OFFICE OF COUNCILMEMBER ANITA BONDS
CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION AND LABOR
THE JOHN A. WILSON BUILDING
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
December 04, 2023
Nyasha Smith, Secretary
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Secretary Smith,
Today, along with Councilmember Vincent Gray, I am introducing the “Defective Deed
Recordation Clarification Amendment Act of 2023.” Please find enclosed a signed copy of the
legislation.
The Property Conveyancing Revision Act of 1994 included a standard curative provision, which
provided for instruments (land title deeds) recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds with a
failure in the formal requisites (such as an acknowledgement, notary seal, etc.) to remain effective.
Curative provisions are important for ensuring the reliability of the public record in cases where a
deed is recorded with a technical error, which could be as minor as a smudged notary seal.
The 1994 Act’s curative provision had two sections: one curing defective instruments recorded
before the act took effect on April 27, 1994, and one curing defective instruments recorded after
the act took effect. However, when the Council passed the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts
Amendment Act of 2022 last year, the Council mistakenly revised the latter section by replacing the
effective date of that provision with the effective date of the new act, without making any change to
the former section. Because the former section applies only to deeds recorded before April 27, 1994,
and the latter section now applies only to deeds recorded after September 21, 2022, this change
inadvertently created a 30-year gap where recorded deeds are not subject to any curative provision.
The DC Land Title Association brought this issue to the Council’s attention, and explained the
challenges created by a 30-year gap in the law. In addition to harming the reliability of the public
record, the absence of a curative provision can create challenges for District residents looking to
insure their land title. Without a curative provision in effect, homeowners whose deeds were
recorded with a technical error during the past 30 years would have to correct the deed by getting in
touch with the previous title-holder; in cases where the previous homeowner has moved away or is
deceased, this process can be difficult and costly.
This bill permanently addresses the issue by replacing the two curative provisions with one section
effective for all deeds recorded both before and after the passage of this legislation. The bill
maintains the same substantive language for curing a defective instrument, provides for the
opportunity to challenge a defective instrument within 6 months of recordation (a provision which
was present in the original 1994 act, but which was removed by the 2022 act), and provides for the
opportunity to challenge instruments recorded prior to this act within 6 months of its effective date
(which is a part of the standard curative provision from the original 1994 act).
Should you have any questions about this legislation, please contact Tosha Skolnik at
nskolnik@dccouncil.gov or 202-724-8025.
Thank you,
Anita Bonds
At-Large Councilmember
Chair, Committee on Executive Administration and Labor
2
 1 ___________________________ ________________________
2 Councilmember Vincent C. Gray Councilmember Anita Bonds
3
4
5
6
7 A BILL
8
9 ________
10
11 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
12
13 ______________________
14
15
16 To amend An Act To establish a code of law for the District of Columbia to validate certain
17 defective grants.
18 BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That this
19 act may be cited as the “Defective Deed Recordation Clarification Amendment Act of 2023”.
20 Sec. 2. An Act To establish a code of law for the District of Columbia, approved March
21 3, 1901 (31 Stat. 1189, Chapter 854; D.C. Official Code § 42-401 et seq.)), is amended as
22 follows:
23 (a) Section 499a (D.C. Official Code § 42-402) is amended to read as follows:
24 “(a) An instrument recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds shall be effective
25 notwithstanding the existence of 1 or more of the failures in the formal requisites listed in
26 Section 499c, unless the failure is challenged in a judicial proceeding commenced within 6
27 months after the instrument is recorded; provided, that an instrument recorded before the
28 effective date of this act may be challenged in a judicial proceeding commenced within 6 months
29 from the effective date of this act.
30 “(b) Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of instruments recorded before the
31 effective date of this act, which have been validated by prior law.”.
32 (b) Section 499b (D.C. Official Code § 42-403) is repealed.
33 Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement.
34 The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement of the Budget Director as the fiscal impact
35 statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975, approved
36 October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a).
37 Sec. 4. Effective date.
38 This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the
39 Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of congressional review as
40 provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December
41 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of
42 Columbia Register.
4