From the Recording Desk…Thoughts on a New Registry Computer System

By Richard P. Howe Jr.

Just before Memorial Day 2002, a team from a computer company called ACS arrived in Lowell to begin the first-ever Massachusetts installation of the 20/20 land management computer application.

Just a few weeks earlier, a group of registers of deeds assisted by personnel from the Secretary of State’s office had selected 20/20 as the preferred replacement system for registries of deeds in the Commonwealth.

The Middlesex North installation went live on July 1, 2002, and remains in use today. With periodic upgrades, 20/20 is still a reliable system but much has changed in the world of computers over the past 16 years. The time has come to replace 20/20 with a new system built with the latest features and capabilities. The formal selection process has yet to begin but our plan is to make the choice and begin deployment in 2019.

The new system will perform all existing computer tasks better and faster and will add even more capabilities. Here are some of the features I expect to be included.

Full Text Search. Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is an old technology that keeps getting better. OCR converts the print in a digital image into searchable text. Google has scanned millions of books, run the resulting images through OCR, and now makes the content of those books fully searchable. The same can be done with recorded documents. By running record book images through an OCR program, we can make the full text of all documents – the typewritten ones, at least – fully searchable. This would not replace our index but would supplement it, adding a new and powerful search tool for those who use land records.

Index Verification. Having an accurate index is essential to the registry of deeds. The 20/20 system uses a process called “blind rekey verification” which works as follows: At the point of recording, one employee types information from the document into the various fields of the index. Later, a second employee “verifies” those entries by viewing the document and retyping all the index entries without ever seeing what the first employee typed. If both entries match, that document is verified and the process is repeated for the next document. If there is a discrepancy, the verifier can view the original entries and then decide whether to restore them or keep the new values. Although rekey verification is more time consuming than visual verification (something we all call proofreading), it is also thought to be more accurate.

I believe technology is changing that calculation. With electronic recording, which accounts for a majority of all documents recorded at this registry, the customer makes all index entries and the registry clerk processing the document verifies those entries when the document first arrives. To have another registry employee then retype those same entries to verify them a second time seems unnecessary or at least inefficient.

Beyond that, OCR also has a place in index verification. The OCR application can detect names and numbers from the recorded document image, convert them to text and then compare that text to the values entered into the index by the registry employee (with walk-in recording) or the customer (with electronic recording). This verification-by-computer will ensure a high degree of accuracy in the spelling of names. But there is a qualitative aspect to verification – determining the proper document type, for instance – that will still require human judgment. And in those qualitative decisions, it is better that the employee doing the verification actually see what the first employee entered. For these reasons, I believe that the new system should move away from blind rekey verification to a more basic visual verification method operating in tandem with OCR verification.

Standard Searches Across Platforms. The 20/20 system employs two different search applications: one available at the registry of deeds and the other online. Although they pull from the same data and yield the same results, they look and respond differently. As more and more people use the website for their research rather than doing it at the registry, this has become less of a problem. Nevertheless, there should be a single search system and that system should work well on tablets and cell phones.

Hyperlinks. Long before anyone had heard the term hyperlink, the registry of deeds was using them. They were called marginal references. The 20/20 system has an automated marginal reference feature that works well but a new system could do better. For instance, a deed should have a link to the recorded plan that depicts the lot conveyed by the deed which would allow the user to quickly toggle between the deed and the plan or show both simultaneously. The new system will have this capability; 20/20 does not.  

This list is far from exhaustive but it offers some ideas on how a new system might change the way registries of deeds operate. Still, the most important characteristic for a new registry computer system to have would be the flexibility to adapt to technological change that never stops.

Dick Howe’s column, “From the Recording Desk...,” is a regular feature of REBA News.  Dick has served as register of deeds in the Middlesex North Registry since 1995.  He is a frequent commentator on land records issues and real estate news.  Dick can be contacted by email at richard.howe@sec.state.ma.us.

