry on $300,000 cash.

I know we have to do it, but I understand it. And I also understand the the risk that could pose to someone wanting to bring $300,000 to a sale. And I I I don't think we can address the problem of the unbanked person. That's I don't think we can solve that in this this bill. Somebody wants to be unbanked.

I understand that that may create a problem without a a foreclosure. But if you're someone who, like, 99.99% of Americans who do bank, or use your credit union, What does it look like to say that you have funds certified by? If I have, you know, x amount of money in my account that's liquid, I'm assuming that means me just coming with some kind of statement from my financial institution that they're going to honor my bid up to. Is that what that looks like? Like, that's what I'm trying to understand.

If I'm not bringing funds to the transaction and we're gonna close it in a separate manner, what does that look like, and how does that prevent Trey Kelly from bidding on a house when he need his when he needs Mark Montahan money to buy it?

It. Alright. Right now right now, a cashier's check is required, which is a

cashier's check. That means you have the money in the back.

So certified funds means that, you it's more like a check. You have shown your bank, sufficient cash or credit in order for them to give a certified check to complete a transaction. So I believe more people would be able to get certified funds than a cashier's check or a briefcase full of cash.

So does the bank send me with what looks like a cashier's check? It's just not called a cashier's check, and it says x amount on it, and then I can bid all the way up to that amount, and the bidder will take that as long as you

no. What this what this bill does is it allows you, the winning bidder, and the person conducting the foreclosure to confirm the funds, you can say, I will get you the cashier's check-in that amount. You know, I have those funds, and they can complete it, you know, back at the office or, you know, at the, the lawyer's office, or the bank's office. It it's more of a conventional transaction.

Would it not make less to close? That that's what I'm kinda trying to figure out in my mind is I thought one reason why we wanted to show up with cash or a certified check to a foreclosure auction was to make sure that the lender got rid of the property in a fairly secure and quick manner without having to question whether I actually had the funds to back up my purchase.

Well, if that was the intent, that is not working because ninety nine percent or more of the current foreclosures, the lender gets the property back and there's not a bidder. The credit bid is what wins. So this this arguably would give more of an ability to bid with funds at a bank or with credit than you do right now. I mean, it is a burden for somebody to have to take cash to the courthouse steps.

K. I'm gonna still think through through that piece of it because it just fundamentally shifts, I think, you know, how we're doing foreclosures in my mind. And but you mentioned that starting on line 29 that lenders currently have the ability to submit credit bids. That's what they're doing today? Correct.

And how are they how do they have the authority to do that today? Because lines 29 through 33 are all new language. And so if they have the ability to credit bid today, why do we have to put it in here again?

Well, through, all the foreclosure litigation that we've had over the years, either common law or by statute, lenders currently are authorized to credit bid. So this Or the documents.

Okay. So this is codifying either contractual Correct.

Or or Or the custom.

Or okay.

The industry industry custom in Georgia. But there's there's extensive there are reported cases that recognize the lender's ability to credit bid at foreclosures in Georgia. This puts

judicial opinion and and and language of the instrument of which secures the property.

That's right.

That's on. Thank you.

And this this gives the borrower and bidders the same opportunity to credit bid. Okay.

Any other oops. Any other questions?

I apologize. Did you just say borrowers will now be able to credit bid?

Yes.

Where is that?

This this, method of, credit bidding will go to everybody under this language?

Well, it says the holder of the security instrument or its designated representative. It doesn't say any the borrower unless I'm just missing the word somewhere.

Well, the bidder, the winning bidder. The winning bidder can also present the funds through a, credit bid.

Point me to that language. Are you saying it's an existing code?

No. They definitely cannot do it now, and the creditor definitely can do it now. Purchasers at judicial sales shall tender certified funds issued by or certified by any financial institution insured by the FDIC, or the, federal savings loan in amount no no no less than the amount of the purchase price provided, however, in the other language there. That that language going in code that allows the winning bidder to work with the creditor to present the funds in a way that's more like a real estate closing, which frequently has, credit bids and and the money being presented at the transaction.

I don't I don't I don't read it. Where's the language that says that? It just doesn't seem to say that.

Well, it's the certified funds language. Certified funds issued by a financial financial institution. The purchaser at the judicial sale can bring the certified funds or shall tender certified funds from a financial institution in the amount of the purchase price.

