Lowell Deeds

June 30 is the end of the fiscal year. Traditionally this is one of the busiest days at the registry of deeds. This week is shaping up to be no different. Tuesday we doubled our daily recording average, so we are preparing for heavy volume. Remembering the Boy Scout’s famous motto… “Be prepared”… We have re-assigned staff and issued running sneakers (just kidding). A good tip… we are busier in the afternoon than in the morning. In other words… coming early will probably save you time. This is especially true at the Middlesex South Satellite office which, regardless of the day seems to get busy later… And don’t forget our three set limit. If you have additional sets you will have to get back in line. We will do our best to move people “in and out” as quickly as possible. See you at the recording counter.

A consequence of recent legislative interest in new legislation designed to protect privacy and prevent identity theft has shed new light on existing laws that limit access to public records. At last count, we have discovered at least sixty statutes that restrict or limit access to some public records. Thus far, this has not been an issue at the registry of deeds, but as privacy concerns continue to mount, there is a distinct possibility that registries will have to alter their practices in a way that will have an enormous impact on conveyancing. Some cases, such as redacting social security numbers, are relatively benign, but in other instances, we may have to remove entire documents and large portions of indexing information from public view. The target of a stalker who is admitted into the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP), for example, must have all records showing his address removed from public view. It was my understanding that registry of deeds records were initially exempted from this program, but I have heard that this might change. So hypothetically, if someone who owns real estate goes into the Address Confidentiality Program and registry of deeds records are included, we would have to remove all records that identified the address of that person – let’s call him John Doe – from our records. Here’s how I think it would work: we would print the existing index entry and the document to preserve the official record. We would then go into the index and remove the town code and address of the property. This wouldn’t just be for deeds, but would also include mortgages, discharges, MLCs and anything else with the address on it. Then, in place of the document image, we would scan a notice that said something like “The document at this book and page is part of the address confidentiality program: please see the registry staff to view the document.” The customer would then go to a designated place within the registry, fill out a form explaining why he needed to see the document, present personal identification, and only then be allowed to view the document (we’re not yet sure about whether we can provide a copy of the document). As I said, this is only theoretical right now, but the implications of pulling some documents out of our public records and maintaining “two sets of books” are significant and should be thoroughly discussed by the bar.

Recently, it was revealed that computer hackers might have jeopardized the security of over 40 million credit cards. The event has put the issue of computer & identity security on front pages across the country. Last week Hewlett Packard began shipping a laptop computer, which attempts to address computer security. The “n6125 notebook” PC comes with a fingerprint reader as standard equipment. Although not the first, HP is certainly the biggest computer maker to use biometrics. Biometrics refers to the identification of a person based on physiological characteristics. This method of identification is superior to PINS and passwords in a number of ways. First, the person must obviously be physically present at the point of identification. Second, it eliminates the need to remember a password. By replacing PINs and passwords, biometrics techniques can potentially prevent unauthorized access to ATMs, networks and other vulnerable computer devices. Various types of biometric systems are in use today. The most popular ones are fingerprint matching, iris matching and face scanning. The n6125 notebook is intended for business use, but you can be sure it will not be long before the same technology is in your home computer.

First, another reminder that the masslandrecords site will be down all weekend beginning today at 5 p.m. and is scheduled to come back on line Monday morning. This past week at the Registers’ conference, we reviewed the existing Deed Indexing Standards that went into effect on January 1, 2000 and considered some new ones. Aside from the Social Security related standards I wrote about yesterday which go into effect this July 1, the new standards are only in draft form so far. We do want to circulate them as proposals and receive feedback. One proposed rule is that we require that the property address (the number, street and town) be written in a prominent place on the first page of all deeds, mortgages and discharges. We’re confident that the law requires this information already, but specifies that it be in the left margin of the document. Because it’s tough to use a computer to place type vertically in a margin when the text of the document prints horizontally, we’ll allow the address to be oriented the same way as the rest of the text. Another new rule will deal with plans that are attached to documents presented for recording (as opposed to plans that are recorded as plans). When a plan or any other document is recorded as an attachment to another document, the attachment must be on white paper and must be no less than 8.5 inches by 11 inches and no more than 8.5 inches by 14 inches in size. The reason for this rule is that many customers present us with condominium deeds that have floor plans as attachments, but the plans are often on mylar (plastic) or are on 11 inch by 17 inch paper. In both cases, we must reproduce the plan in a way that allows us to scan it. Once this rule goes into effect, that’s a burden the customer will have to bear. There are a few other of these types of rules, but there also will be major sections containing document formatting standards and on electronic recording standards.

