Justices: Pa. Law Does Not Mandate Recording of Mortgages or Mortgage Assignments
A shorthanded Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that state law does not impose a mandatory duty to record mortgages or mortgage assignments in a county office for the recorder of deeds.
May 02, 2019 at 03:30 PM
5 minute read
A shorthanded Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that state law does not impose a mandatory duty to record mortgages or mortgage assignments in a county office for the recorder of deeds.
With Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd and Sallie Updyke Mundy all recused from the matter, the remaining members of the high court ruled 3-1 in Merscorp v. Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Recorder of Deeds to affirm a ruling by the Commonwealth Court en banc in favor of Merscorp, a private electronic registry of real estate transfers. The ruling tossed out a lawsuit filed by Delaware, Chester, Bucks and Berks counties and their respective recorders of deeds (referred to collectively by the Supreme Court as “the recorders”).
The Commonwealth Court's May 2017 ruling actually adopted a 2015 holding by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a case brought in Montgomery County, that said Merscorp's recording system did not violate Pennsylvania law.
The Commonwealth Court's ruling in the state court case reversed a decision from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas that denied Merscorp's preliminary objections.
The dispute centered on whether Merscorp's business model violates Section 351 of Title 21 (Deeds and Mortgages), which is titled, “Failure to record conveyance,” and states, “All deeds, conveyances, contracts, and other instruments of writing wherein it shall be the intention of the parties executing the same to grant, bargain, sell, and convey any lands, tenements, or hereditaments situate in this commonwealth … shall be recorded in the office for the recording of deeds in the county where such lands, tenements, and hereditaments are situate.”
The recorders had argued that the phrase “shall be recorded” mandated recording, but Justice Kevin Dougherty, writing for the majority, said that interpretation was incorrect.
“Contrary to the recorders' preferred reading, the words 'shall be recorded' in Section 351 must not be read in isolation to require every conveyance (or mortgage or mortgage assignment) be recorded, but rather viewed in context to provide a mortgagee with instructions in the event it intends to safeguard its interest by recording in the county,” Dougherty said. “The process of recording a conveyance, as it has developed in this commonwealth, is essentially a service purchasers and mortgage holders have a right to accept or decline. Although the recorders emphasize a consequence of Merscorp's failure to record is a loss by the counties of attendant recording fees, there is nothing in Section 351 to support the conclusion that the purpose of recording is revenue generation. Instead, our precedent has long recognized the purpose of recording is to protect the purchaser or mortgage holder's bona fide status and 'to give public notice in whom the title resides; so that no one may be defrauded by deceptious [sic] appearance of title.'”
Dougherty added that, by not recording a conveyance or ownership interest, the mortgagee assumes the risk of losing its status and being deprived of property rights.
“An additional penalty for failing to record is beside the point,” said Dougherty, who was joined in the majority by Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and Justice David Wecht.
Justice Christine Donohue filed a 29-page dissenting opinion arguing that the majority's interpretation of Section 351 “represents a pursuit of the 'spirit' of the statute instead of appropriately relying on its plain meaning.”
“Assessing Section 351 as clear and unambiguous—and without the 'implicit “if”' that the majority has inserted—the directive that deeds and conveyances 'shall be recorded' in the office of the county recorder plainly states that these interests must be recorded,” Donohue said.
Donohue also took issue with the majority's characterization of Pennsylvania's recording system as “a service purchasers and mortgage holders have a right to accept or decline.”
“The purpose of the recording system is 'to furnish a permanent record of all titles and muniments of real estate,' and to prevent fraud by providing public notice as to who holds title to real estate,” Donohue said, quoting language from the state Supreme Court's 1842 ruling in McCaraher v. Commonwealth.
“The majority's conclusion is antithetical to the reason for having a public system of recording; it would render the recording system completely ineffectual and useless, as it would be incomplete and fail to 'give public notice in whom the title resides' or work to prevent fraud 'by deceptious appearance of title,'” Donohue added.
Counsel for the counties, Joshua Snyder of Boni, Zack & Snyder in Bala Cynwyd, did not respond to a request comment.
Counsel for Merscorp, Robert Brochin of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Miami, referred comment to his client. A spokesperson for Merscorp did not respond to a request for comment.
(Copies of the 55-page opinion in Merscorp v. Delaware County, PICS No. 19-0532, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)
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
© 2024 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 AllHigh Court Revives Kleinbard's Bid to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
4 minute readJudges Push for Action to Combat Increasing Threats Against Judiciary
3 minute readDispute Over Failure to Accommodate Disability Ends in $900K Settlement
3 minute readPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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