Just thinking about how I've never been a judge like like our esteemed chairman here, and others. But we're using certified funds up at the top to describe how a purchaser, a consumer purchaser, might use credit bidding, and then we're using the word credit bid for the bank. I I don't think a judge is gonna read those two Alright. Those phrases the same.

And I I think we've entered some questions that, we've got some representatives who were prepared to testify about it on.

Okay. But if we I mean, just for our purposes of our committee, if we mean that we want multiple people to be able to credit bid other than just the bank, we need to use the same language for the for those people too.

And by credit, it is transfers of money in in with a paper trail with a financial institution. Okay.

Okay. Your your, your phone a friend can come on up. Alright. Vice chair Hong. You you had a question?

I will reserve if we I didn't realize that we had tested.

Alright. I just if you would introduce yourself and

Good afternoon. My name is Nick. I'm a senior partner at McCullough, Ramer, Liebert, Pierce, and we, practice foreclosures and real estate, closings, litigation, general practice. So, my firm had, recommended some of the language in the bill, so I thought it might take a minute to clarify some ambiguities. So first off, representative Reeves, I think where some of the language is getting kind of all jumbled together is transfer certified fund credit bid.

So the intent was not to allow necessarily credit bidding by anyone other than the foreclosing lender because what that term represents is credit for the total amount of the indebtedness. So to representative Evans' point earlier, you could not bid over the indebtedness. Banks can't just go bid whatever amount they desire. So instead, what this amendment would allow is for a wire transfer and, presumably, in advance of the foreclosure. And what is going on now in, Georgia and many other states as online practices are becoming, you know, more widespread, what some of these auction companies are doing is they are allowing bidders to register in advance and transfer money in advance into an escrow account.

And so, thus, those become certified funds. So using the analogy of of the certified checks in certain increments, you might transfer 200,000 in advance, and you could bid up to that amount. So this would open up the possibility of more people being able to bid because now you're not reliant solely on just walking up with a briefcase full of cash or cashier's checks. And I'm trying to think of so I I I hope that clarifies the idea of credit bidding, who can bid, when, where. Go ahead.

Mister chairman, question for mister Rollator. What does certified funds issued by financial institutions mean, and why is that different than what's done today? What are you obligated to do today under the law, and why did you ask for the certified funds for a

financial institution language? Sure. That broadens the, possibilities, because previously or currently, the statute spells out cashier's check or certified check. So this way, we're covering those options as well as money order wire transfer done in advance. It it allows for anything under that broader definition.

Yeah. If I may have have a follow-up. The situation where somebody has cash that they wanna use to purchase, a property, How is that handled today, and how would that be different under the language you've requested?

Sure. So today, the bidder has to show up with the cash in advance. They must then, at the close of the auction, count all of that money. So if we're talking $5.06 figures, you've gotta count all of it. There's no way to check for counterfeiting anything of that nature.

So under this proposed amendment, cash would need to be deposited in an institution prior. I I recognize, you know, the concerns regarding closing off access. One option could be imposing some sort of, monetary ceiling. So for example, under Georgia's good funds law that exists currently, there's a $5,000 limit. So you might say something like that where we're striking a balance between security, all these other concerns, and also, you know, practicality, assuming that we're not going to have many cash transactions over a certain amount.

Well, I thought this was gonna be a short one. Alright. Representative Kelly.

Thank you, mister chairman. I understand having certified funds to where I could come to an auction and say, this is what my bank has just said I have in my account. Let me bid up to this amount. I think that's fair. What I don't know is fair is that I have to wire money from my account to sit in an escrow for a period of time that is inaccessible to me, maybe for even an extended period of time, should I not be the winning bidder.

I think that disproportionately impacts a nonsophisticated purchaser versus maybe a sophisticated, maybe institutional, or even corporate purchaser of foreclosures, closures. And that gives me serious pause because the average person, if they do show up with a $100,000 in cash or cashier's check and the sale doesn't close, they still got those funds sitting immediately available for them to use. That may be every dollar they have in their account that that day, but they're willing to do it on if they're able to buy a house. But what I don't like is the fact that I may have to wire that money a day in advance, two days in advance, whatever the the bidder's asking for, and then the bidder may not even be able to give that money back to me, make it available in my account for two, three, four, or five days should I be unsuccessful in my purchase. And I think that favors those individuals who I believe will largely be institutional or corporate versus those who are just the the the the the local real estate investor who may like to buy a house here and there or just a a a married couple trying to start to buy their first home at a deal, that gives me pause.

