This bill amends existing law to change the recording surcharge charged by county auditors on each deed of trust from one dollar to five dollars, with the surcharge collected at the time of recording. County auditors may retain up to five percent of revenues to administer collection, and the remainder must be transmitted monthly to the state treasurer. The surcharge does not apply to assignments or substitutions of previously recorded deeds of trust. The amendments to RCW 36.22.181 and RCW 43.320.140 direct deposit of those surcharge receipts into a mortgage lending fraud prosecution account held by the state treasurer. Expenditures from that account are limited to criminal prosecution of mortgage lending fraud; only the director of the Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) or the director’s designee may authorize expenditures, and the account is subject to allotment procedures under chapter 43.88 RCW without requiring an appropriation. The DFI is charged with distributing funds and must, in consultation with the attorney general and local prosecutors, develop rules governing the use of the funds. Prefiled 12/24/25 and read the first time 01/12/26 before referral to the Committee on Appropriations. The provided text appears to show only two amended sections and may be part of a larger bill; it does not specify deadlines for DFI rulemaking or include full related statutory history or other potential provisions.

If enacted, anyone recording a new deed of trust will pay a $5 surcharge at recording (assignments or substitutions of already recorded deeds are exempt). County auditors would collect that fee, keep up to 5% to cover their administrative costs, and send the rest monthly to a state account dedicated to prosecuting mortgage lending fraud, creating a steady new funding stream for criminal cases in that area. Practically, borrowers or lenders filing deeds bear the higher upfront cost; county auditor offices gain a small, ongoing administrative fee and a new monthly remittance task; and the Department of Financial Institutions, working with the attorney general and local prosecutors, would control rule-making and spending decisions, likely increasing resources available to local prosecutors for mortgage fraud work. The text does not set a deadline for DFI to adopt rules and appears to be only part of a larger bill, so some implementation details remain unclear.