Georgia CommonsHouse · Introduced · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 1042: Real Estate Security and Title Act; enact
Last action February 20, 2026 · House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute
House Bill 1042 would let foreclosure lenders submit credit bids at judicial sales, expand privacy protections for judges' spouses on public records, and tighten qualifications for special masters in quiet title cases in Georgia.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Comm Sub version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
This bill, called the Real Estate Security and Title Act, changes three parts of Georgia law. First, it lets the holder of a foreclosed security instrument (typically a lender) submit a credit bid instead of cash or a cashier's check at a judicial sale, and it adds certified funds and credit union insurance as acceptable payment forms. Second, it expands the existing law shielding judges' and justices' personal information (home address, parcel number, and phone number) from public records so it clearly covers their spouses, and adds new procedures: government entities must flag restricted records, protected people can request access to their own restricted records or authorize a third party to see them, and restrictions can be lifted after the protected person's death. It also creates an exception letting title insurers and their attorneys get unrestricted copies for title insurance purposes. Third, it adds new residency, citizenship, and experience requirements for special masters appointed in quiet title lawsuits.
What the bill does
- Allows the holder of a foreclosed security instrument, or its representative, to submit a credit bid at a judicial sale instead of cash or a cashier's check.
- Adds certified funds and National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund coverage to the list of acceptable payment forms for judicial sale purchases.
- Expands the definition of 'protected person' under Georgia's judicial privacy law (O.C.G.A. § 15-5-110) to explicitly include spouses of current and former judges and justices.
- Requires government entities to mark official record indices, including real estate conveyance records, when personally identifiable information has been restricted.
- Creates procedures letting a protected person access their own restricted records, authorize a third party to view them, or lift the restriction, and allows removal of the restriction after the protected person's death.
- Adds a carve out letting title insurers, their attorneys, and their agents obtain unrestricted copies of records for title insurance purposes, and sets new residency, citizenship, and experience requirements for special masters in quiet title cases.
Who it affects
Purchasers and lenders involved in judicial foreclosure sales, current and former judges and justices and their spouses whose personal information appears in public records, county and state government offices that maintain those records, title insurance companies and their attorneys, and attorneys or judicial circuit residents seeking appointment as special masters in quiet title lawsuits.
Why it matters
Lenders foreclosing on property would gain a faster, cash-free bidding option at judicial sales. Judges' spouses would get clearer legal protection for their home addresses and phone numbers in public records, while title insurers would retain a path to the property records they need, and courts would have stricter standards for who can serve as a special master in disputed land title cases.
Key provisions
- Section 2 revises O.C.G.A. § 9-13-166 to let purchasers use certified funds or a credit bid, and adds credit union deposit insurance as an accepted form of payment guarantee.
- Section 3 revises O.C.G.A. § 15-5-110's definition of 'personally identifiable information' to cover home address, parcel number, and phone number, and redefines 'protected person' to include spouses.
- Section 4 revises O.C.G.A. § 15-5-112 to require flagging of restricted records on official indices within 30 days, and adds new subsections (e) through (j) letting protected persons or authorized third parties access restricted records, letting restrictions be lifted by request or after death, and exempting title insurers and their attorneys from the restriction when providing title insurance.
- Section 4 also makes false attestations under this Code section punishable as perjury under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-70.
- Section 5 revises O.C.G.A. § 23-3-63 to require special masters in quiet title actions to be United States citizens residing in the judicial circuit, Georgia citizens for at least three years, and to have at least five years of experience litigating or opining on Georgia land titles.
From the bill
“the holder of the security instrument being foreclosed or its designated representative shall be authorized to submit a credit bid for the purchase price in lieu of cash, a cashier's check, or certified funds.”
“Have not less than five years of experience litigating or providing opinions on title to land in this state.”
Discussed in meetings (11)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
House Judiciary Committee, February 5, 2026
From 0:20:32 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor presented a substitute for HB 1042 with minor foreclosure-payment changes. The sponsor said it would protect judges' identifying information, expand special-master eligibility to the federal judicial district, and change foreclosure payments to reduce theft, loss and money-laundering risks. Members questioned cash restrictions, access for people without bank accounts, proof of funds and advantages for institutional buyers. The sponsor described the payment change as extending lenders' credit-bidding option to other buyers. A foreclosure-attorney witness clarified that credit bidding would remain limited to lenders, using the debt owed; other buyers could use broader payment methods, including advance wire transfers. The witness said cash would need to be deposited first, but later described cash as technically included in certified funds, leaving conflicting explanations. One member warned that escrow deposits could tie up unsuccessful bidders' savings. The witness could not specify refund timing. The sponsor said lenders regain properties in 99% of foreclosures; the witness estimated 60% to 75%. One member proposed removing the payment sections, while another suggested considering cryptocurrency. No amendment was adopted. The chair deferred the bill until Monday for further work.