And if correct me if my if if my characterization is incorrect.

No. I I would say it's absolutely correct, but it also represents the current state of the law. So the requirement to tender cash, cashier's check, or certified check is going to require withdrawal from an account for that money. You you can have it and, you know, immediately redeposit. With the wire, the idea would be you you could wire it right back.

But, the the notion How

often does that happen?

Of of wire money. So I can't I can't speak to that because these are

people hold that money in escrow for.

So that is that would be a a component handled by the auctioneer who very frequently is not going to be the foreclosure attorney personally or whomever. So I I can't necessarily speak to to how that is, but that is the current state of things.

It is an option. Go to get gas at a a at a gas station and I run my debit card, it'll put a $100 hold on my account that may not come off for a couple days. That's fine for a $100 for most people, certainly for me. But I I I do share a concern as to how long and I I know it's not the the foreclosing attorneys, you know, situation. It's the auctioneers.

That's what gives me pause is how long would they be able to hold those funds in escrow before they send them back to me. And that's something I think we may need to just tighten up here.

Yeah. And, I mean, it's a it's a great point, but that's where I think the existing law is let's say, you're willing to bid $50,000. You could do that by wire or you can go take out the funds as certified check, and you could do that under the proposed amendment. It's it's not really altering the current state of things. I I think going back to

your Actually, it does because you're striking my ability to tender cash. I I agree with you if you don't strike on line twenty three and twenty four. I think you're absolutely right if it says purchasers at a judicial and you're allowed to say need not tender cash, but as an alternative, may shall tender a cashier's or certified check, which is drawn for. I think if you allow all that along with certified funds or certified, I think that that certainly gets it, but it doesn't address the security issue. But I think it absolutely changes my ability just to to pull a $100 out of my checking account, come down there, sit for an auction for thirty minutes.

And if I don't win win the bid, putting that $100,000 back in my my financial institution and having to get available to go pay for my dinner

that night.

I do think it changes that. It forces me to put money in escrow according to what

you just said. Only if you wanted to pursue that option. So certified funds, meaning immediately readily available as you're describing. And cash, technically, strictly speaking, does qualify as certified funds. So this is encompassing it all.

It's just, I guess, in a a sense not advertising cash.

You

know? It's making it clear that these are the broader alternatives out there. Certified funds includes, a a wire in hand in escrow as one of several options also including cashier's check, certified check.

Okay.

Vice chair Hong.

Thank you, chairman. Did I hear you right when you said, by changing the language that's proposed in this bill, there it it does allow for auction companies from other places other than Georgia. It just opens it up for more people to bid on property. Is that is that correct?

Well, I I I think the idea is cash or certified check, you know, just having that ability is is difficult in general, obviously, as a financial means, but also practically speaking. So and another element is being able to physically be present at a, you know, a given sale. I know sometimes what we will see is, you know, an individual who may be interested in two or three properties, but if they're in different counties, it's not as though they can necessarily attend all of the sales. So what some of these, auction companies have tried to set up is a system whereby you can tender money in advance and then have basically online bidding, but with a representative there. So it's taking place simultaneously, and they have those funds in hand.

That way, that same person could bid on all three properties if they were interested.

And currently so currently, if I come in with cash, the process is I don't have to put it in your escrow beforehand. Correct? Correct. And this language is is gonna take that out.

Okay.

So, essentially, I have to put the money that I was going to bring, the cash that I was going to bring to the auction. I have to first put it into an account. If I don't have an account, I have to open up an account. I have to put my cash in there, and then I have to send it to your escrow before I attend the auction in order for me to participate in the auction.

So that would be however that given auction company sets up their rules for resuming Sorry.

I meant, like, to bid on a at a foreclosure sale.

So, you would simply have to have that cash in a bank account that qualifies under the FDIC or the Federal Savings and Loan Corporation and withdraw as certified funds as cashier's check as opposed to a personal check.

And go through all that process in order for me to show up on Tuesday and say I wanna bid on on that property.

Yeah. That

that's what the vast majority do already. It you know, to be clear, this is something where it the concern is for, you know, a given number of cash transactions that are safety risks, money laundering risks. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has a a new rule that's going to affect the entire real estate practice launching next month about money laundering. And it's it's this sort of concern of preventing transactions that are otherwise difficult to trace. I would suggest that if I think the the the biggest concern here is, you know, limiting this notion of being able to tender cash at all and maybe striking that balance, going back to this notion of, having some sort of monetary limit where that way, you know, if somebody is bidding a a thousand dollars on, you know, some small parcel, small tax sale or what have you, cash might make sense.

