Private Mortgage Registry Tells Pa. High Court Its Users Can't Be Held Liable for Bypassing County Offices
The arguments explored whether parties to transactions have a legal duty to report conveyances of properties to county recorders of deeds, on pain of a liability finding.
September 27, 2018 at 12:03 PM
4 minute read
Lawyers for a private electronic registry of real estate transfers told the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Wednesday that there is no legal mechanism to hold liable parties that refuse to report their transactions with county recorders of deeds.
The arguments explored whether parties to transactions have a legal duty to report conveyances of properties to county recorders of deeds, on pain of a liability finding.
Robert Brochin of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, the attorney representing Merscorp, which electronically records conveyances, said public officials may not find individuals liable if they use a private recorder.
The case was captioned Merscorp v. Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Recorder of Deeds.
“Recording mortgages and mortgage assignments have never been mandatory in Pennsylvania,” Brochin told the four justices who heard arguments in the case.
The Supreme Court in November agreed to hear arguments addressing whether electronically registering transfers “systematically evade” 21 P.S. Section 351, which governs the failure to record conveyances, and whether the county recorders of deeds have standing to bring their claims. According to the questions raised in the Supreme Court's one-page per curiam order, at issue are “many thousands of conveyances” across the state, and “conduct that undermines the public land recording system.”
The position of the recorders of deeds in the case is that Section 351 mandates counties assign and record every mortgage and every assignment. That requirement, the county officials contend, further means Merscorp must pay the recording fees.
Joshua Snyder of Boni, Zack & Snyder, who represented the recorders of deeds from four counties, said the system was envisioned to be “open and public.” Allowing Merscorp to internally track conveyances without registering them with county officials creates a system that is “closed off and private,” he said.
According to Snyder, the case is the most consequential case yet to come before the justices regarding land recordings. He asked the high court to remand the case back to the trial court so discovery could be taken about the intent behind the company.
The justices, however, questioned how the recorders of deeds had any standing to sue over the system.
Snyder responded that, not only do the counties have a financial interest in recording each conveyance, failing to register each transfer can cause confusion and exacerbate problems when title is contested, or a property is foreclosed on. He added that finding in the company's favor would essentially make recording any land transfer optional.
Several justices said that failing to record conveyances seemed to be “at the peril” of the purchaser, who might face problems if the property is sold out from under them. But that alone does not make the law mandatory, or give the counties standing, several justices suggested.
“If someone tries to sell a property from under me, then it's a problem, but I don't have to record,” Chief Justice Thomas Saylor said.
After Justice David Wecht told Merscorp's attorney it appeared that Pennsylvania had not wanted an “opaque” process for recording deed, Brochin agreed.
“All true,” Brochin said. “But you don't violate the statute by not doing it. Why do people record the deeds? So you can preserve your title claims.”
Toward the end of arguments, Saylor noted that the law does not identify when the deeds must be recorded, or who is responsible for recording the transfer. He also noted there is no enforcement mechanism outlined in the law.
“There's a lot of things missing for this to be considered a mandatory regime,” Saylor said.
Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd and Sallie Mundy did not hear arguments in the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllK&L Gates Sheds Space, but Will Stay in Flagship Pittsburgh Office After Lease Renewal
Commonwealth Court Overturns Award of Damages Assessed Against Landlord on Claims of Unlawful Discrimination
6 minute readWholesale Real Estate Transaction Transparency and Protection Act Takes Effect Jan. 4: What You Need to Know
Trending Stories
- 1Morgan Lewis Says Global Clients Are Noticing ‘Expanded Capacity’ After Kramer Merger in Paris
- 2'Reverse Robin Hood': Capital One Swarmed With Class Actions Alleging Theft of Influencer Commissions in January
- 3Hawaii wildfire victims spared from testifying after last-minute deal over $4B settlement
- 4How We Won It: Latham Secures Back-to-Back ITC Patent Wins for California Companies
- 5Meta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit from Trump after Jan. 6 suspension
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250