I was stunned when I got a call from another Ohio attorney telling me that he was told by a title insurer that real estate he was dealing with in Texas was uninsurable because there were quit-claim deeds in the chain of title. He said "they treat them as if they don't exist." It didn't make any sense to me, so I did a little digging. I think I understand the logic of the insurers' position, but it seems like a huge problem that Texas really needs to address.

My last post, Patently Stupid, addressed the pending patent of Freehold Licensing, Inc. - “Springing Interests Flowing From Benefits That Run With Land”. The company has a patent pending on a "real estate strategy" that is basically a covenant that runs with the land and requires the declarant of the covenant to receive a payment of one percent of the purchase price on subsequent sales of the property for a period of 99 years. If you haven't read the post, you should do so. Then, read the comment by Freehold Licensing, which I will parse through below.

Freehold claims that my post was incorrect - that the Texas legislators did not ban the use of the covenant on residential real estate transactions, but only prohibits the buyer from paying the fee - not the seller.

 

Robert, the Texas statute (5.017), crafted in subcommittee after the senate rejected a ban, only prohibits the buyer from paying the fee - not the seller.

I don't know what the subcommittee drafted, or what the senate rejected. However, after reviewing Texas Property Code § 5.017 - I think that Freehold is wrong about that. It appears to me that such covenants are void and unenforceable in Texas, at least as applied to residential property.
 

...

Immediately after the opinion was issued, legislative leaders contacted this office with serious concerns about logistical implications surrounding the rapid implementation of statutorily-mandated SSN confidentiality. Complex problems were faced by county
clerks responsible for decades-old documents that are frequently laden with SSNs. Some clerks were left grappling with transitioning to a law that ensures SSNs are always kept confidential. The real-world consequence was a virtual halt to a tremendous amount of business and commerce in Texas. In response to these problems, a number of legislators have stated their intention to take immediate action to address the issues and conclusions discussed in Opinion No. GA-0519.

In light of these developments, I hereby abate Opinion No. GA-0519 for a period of 60 days in order to allow the Legislature ample time for thorough deliberation and action. During the time of this abeyance, Opinion No. GA-0519 will have no force or effect.

The social security number ("SSN") of a living person is confidential and subject to mandatory exception from required disclosure under section 552.147(a) of the Public Information Act ("PIA"). Distributing confidential information under the PIA is a criminal offense. Section 552.147(b) of the PIA provides an administrative procedure by which a government body may redact confidential SSNs from public information without first obtaining an attorney general decision.

The confidentiality of SSNs of living persons under 552.147 of the PIA applies to all county clerk records subject to the PIA.

Section 552.147 of the PIA does not authorize a county clerk to redact SSNs from original documents maintained in the clerk's records.

When a county clerk redacts a SSN from a copy of a document maintained by the clerk's office, the clerk may label the copy as a "certified copy," but such certification must reflect that SSNs have been redacted.

Prior to posting a record on the Internet, the clerk must redact the SSNs of living persons from any record subject to the PIA.

For purposes of section 552.147 of the PIA, a governmental body may presume that a requested SSN belongs to a living person unless the facts before the governmental body show otherwise.