Whereas, you you don't want to deal with this risk of someone carrying a briefcase of six figures of cash, and that's also less likely to happen unless we're dealing with one of these risky scenarios, money laundering, security, what have you.

And I understand it's a very, very limited instance where somebody's bringing up a a bag full of cash. But I've I've had clients who continuously buy,

foreclosure

properties by cash. That's just how they do their business. And I I don't think we should be limiting anybody from going into a financial transaction when they have cash. It's still money whether it's cash, whether it's certified. And that's the part that I'm uncomfortable with.

So with that, I'm I'm gonna turn to representative Reeves if I can ask you. Obviously, this has nothing to do with the rest of the bill. If you would be, I I think we've raised some issues. If you would be, open to possibly amending to take section one and two out and for us to have further discussion, if that would be a friendly amendment to you.

If there's if there's any way to reset this, allow the other bills to go and for me to talk to them, I think that that might be a good way to to do that, to, reset this this bill.

Do I hear a motion to table?

Or or table to a later this meeting?

Later this meeting? Alright. Look. We I've got a hard break because, chairman Smith 04:30. You moved to 04:30?

Okay. We got a little more time. I'll do whatever you want. But I think, table is table is the proper motion, I think.

Chairman, so again, I I think I think that we're having issues with line 16 through 33 where, you know, I would I'll just speak for myself. I'm having reservations about sixteen through 33. I I'm okay with the rest of the bill. And so that's why I asked representative Reeves if there is a a move due passed, if you would be, if it would be a friendly amendment for for me to suggest taking out section one and two.

What I'd prefer is to be able to confer with them and see if we can get some language, amended, later today during this hearing. I think we got a couple other bills. I think they can respond to some of the questions that have been brought up. And one thing that hadn't been brought out I mean, no one's bringing cash these foreclosures. So, you know, well, they they buy it from the lender after the sale.

I mean, the lenders get it back 99% of the time. But, in any event, I I instead of sending the bill without this on, I'd prefer to be able to work work with them to see if we can get some language that might satisfy some of the concerns.

I I think

we could do that quickly if procedurally it's possible.

Alright. Then, we're gonna have a meeting on Monday, so I'll call it up on the Monday calendar. Give you all a chance

to work

on it. Alright? Yeah. Alright. Yes, sir.

Thank you, mister Jerma. I I I do wanna pause it before you leave and y'all make these changes. You know, I think there's the middle man aspect that maybe the my colleagues are talking about. I do want us to if if we're gonna make changes to at least consider the, you know, cryptocurrencies here. I think there are quite a few people who, you know, I used a, you know, example from a hundred years ago that people putting in glass jars and, in a mattress.

But I don't know if if if you're after certifiable funds in a way that maybe people are funds that are rather money that people are using, keeping money in a way that's outside of a financial institution today that they that they feel themselves that is safe, inherently safe, having a coin wallet or something to that effect. It may be worth considering, and I hope that these members will, consider thinking about cryptocurrency as part of that transaction. Because I know that a lot of folks now, especially I'm I'm 36 years old. A lot of my friends have a lot of money in crypto. Mhmm.

And they like to trade that for cash from time to time. Maybe that's something that we need to contemplate here as we might allow for the next fifty years.

Sure. Yeah.

And I would just conclude by saying, like, broadly, I think the idea here is to open up more access to more people to bid because that benefits everybody. Obviously, purchasers, individuals, hopefully, you know, this notion of, institutional, investors having advantages in the current system. If you broaden the abilities to buy, then that goes away while balancing the safety risk. It's it's really, you know, frankly, the criminal aspect that we're wanting to keep out and the the just inherent danger of large amounts of cash.

Thank you thank you, mister chairman. Mister Roller, one follow-up question. Lenders who get property at foreclosures sell, there's a vibrant market for that. Right? What in your experience from doing foreclosures in Georgia, what percentage of the foreclosures end up in the creditor getting the property back rather than a bid occurring where the cash or cashier's checks result in a bidder buying it rather than the lender getting it back.

Sure.

It it it varies historically. I would say about, 60 to 75% go back to the foreclosing entity.