House Judiciary Committee, February 9, 2026
From 1:53:32 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter returned with a substitute to HB 1042 following an earlier hearing. The presenter said the judicial security and special master provisions were unchanged. The revised language restored cash as a payment option, retained cashier’s checks, replaced certified checks with certified funds, and added credit unions alongside other financial institutions. The presenter also said the substitute would put into law the existing court-recognized practice of credit bidding. Two committee members questioned whether the wording could still allow cash payments to be prohibited. The presenter said buyers could bring cash, cashier’s checks or certified funds and agreed to clarify the language. A member moved an amendment adding cash to the relevant clause and replacing the remaining reference to a certified check with certified funds. The chair treated the amendment as adopted after a voice vote in which opposition was heard. The committee then approved the amended substitute by voice vote.
House Rules Committee, February 11, 2026
From 0:34:17 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 1042 would protect information that could reveal judges' homes, including tax parcel identifiers, phone numbers and spouses' names. The sponsor cited an Indiana shooting involving a judge and the judge's spouse as a reason for the proposal. The sponsor also said the bill would broaden the area from which special masters can be selected to resolve property-title disputes, addressing shortages of eligible people in some areas at the State Bar's real-property section's request. Finally, the sponsor described changes recognizing credit-union funds in foreclosure transactions and putting court decisions about credit bids into law. There were no questions or recorded action.
House Rules Committee, February 19, 2026
From 0:38:46 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor requested that HB 1042 be returned to the House Judiciary Committee. The Rules Committee later approved that referral after a motion and second, with no opposition voiced. No substantive explanation of the bill was given.
House Judiciary Committee, February 19, 2026
From 0:23:56 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The committee initially deferred HB 1042 while awaiting a revised copy, then returned to it later. The sponsor said Rules had sent it back after additional consultation produced a narrower exception to confidentiality protections for judges’ information. The sponsor explained that attorneys, title examiners and title insurance companies could certify their need to review protected records to verify a judge’s identity for real estate closings and loans. According to the sponsor, this would protect judges’ addresses while allowing title work, unlike an earlier proposal the sponsor considered too broad. The sponsor requested changing the term personal information to personally identifiable information for consistency elsewhere in the bill. The committee adopted that amendment and approved the amended bill by voice vote, with no opposition heard.
House Rules Committee, February 25, 2026
From 1:03:21 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter said HB 1042 had returned from the Judiciary Committee with a new subsection allowing title examiners to review records while retaining safeguards for judges' safety. No questions or further action were shown.
House Insurance Committee, March 20, 2026
From 0:39:54 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: A committee member explained that HB 1042 had been incorporated into the substitute for SB 230. The member said it would protect judges’ home addresses through confidentiality provisions, mitigate related insurance claims and address title insurance. As a reason for the protections, the member described an attack on an Indiana judge and the judge’s spouse after accomplices obtained the home address through public records. The member said the House had carefully reviewed the measure. No questions specifically about these provisions followed. The committee approved the combined substitute by voice vote, with no numerical count stated.
- Read aloud: House floor session, January 28, 2026 (legislative day 8), 0:35:42
- Read aloud: House floor session, January 29, 2026 (legislative day 9), 0:56:04
- Read aloud: House floor session, February 10, 2026 (legislative day 16), 0:48:30
- Read aloud: House floor session, February 20, 2026 (legislative day 22), 0:48:14
Status timeline
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Withdrawn, Recommitted (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Matt Reeves (R, HD-99)
- Stan Gunter (R, HD-8)
- Tyler Paul Smith (R, HD-18)
- Stacey Evans (D, HD-57)
- Omari Crawford (D, HD-89)
- Trey Kelley (R, HD-16)
Topics
- foreclosure sales
- judicial privacy
- real estate title insurance
- public records
- quiet title actions