First of all, the www.masslandrecords.com website will be down for equipment repairs this coming weekend from 5 p.m. on Friday, June 24, 2005 to 7 a.m. on Monday, June 27, 2005, so get your work done now and enjoy the weekend. Today’s Globe had a story on the business page about how some social security numbers are present in documents on registry of deeds websites. We’ve been aware of this situation – and its implications for identity theft risks - for some time. We have refused to record documents containing social security numbers, requiring the person doing the recording to cross out the number and, when someone calls our attention to a number that already exists in our system, we have deleted the social security number from it. Of course, we have not applied either of these policies to state and federal tax liens although the full social security numbers shouldn’t be there, either. Some quickly say “who would want to steal the identity of someone who is a tax delinquent” but the tax delinquent of 1985 could easily be the prominent businessman of 2005. His economic situation has changed significantly, but his social security number hasn’t. Over the past two days, the majority of the Commonwealth’s registers and assistant registers of deeds met at our annual meeting. One of our big undertakings was to revise and update our Deed Indexing Standards which have been in effect since January 1, 2000 (more on the updates will appear in this blog over the coming days). But given the legitimate concerns of identity theft, we formally adopted a statewide policy, to be effective July 1, 2005, regarding social security numbers in registry documents. Here it is: (1) No document containing a social security number shall be accepted for recording. This rule shall not apply to state or federal tax liens or to releases of state or federal tax liens and (2) Anytime a social security number is discovered in a previously recorded document, the registry of deeds shall take such steps as are necessary to redact such numbers, however, the registry of deeds shall retain a copy of the original, un-redacted record in a non-public file. This rule shall not apply to state or federal tax liens or releases of state or federal tax liens.

We finished the first phase of the Registered Land back scanning project last week. All 230,000+ of Middlesex North’s Registered Land documents are available on the computer system. This project involved the in-house scanning of over one hundred thousand documents. A daunting task to say the least, especially, when you consider that the scanning process includes document preparation, image creation and re-filing, all time consuming jobs. The second phase of the project involves scanning Registered Land documents 1-12,500 and 70,000- 80,000 into the ACS system. These instruments “are” available on the computer but on the registry’s old imaging system called Image Inquiry. We have already begun scanning these and expect to finish the project by the end of August.

Mercer Human Resource Consulting released a survey today listing the most expensive cities in the world in which to live. Topping the list for the second year in a row is Tokyo. Japan also boosts the second most expensive city in the world, Osaka. The survey was conducted in March comparing the costs of more than 200 hundred consumer items. As an example… the cost of a cup of coffee in Tokyo is $3.80 compared with $3.40 in New York City (you can get a bagel and coffee for that kind of money in the Merrimack Valley). Interestingly enough, not one US city made the top ten list. In order the ten most expensive cities in the world are: Tokyo, Osaka, London, Moscow, Seoul, Geneva, Zurich, Copenhagen, Hong Kong and Oslo. New York, which is the most expensive city in the United States, placed 13th in the world. In the US, the Big Apple is followed by Los Angeles (44th in the world), San Francisco (50th in the world), Chicago (52nd in the world) and Washington DC (78th in the world). Are you wondering which major US city is the cheapest to live in? It’s Winston Salem, North Carolina. Oh yeah, it is the 119th cheapest in the world.