K. Chairman Smith.

I mean, although I appreciate this discussion about the percentage, I mean, twenty years ago, these things made by Stanley were basically just what your granddaddy still used. I mean, they have made a comeback. So I just for case in point, just because it's not being used now doesn't mean that it won't come back around and people will, again, potentially, predominantly use cash at these sales.

I hope they come well armed. Alright.

Let's see.

Alright.

Jeremy Camp, are you ready? Mike on your right is active. Okay.

Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here today. I, I'm here to talk about the opposite side of this scenario, which is what brought those properties to foreclosure to start with. No. My bill, which is LC620306S, actually does deal with what happens to the borrowers.

I've been a real estate broker for the past, well, six years, seven years, and I was a real estate agent from 2006. And being in the real estate world in 2006, forward from that point was very great education. There are many times I actually helped individuals who were being foreclosed on by various lending institutions, and I would go out and do something called cash for keys, which basically would give them some seed money if they left the house clean and broom swept, and it was heartbreaking. Most of these people were upside down during the great recession because, they had just their homes were just not valued as highly as they once were. But times have changed.

And now instead of there being a deficit when a property is foreclosed on, typically, there there actually is funds. Now I say all that because sometimes there's not. And I had an individual in my district come to me. This is not a bill that I've worked with attorneys on to start with. I didn't work with any eight associations to start with on this bill.

But this woman, unfortunately, was foreclosed, and she she did have excess funds based on the information she provided me. And she does know now how to access those excess funds, but she, for whatever reason, did not at the time. This bill is a disclosure bill. And I understand when a person is fore they have a packet of information that goes out. And that's why, if you look on lines twenty two and twenty three, the notice shall also contain the following language in bold font.

It goes on line 24. Surplus funds may be considered abandoned property and may be unsheated at the state if you've not do not claim your funds, due to you within a time prescribed, which is currently five years, but is subject to change and should be revised in the future, code sections listed. I think this is important because in the event someone does have excess funds, they the lending institutions, and this is not a jab at them by any means, they typically do a very good job letting people know. But during that time, there's a lot of things happening. I just want it to be on bold print and everyone aware.

Now I say I didn't work with anyone to start with, but I've worked with a lot of people since I put this bill in. I'm very fortunate. Mister Rolator has worked on this. Georgia Banking Association has worked on this. Georgia Association Realtors was kind enough to help me with this as well.

This has been an effort to make sure that everyone's interest has been addressed, but most importantly to me that the person who is probably at the worst point in their life has some idea what to do in case there are funds that that are due to them once this process is completed. And I'm open for any questions.

Alright. Any questions? Okay.

I guess one question would be excess funds mean that is that is funds that are above the debt amount that is placed at the foreclosure. Right?

That that is correct. That would be that would mean that the property sold, when it was foreclosed, it they owed a $100,000 hypothetically. It the property sold for a $120,000. Of course, there are fees associated with the foreclosure. That's just part of legal fees and so forth.

But any monies that are still available should be going back to that borrower. So, they did not completely lose their investment.

And if I may follow-up, mister chairman. So if there's not a bidder, and the lender gets the property back

There are no excess funds.

No excess funds. So having a more vibrant market bidders who were able to, have a bid that exceeds the debt amount that benefits the borrowers.

It it does. And it also satisfies the debt, which the the lender would be going out debt, which the the lender would be going after, obviously. But, I mean, real estate kind of is a up and down market. No one ever saw that 2007 through 2012 would happen in the real estate industry. This is just in response to what's happened 2019 to now.

If no one bids at a foreclosure and the bank has to put the property on their books, is that something that, can lead to the banks, having regulatory problems?

I don't believe so. We could get mister regulator up here if he'd like to come.

But wouldn't they prefer to have cash rather than to have to put real estate on their books?

I can't speak for a mortgage lender as I am not a mortgage lender.

Do you wanna phone a friend?

Yep. Sure.

Bring him up, whoever it is.

Mister Releiter?

You just swing that mic over to me.

Alright. Long time no see. So the the question was, would, lenders prefer for to not sell back to them, essentially?

To get cash rather than to have to take the property back and have the real estate on their books.

Correct. Yes. Because, then then they have to go through the process of marketing it, managing it, and that's not their goal. The goal is just to get it off the books.

Alright. Any questions by the committee? Seeing none, do I hear

a motion? Second.

I hear a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Black sign, those opposed.

