Copies of Documents (7-6, 7-16)

Standard 7-6 prohibits the recording of non-certified copies of documents. Standard 7-16 (Multiple Documents) states in part that "a document otherwise recordable on its own (or a photocopy of such a document) shall not be recorded as an attachment to another document but must be recorded on its own." The comment:

under items 7-6 and 7-16, I have recorded copies of papers for which the original is lost as an attachment to a 183 5 (b) affidavit..I believe that this is proper, but 7-6 seems to prohibit it

These two standards would not prohibit the practice described in this comment. First, 7-16 specifically states "This rule does not apply to Affidavits filed in accordance with MGL c 183, s 5B." So you would still have that as a mechanism for making the document described part of the record. Standard 7-16 is intended to curtail the practice of attaching ancillary documents to a primary document, presumably in an effort to reduce the recording fee. An example of what is prohibited would be attaching an original Death Certificate to a Deed. They should be recorded as separate documents. Standard 7-6 is intended to prevent someone from trying to record a photocopy of a document arguing that the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act makes a photocopy as good as the original - we don't agree with that argument. But both of these rules should contain some supplemental instructions so that everyone clearly understands the intent. As currently written, they are open to several interpretations, a situation that we're certainly trying to avoid.

Attorney Affidavit (7-3)

This standard addresses affidavits filed in accordance with chapter 183, section 5B. After quoting the statute, the standard specifically states that the affidavit must be signed under the pains and penalties of perjury but does not need to be notarized. Here's a comment:

The affidavit form requires a notary to take the aoth, not an acknowledgement, but an oath is needed.

We seem to have a difference of opinion on this one. Our understanding is that an affidavit must be signed under the pains and penalties of perjury but that the affiant need not take an oath to that effect before an officer such as a notary. The person making the comment seems to disagree, so we'd welcome additional comments on this topic. (Of course, the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed. defines affidavit as "a written declaration made under oath before a notary public.")

Social Security Numbers (2-2)

Standard 2-2 addresses social security numbers in documents that have already been recorded. It states that when such a SSN is discovered, the registry shall redact the number, meaning that the entire number will be blacked out. Here's a comment:

How about leaving the last four digits. This protects the identity and allows conveyancers the necessary info to make a determination if the party that filed is their buyer or seller. This is what the PACER system is now doing.

The suggestion sounds like a reasonable one which we will certainly consider when establishing the final version of the standards.

Friday Open Thread

In Blog talk, an "Open Thread" is an opportunity for readers to set new topics for the discussion by using the comment section. If there's something about the Indexing Standards that you'd like to comment upon that does not yet have its own posting, here's your chance to do it. Just use the comments feature of this posting.

Mount & Mt - Saint & St (1-17, 1-22)

These two standards handle last names that include the words (or abbreviations for) Mount or Saint the same way. The standards say that regardless of how the word is handled on the document being recorded (it’s either spelled out or abbreviated), when the registry enters the name in the index, it should be done both ways. For example, if the document contains the name John St. Claire, there would be two index entries made. One would be ST CLAIRE, JOHN and the other would be SAINT CLAIRE, JOHN (even though SAINT was not spelled out on the document.

Thus far, two registries have made known their opposition to this rule:

1-17 and 1-22 Same rule for St. and Mt.- just for the record, I do not agree with these items being a part of the Standards. Who are we to determine how a person spells their name? I believe that the name should be indexed as it appears on the instrument. Does anyone else agree with this?

And this

I must agree with [the previous comment] regarding the Mount, Mt and St, Saint issue. We never addressed the already accepted standards, yet they were changed. I don’t think we should change anyone’s legal name. We had a situation here with spelling out Saint when his name was St Germaine and we had problems.