Saturday’s Boston Globe had a prominent front page story that proclaimed the number of foreclosures were up dramatically this year when compared to 2004. A follow-up story in Sunday’s Northwest Weekly section of the Globe focused specifically on Middlesex County were foreclosures were up 34%. These stories both came as quite a surprise to me since I’ve been tracking these things very closely. When I got to work on Monday we looked up the statistics and, for the Northern Middlesex District at least, the number of foreclosures was actually down in 2005 compared to the same period in 2004. For example, during the period from January 1, 2004 to June 15, 2004, there were 30 foreclosure deeds recorded in Lowell. For the same period in 2005, only 24 foreclosure deeds were recorded. Another indicator of foreclosure activity is the number of Orders of Notice recorded. (The article did a very good job of explaining the Order of Notice process and pointed out that, while the majority of such filings do not ultimately result in foreclosure, they are an indicator of a distressed situation for the home owner). Well in our 5.5 month period of 2004, we recorded 180 Orders of Notice. For the same period in 2005, we only recorded 153. While our statistics don’t corroborate the Globe articles, common sense – or at least my version of it – certainly does. With soaring home prices, interest only adjustable rate mortgages, and an economy that’s never really moved past the “just puttering along” stage, it’s inevitable that the incidence of foreclosure will move up rapidly – just not quite yet.

One of the less appreciated benefits of state employment is that you learn a lot about some of the more obscure holidays in Massachusetts. Of course this is because some of these days are actually observed as holidays by some state offices, but that’s besides the point. For instance, March 17 is most commonly known as St Patrick’s Day, but it’s also Evacuation Day which celebrates the British evacuation of Boston in March of 1776. (That the British actually left a week or so after March 17th makes the holiday’s observation on St Patrick’s day more than a mere coincidence). Patriot’s Day may be best known now for the Boston Marathon and an 11:00 a.m. Red Sox game, but it’s also the anniversary of the first fighting of the American Revolution on April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord. (Historians in Lowell also remember April 19, 1861 as the date that three soldiers from Lowell were killed in Baltimore, making them the first men to die in the American Civil War). And that brings us to Bunker Hill Day – today. On June 17, 1775, more than 3000 British soldiers under the command of General William Howe (no relation) attacked a smaller group of Americans who had entrenched on Breed’s Hill (not the adjacent Bunker Hill). While the Americans were not part of a trained army, they were commanded by many combat veterans of the French and Indian War such as Israel Putnam and John Stark. Before Bunker Hill, those who sought reconciliation between England and the American colonies could rationalize Lexington and Concord as an unfortunate incident that got out of hand. But Bunker Hill was a vicious and costly battle – nearly half the British soldiers involved were casualties – that was the point of no return in America’s war for independence. For more information on the Battle of Bunker Hill, please visit the following websites: http://www.masshist.org/bh/;
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/BTSI/Hill/ ; http://www.usahistory.info/Revolutionary-War/Bunker-Hill.html

House Bill 648, now pending before the state legislature, is an attempt to resolve some of the ambiguities that exist in homestead law. The unanswerable question asked most often is “do you have to record a new homestead after you refinance?” The problem is that since a mortgage is technically a deed and a deed dissolves an existing homestead, a new mortgage should dissolve a homestead as well. Many take the opposite view, saying that a mortgage is just a security instrument that does not automatically wipe out an existing homestead. This proposed legislation would end this debate by specifically exempting mortgages from the protection of the homestead. Consequently, lenders would no longer require borrowers to release or subordinate homesteads to new loans. Another area of ambiguity involves property held in trust. This law specifically allows a homestead to be recorded on property owned by a trust where the trustee resides in the property. Now before anyone emails saying “you mean the beneficiary, not the trustee,” the intent of this part of the legislation is to afford the homestead’s protection to those people who, for whatever reason, place their personal residence into a trust but continue living there as if it remains the family home. The final area the new legislation addresses is the rights of spouses and other family members to file a homestead. It says that a homestead filed by one family member also protects the interest of a co-owning family member who also resides in the property. It also allows the combining or stacking of multiple homesteads. In a related matter, we’ve added a new section to www.lowelldeeds.com. It’s called Homestead Forum and we’d like to use it as a place to share thoughts, ideas and interpretations on homestead law and practice. The way the forum works right now, you just send us an email with your thoughts and we cut and paste your thoughts (but not your name) into the forum to create a running dialogue. Please check it out.