Alright. Your bill passes.

Thank you.

Alright. Chairman Bonner, come up. Yeah.

Go ahead. Good good afternoon, mister chairman, members of the committee. Presenting house bill nine seventy nine. That's l c four eight one six five three. And just by way of of setup for the bill as a, some of the groups that I work with includes the Department of Defense, the Office of Military Community and Family Policy.

And what that office does is to, look across the the states and to see, what, what laws may need to be implemented or or in some cases, redacted, to help address the needs of our military installations, those families, and the communities that surround them. And so one of the top priorities, out of the Department of Defense, is to ensure that, the juveniles that, commit offenses on military installations are adjudicated in a juvenile system rather than the federal system, which does not allow for that. And so what, house bill nine seventy nine does is put into put a process in place for our federal military installations to have well, to establish a process of concurrent jurisdiction for the purpose of adjudicating juvenile offenses on our military installations. Essentially, the federal government would cede that jurisdiction to the state, upon request, and then the state does not have an obligation to accept it, but certainly could. And the benefit of this, again, is to adjudicate juveniles within a juvenile system and which would allow them access to all of those, rehabilitation and other things that would not put them in a federal system, which is geared for adults.

And I do have, miss Caitlin Little here with the Department of Veterans Services that may be able to answer any questions that I can't, but also in I believe in your folder is a a letter that spells this out fairly well from miss, Samantha Slaney, who is with that office of family policy with the Pentagon.

K. Would you like to say anything, ma'am?

We're unfortunate that, commissioner Ross was unable to join us this afternoon, but we do have the agency's full support. And if there are any questions, I'd be happy

to answer them. Okay.

The and as it as it mentions in letter, I don't know if you you probably didn't get a chance to read it, but, currently, there's 26 states that have this in place, with Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee kind of pending this legislation. So all certainly, you know, states that have military installations in those.

Representative Kelly. Mister chairman, I was just saying, I think anytime we can get the federal government to give us some power back, we ought to take it. I'd like to make a motion to pass.

Okay. I got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Alright. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you, mister chairman, members of the

committee. Okay. Would you

like that? I like business to the extent. Yeah.

Alright. Representative Jones, you wanna come

up?

Alright. Miss Jones, we're dealing with, LC481506. Is that correct? Correct. Alright.

If you, are ready, go ahead and tell us about your bill.

Alright. Thank you, mister chairman and members of the committee. This bill passed this committee last year, but it was recommitted back to this committee because of the time. We ran out of time. This bill is designed to create uniformity across the courts in Georgia, House Bill five four five, and how appeal transcripts are requested and ordered.

This bill creates a clear statewide rule that all transcripts shall be prepared and filed with the clerk of court, as you can see on lines twenty one and twenty two, and be ordered directly through the court reporter listed on the notice of appeal eliminating inconsistent local practices and confusion. And I have with me my phone, a friend, doctor Vincent Terry, who brought this legislation to me.

Got it. Thank you, mister chairman. Yes, sir. Thank you, mister members of the committee. As representative Jones said earlier, this passed before it also passed, I think, in 2024, the the full house.

It's a piece of legislation where where we file appeals. The appellate themselves was unclear on who we ordered the transcript with. So now this legislation clears it up. In some courts, in Fulton County, for example, they ordered with the judge's staff attorney. In Talbot County, they might order with the clerk of court in Whitfield County, something else different there.

So now it'll make it consistent for us that we would all all of us would order our transcripts directly from, the court reporter, And it it it eliminates us having those issues where we have to go back before judges whether we, adhere to the statue on who we order our transcript for. So it makes it very simple for us to say, we file a motion of, a notice of appeal with the clerk's office, and we order the transcripts from the court reporter. Yeah.

Alright. I believe we got a question. Representative Kelly.

Mister chairman, I was just saying, I remember us passing these bills. It's the same language

Same language.

Motion to pass, mister chairman. Alright.

All those in favor, say

aye. Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you. Thank you.

Bill passes.

Thank you,

mister chairman.

Alright.

Have you got it? Yep. Alright.

Third judge, number one on

the list.

Oh, this is number one? Alright. Committee, I have house bill, twelve fifteen, l c four nine two six zero five. It should be in your folder. This is, adding a judge to the middle judicial circuit.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. It's gone.

You're done. We're done. And that was it. That's all. Thank you.

I got

a bill

in the road.

Alright.