My view: I don’t see how this could be considered “changing someone’s name” when the rule requires the registry to index it both ways – exactly as it appears on the document (whether that’s abbreviated or spelled out) and then a second time using the other option even though that’s not how it appears on the document. Doing it this way increases the amount of work the registry must perform but there is a benefit for people using the index. They would not necessarily have to do two different searches when confronted with such names (once spelled out, again abbreviated). I suppose good title examiners would check it both ways regardless of how we say we’ll do it. Anyway, my personal opinion was that we should just enter such names as they appear on the document, but I’m quite sure that at the June registers conference, the association voted to handle it the way the standards are now written. I would urge anyone who has an opinion on this to comment since these proposed standards can still be modified for a compelling reason.

MERS (1-16)

Someone caught an error in Standard 1-16

MERS as stated on the mortgage instruments is 'Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc' not '.....Recordation Systems Inc'.

Yes. Somehow the correct word, Registration, got changed to Recordation which is incorrect. The reason MERS is even addressed is that some registries had been using “Inc” at the end of the name while some had been omitting it. Everyone had always agreed that the name must be spelled out and that the abbreviation MERS should not appear in the index. So, the correct way to index MERS is MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.

Van (1-25)

Rule 1-25 says that a last name that contains Van should be entered two ways, once with Van as part of the last name and again with Van treated as if it's a middle name. Here's a comment we received:

I would like to ask a question regarding indexing of names. All last names that have two separate words, St. Cyr, St. James, La Chapelle, etc. are treated as the last name only. Why on Van Names, Van Buren, Van Richtenhoff, Van Gogh, is Van treated as a middle name also. If indexed two ways, last name Buren, first name James Van and also as Van Buren, first name James, isn't that changing the person's name? In the phone book, these names are all listed under Van only and not under Buren with the James Van listed as a first name. Why double index for the Van names and not the other double last names?

The rationale for this rule is that in one registry district, there was a busy developer whose name was James Van Owen (for example). The registry always indexed his last name as "VAN OWEN." Well "Van" was his middle name, like the old movie actor "Van Johnson" so this person's name was indexed incorrectly. Since it is impossible for a clerk at the recording counter to accurately determine whether such a name is part of the last name or simply a middle name, the Registers Association decided, out of an abundance of caution, that such a name should be indexed both ways.

Bank Names -FSB & NA (1-4)

Here's a comment from a staff member at another registry: We disagree with dropping FSB and NA per section 1-4. We have banks that put on documents changing their name from (example) Fitchburg Savings Bank to Fitchburg Savings Bank FSB (Book 1316 Page 1). We would not feel comfortable reverting back to their old name.

This comment would find support from our general indexing philosophy that says to enter data into the index the way it appears on the document. But there are exceptions. The "XYZ Corporation" is always entered as "XYZ CORP" because the word corporation must be abbreviated, regardless of how it appears on the document. We felt that the presence or absence of FSB or NA on a document had less to do with distinguishing between two different banks (as suggested in the comment's example) and more to do with FSB or NA not being a very important part of the name, for indexing purposes, at least. The Registers Association adopted this standard back at our June 2005 meeting without any controversy. If any readers have strong opinions about this rule (that both FSB and NA be omitted when indexing, please post a comment.

What's This?

Welcome to our Blog. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, Blog is short for Web-Log, a type of online journal about a particular topic. Believe it or not, this Blog is about how documents are indexed in registries of deeds in Massachusetts and it's been created as a mechanisim to share information and comments about the proposed Massachusetts Deed Indexing Standards, Version 3.0 which is to become effective on January 1, 2006. The third draft of this document is now in circulation. If you don't have a copy, you can download one in PDF format from the Middlesex North Registry of Deeds website, www.lowelldeeds.com. As comments about the Indexing Standards are received from other sources (i.e., regular mail), I'll cut and paste them as postings on this Blog and each day or so, I'll make a posting called "Open Thread" which will allow anyone to post anything they want by using the comments feature. which I urge you to do early and often. The more new material is added to this Blog, the more often people will visit it. If nothing new is posted, readers won't return very often. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.