In anticipation of the expansion of our electronic recording capability, some of our distant document submitters have asked about the distinction between recorded land and registered land. (Of course the most important thing to remember is to never, never send a registered land document by the electronic recording system). The following is from the frequently asked questions portion of www.lowelldeeds.com: Massachusetts has two separate systems of recording documents related to the ownership of land. These two systems are known as recorded land and registered land. Most property is known as recorded land. With recorded land, documents are recorded in record books in the sequence we receive them, so within a book, one document will probably have nothing to do with the documents that come before it or after it within the same book. You must use the Index to find the relevant documents and interpret them for yourself - the registry of deeds does not become involved in the legal effect of these documents. Remember, that’s recorded land. Registered land is quite different. With registered land the registry of deeds (operating as an office of the Massachusetts Land Court) issues a property owner a certificate of title. The certificate of title is a decree in which the Land Court declares that a particular person is the owner of a particular parcel of property and any document that effects the ownership of that parcel is annotated on the back of the certificate of title. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts guarantees title to registered land, so if a problem occurs, the state reimburses the property owner for any losses. Big problems occur when a document that effects registered land is recorded at the recorded land section of the registry of deeds and vice versa. So if you are to record a document at the registry of deeds, you must-must-must first determine whether the land in question is registered land or recorded land. Although there is no simple rule that you can follow, in most cases, a registered land document will refer to a certificate number or a certificate of title number. If you see anything like that anywhere on the document, it’s probably a registered land document. If you have any questions, please ask a registry employee before you record the document.

We’ll shift gears and write about something other than electronic recording. Earlier today I traveled to Waltham to participate in a meeting of the Massachusetts Geographic Information Council (MGIC). The topic of the meeting was “Prospects for Integrating Massachusetts Land Records Information.” The meeting notice is available at http://www.mass.gov/mgis/mgic_ix.htm which is a link on the website of MassGIS, the Commonwealth’s Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (http://www.mass.gov/mgis/). The PowerPoint presentations that were given are supposed to appear on the MassGIS site in a day or two. The concept is to link information at the registry of deeds which is the most up to date record of the property’s ownership with information at the assessor’s office which contains much more detailed information about the property such as how it is used, what’s built on it and how much it’s assessed for. Best of all, the link between the two databases will be the area maps provided by MassGIS. The first stage will be to add a “GIS” button to records that appear on the registry website so when you view a deed, mortgage or other document about a particular property, you simply click on the GIS button and a map with the parcel highlighted in its center appears along with a variety of tools that lets you display assessor’s information about the lot, the overhead photographs of the area and an almost infinite amount of other data. The next step will be to reverse the route so when you start at the map, you can, with a single click of your mouse, display all registry of deeds records pertaining to that parcel. Best of all is that the technological requirements to make all of this happen are quite simple. The challenge will be to find ways to standardize the data that populates the common fields – names, addresses and book and page numbers – that currently populate the two databases.

The “reject” button on our electronic recording system got a workout today. One customer transmitted nine mortgage discharges to us, but the scanned images left the text of the documents very faded and indistinct, resembling a tenth or eleventh generation photocopy more than the primary permanent image of a land recording office. The variables in these documents – names, addresses, marginal references – all seemed to be in bold print (they were perfectly legible) but I suspect that when these documents were scanned by the submitter, the scanner had some kind of automatic light/dark adjustment activated and the bold print caused the normal print to fade away. Rejecting these documents seemed like a tough call, at first, because the problem wasn’t necessarily a fatal one as would have been the case if the fee was wrong, the document belonged in another registry, or if it was registered land. No, this was a judgment call and it was a close one, but the fact that what we see on the computer screen is the best version of the document we will ever get convinced me that we can only accept high quality scans. As a follow up to last Friday’s post, the ability of a customer to do an up to the minute rundown before submitting time sensitive documents continues to present a challenge. When you come to the registry in person to record, you first stop at a public access computer to do your rundown. Finding nothing of concern, you get in line at the recording counter. At the recording terminal, when the registry clerk enters a name from your document into the grantor index, a pop up box will appear, warning that the same name was entered in the computer within the past hour and identifying the book and page of the document where that name can be found. When this box appears, the registry clerk tells the customer about it and the customer tells us to proceed or to cancel the recording while he investigates further. This works fairly well when the customer is standing across the counter from us (although a disturbingly large number of the people doing recordings don’t have a clue of what we’re talking about). With electronic recording, the same system is in place. The customer can still do a rundown using the Internet rather than our internal public access computers, and the recording terminal will still alert us that the new name was contained in a document recorded within the past hour. The only real difference is that the customer is not standing across the recording counter, but is sitting at his desk hundreds of miles away. Some type of real time chat or instant messaging feature on our computer terminals might allow us to quickly check with the customer, but that doesn’t exist yet and it probably won’t any time soon. Simply rejecting the document won’t work either, since our indexing standards often place common names such as banks and municipalities in the grantor index, thus triggering the pop up warning with some frequency. I’ll keep thinking about this one but, as always, suggestions are welcome.

