A growing number of individuals—particularly Secured Party Creditors, sovereign citizens, and micronation affiliates—are exploring an alternative property protection model known as the Self-Funded Property Protection Program. This approach aims to replace traditional insurance by leveraging direct financial relationships with state agencies. Participants deposit negotiable instruments, typically structured as $1 million bond blocks purchased for $850 per 10-year term, directly with state treasuries. These deposits, often exceeding twice the property’s value, form the financial backbone of the arrangement.
Central to the program is its foundational claim: depositing bonds and bills of exchange with state agencies (to include the state’s treasury) establishes a binding fiduciary relationship. Proponents assert this triggers state obligations under trust law principles, creating a framework where protection is administered collaboratively between the participant and the state. The program explicitly targets private residences, aligning with the ethos that “a man’s home is his castle,” and excludes commercial properties.
Claims processing is designed as a streamlined, two-step partnership. Participants initiate claims for theft, disaster damage, or foreclosure prevention, which are then reviewed by the relevant state agency. This dual-approval mechanism aims to accelerate disbursements while maintaining oversight. A key advertised benefit is the program’s ability to “eliminate foreclosures or evictions” by acting as a mortgage-satisfaction contingency.
Documentation underpinning the program includes executed bonds, negotiable instruments, UCC filings, IRS notices, and Memoranda of Understanding. These instruments function as proof of funds, as state acceptance validates their enforceability.
For real estate professionals, the model presents potential advantages. Lenders may benefit from 200% overcollateralization reducing risk exposure, while title companies and brokers could see streamlined transactions without traditional insurance verification. The program’s emphasis on eliminating premiums, deductibles, and corporate profiteering resonates with audiences seeking financial sovereignty.
Notably, this model operates outside conventional insurance regulations. No state currently has statutes explicitly authorizing or restricting individual self-insurance bonds for residential properties, and existing frameworks prioritize licensed carriers or commercial self-insurance pools. The program’s viability hinges on state agencies recognizing deposited instruments as creating valid fiduciary duties.
As interest grows among sovereign-aligned communities, the program represents an innovative approach to property protection. Its long-term success will depend on demonstrable state partnerships, precedent-setting claims approvals, and broader regulatory acceptance.