Middlesex North Registry of Deeds Web Site

Middlesex North Registry of Deeds Blog

Electronic Acknowledgements

By Richard P. Howe Jr.

Several weeks ago, an out-of-state title company sent a letter asking if the Middlesex North Registry

of Deeds would record a mortgage that was acknowledged in Virginia in accordance with that state’s remote electronic acknowledgement law. In Virginia, an authorized electronic notary may take an acknowledgment online using audio-video conference technology, even though the person executing the document is not in the physical presence of the notary.

My initial thought was, “Remote electronic notary? No way!” but I delayed answering the query with an “I’ll have to see the document before deciding” response.

On further review, my opinion has changed. The Massachusetts Deed Indexing Standards say that for a document executed outside of Massachusetts, an acknowledgement may be taken by a justice of the peace, notary public, or magistrate of the state in which the acknowledgement was taken. Implied in that standard is that the acknowledgement was taken in accordance with the laws of that non-Massachusetts jurisdiction. When deciding whether to record such a document, Massachusetts registries just assume compliance with the law of the other jurisdiction and do not verify it since we cannot realistically track the notary laws of every jurisdiction in America.

This outcome also assumes the validity of the choice of law principle upon which the Indexing Standard is based, namely that it is the jurisdiction where the acknowledgement is taken that controls its legality, not the law of the jurisdiction in which the land is located. To my knowledge, no one disputes this, however, I am not aware of any Massachusetts statute or decision that confirms that interpretation.

Applying these standards to the question posed by the title company, I would conclude that since a remote electronic acknowledgement is legal in Virginia, a document acknowledged by that means in that state would be recordable in Massachusetts.

While we would record a document from Virginia that was remotely electronically acknowledged, a document acknowledged that same way in Massachusetts would be rejected. Massachusetts law makes no provision for electronic acknowledgements, either in person or remote. This is so despite our notary laws having just been updated by Chapter 289 of the Acts of 2016 which became effective January 4, 2017.

Although not expressly allowed, would a reasonable interpretation of the new law nevertheless permit electronic acknowledgements to be done in Massachusetts? Section 3 of that law defines acknowledgement as “a notarial act in which an individual, at a single time and place appears in person, before a notary public . . .” There is no ambiguity there. “In person” means just what it says, so remote electronic acknowledgements are clearly prohibited.

But what of an “in person” electronic acknowledgement? Would that be legal in Massachusetts? While not expressly authorizing an in person electronic acknowledgement, Chapter 289 of the Acts of 2016 does not expressly prohibit it.

Section 4 of the new law (which amends M.G.L. c.222, s.8) directs the notary to type his name directly beneath his signature “and affix thereto the date of the expiration of such person’s commission . . .” No problem doing all of that electronically. But the next section requires the notary to have an official seal or stamp and describes what information should be contained on it. While this section does not explicitly require the notary to affix the stamp to the acknowledgement, another section of the law that prescribes the form of the acknowledgment includes a line that is labeled, “official signature and seal of notary public.”

So is a seal required for a valid acknowledgement? The same section of the law that requires the notary to have a seal also states “failure to comply with this section shall not affect the validity of any instrument . . .” and the Deed Indexing Standards state the registry of deeds will record a document even if the acknowledgement does not contain a seal. While omitting the seal from an acknowledgement might cause the notary to run afoul of the new statute, a document lacking a seal would still be valid and could still be recorded.

Still, the wisest course would be to address electronic acknowledgements legislatively and to do so sooner rather than later. As the real estate industry moves aggressively towards transactions that are entirely paperless, Massachusetts registries of deeds and the conveyancing bar should strive to keep pace.

A regular and welcome contributor to REBA News, Dick Howe has served as register of deeds in the Middlesex North Registry since 1995.  He is a frequent commentator on land records issues and real estate news.  Dick can be contacted by email at richard.howe@sec.state.ma.us.