Along with a handful of electronically recorded documents, we also received a thoughtful email today from a local attorney (and avid blog reader) who was surprised to discover that the first documents recorded electronically were mortgages and who speculated about the impact this new technology will have on the local conveyancing attorney and the title examiners who populate registry record halls. My answer will be a long one, so today’s entry will be supplemented on Monday. As for recording mortgages electronically, I don’t consider it to be a revolutionary development. This may come as news to some of you, but many of the big national banks and mortgage companies rely on the U.S. mail to record their mortgages which are often weeks or even months old when they arrive at the registry of deeds. I’ve always assumed that if you mail a document to the registry to be recorded, you’re not unduly concerned with what gets recorded immediately before it or how quickly it gets recorded, as long as it’s within a reasonable period of time. Consequently, I consider documents sent by mail to be “time insensitive.” When a human being actually comes to the registry, does a run down on our public access computers, and stands at the counter until we’re done recording a document, I always consider that document to be “time sensitive.” Where do electronically recorded documents fit in this picture. Right now, the documents being sent to us are “time insensitive” – if they weren’t transmitted electronically they would have been sent through the mail. But the system is certainly capable of handling “time sensitive” documents such as deeds and mortgages. It’s just that we at the registry are not quite ready to deal with them yet – we need to acquire a better feel for the system first, something we can only do by recording things over a multi-week period. I’ll address the implications of that on Monday, but for now, I have to say that electronic recording will not put title examiners and lawyers out of business – as long as they embrace the capabilities of the technology and change their business practices to take advantage of it.

Nothing new to report on electronic recording today. We were supposed to begin receiving a steady flow of electronically submitted documents, but nothing has appeared arrived thus far. On another topic, I’m scheduled to give a presentation on the Deed Indexing Standards at the annual conference of the Massachusetts Registers of Deeds Association the week after next. Two big areas of discussion will be the fees to be charged for so called “multiple documents” and the implementation of document formatting standards that will establish requirements for the appearance and formatting of documents that are to be recorded at the registry. Besides those two items, however, there are a number of other issues with how names are indexed that have arisen since the original Indexing Standards were established in January 2000. If you have a chance, please visit the Indexing section of our website (http://www.lowelldeeds.com/indexing.htm) and read through our Quick Reference Guide. I’d appreciate any comments you might have on the rules set out in this guide. Also send along any suggestions for other names or areas that are particularly problematic so we can address them at the upcoming meeting. Send you comments and suggestions to mailto:lowelldeeds@comcast.net. Thanks in advance for your input.

When I graduated from college my grade point average was higher than both Senator Kerry’s and President Bush’s…but I don’t think I could run the country.

Our video presentation is working…the video has a few purposes: to remind people to pick up their document box, to inform users about basic registry information…and to have a little fun. The feedback has been excellent.

Don’t worry…Met’s ace Pedro Martinez (7-1) will be whining about “something” shortly…and we’ll be glad he is gone.

As you know on June 2 we processed the first E-Recording in Massachusetts. Register of Deeds, Dick Howe worked with staff members recording the first document. Shortly after, I searched our database to verify the recording. It may sound corny but watching a document be recorded…then the image and the indexing information immediately appear on the database with simply a few clicks of a mouse was pretty amazing.

Our summer interns are diligently working on our marginal reference and old registered land scanning projects. We’ve got a nice group of young men and women making real contributions to these projects and others.

With e-mails incredible popularity does anyone put mail in an envelope anymore…unless it a bill? I even send birthday cards electronically.

Now that we have a handful of electronic recordings behind us, here are some observations on the process. The electronic recording reception software seems to work just fine. When a document “payload” arrives to be processed, the screens we see resemble what we see during our verification process. (Verification occurs a day or two after recording when a registry employee re-enters all the data that was previously typed by another registry employee at the recording counter so that any discrepancies – and possible errors – will be identified). When we open up the incoming electronic recording, we confirm that all the pages have been properly scanned and try to ensure that the document is for recorded (not registered) land, that it’s properly signed and that it’s at the correct registry. If all is in order, we press the “record” button and the document including its electronic image is on record. For payment of fees, the company that serves as the recording agent simply makes a bank transfer into our account at the end of each day for the amount of recording fees incurred for that day. After just a few trial recordings, we’ve identified some issues that must be addressed. We will probably develop a “rules and regulations” that very clearly states who is responsible for what – for example, if the customer submits a registered land document to recorded land and we don’t catch it, it’s entirely the customer’s responsibility to correct the problem. But overall, we are extremely optimistic about the usefulness of electronic recording.

A couple of months ago this Blog addressed the deceptive computer practice known as phishing. You may recall that phishing is a form of Internet fraud. Typically hackers or phishers send out large volume emails intending to trick people into sharing personal information such as passwords or user names. These are later sold or used to steal from the innocent victim. Security researchers are reporting that a new type of phishing attack has recently become popular. Phishers are using stolen consumer data to rip off individual account holders at specific banks. According to the Anti-Phishing Work Group (APWG) there has been a large increase in the number of smaller institutions such as credit unions being target by phishers. This trend has evolved into attacks on individuals and their accounts. The phishing emails arrive at bank customer’s in-boxes with partial information, which is accurate. These criminals conducting “personal” phishing attacks have purchased stolen consumer data and are using it to get information that’s even more sensitive. The messages appear as if they originated at the victims bank and ask for information to verify other account information. Of course, an ATM PIN or credit card security code is a main goal. The “server security” company Cyota is advising consumers to avoid giving financial information online unless they have verified the legitimacy of the request.

Today was an historic one for the Middlesex North Registry of Deeds. We conducted our first electronic recording of an actual document. About 10 a.m., a Midwestern bank submitted a 20+ page mortgage electronically and we had it recorded within minutes of receipt. Here’s how it works: When the customer submits a “payload” (which is one or more documents that form a single transaction), it zips through the Internet to an electronic queue on our computer system. As soon as something is in the queue, the first cashiering terminal to complete a transaction gets a popup box that says “You have one electronic recording waiting to be processed.” With that, the recording court opens the electronic recording feature on the same terminal. As soon as it opens, the image of the electronically submitted document and the data entered remotely by the submitter appear on the cashiering terminal screen. Our first task is to ensure the document type and the corresponding fee are correct. If they are not, we reject the document. For example, if someone submits a deed (filing fee of $125) but calls it a certificate (filing fee of $75) we must reject it because we have no way to alter the fee. There are some things we can change, such as a party name. For example, say the submitter typed ABC Incorporated as the grantor. Well, our Indexing Standards identify “Incorporated” as a mandatory abbreviation – it must always be changed to “Inc.” In such a case, we would make the correction immediately. We will take a few days to digest today’s experience and will then start posting proposed rules and regulations on our website. Please check back early next week for electronic recording updates.

When I was growing up, a Zombie was “a thing” that hid under my bed when my parents were out. Of course…things have changed…today Zombies are personal computers that are controlled by another. Unlike the Zombies of my youth (which were usually controlled by aliens) today’s Zombies are controlled by computer hackers. The government, (that’s our leaders, not the ones from Mars) believe hackers seize the brains of approximately 175,000 computers each day… turning them into…Zommmbieees. The real Zombies, or should I say the ones I grew up with, usually attacked couples at drive-in’s and obliterated their brains. Today’s Zombies attack web servers… collect personal information… them……… send……SPAM!!!!!…..Oh no, it’s…it’s .…SPAMMM!……In an effort to stop the attacks, the Federal Trade Commission has asked Internet Providers to provide free downloads of Zombie killing software to their customer. In the old days, it was not that easy to kill a Zombie. Bullets couldn’t stop them, fire couldn’t stop them. They seemed to be…well…unstoppable. Of course, after about ninety minutes (not including the intermission) an action hero like Steve McQueen finally destroyed them. Today’s Zombies are out of control. In May the average number of Zombie computers increased by 10% a day. This led the FTC to begin “Operation Spam Zombies”. Since experts seem to have little faith in this operation and Steve McQueen is no longer with us…The Attack of the Zombies will continue… at least until Arnold finds out about them.