Source: http://masslawyersweekly.com/fulltext-opinions/2008/01/28/patriot-resorts-corp-v-register-of-deeds-for-the-county-of-berkshire-northern-district-et-al-442408/
Timestamp: 2017-01-16 10:58:09
Document Index: 622325406

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 38', '§ 20', '§ 38', '§ 8', '§ 38', '§ 8', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 8', '§ 38', '§ 8', '§ 25', '§ 25', '§ 51', '§ 38', '§ 38']

– PATRIOT RESORTS CORP. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE, NORTHERN DISTRICT, et al. (442408) – Full-text Opinions
Home / Fulltext Opinion / – PATRIOT RESORTS CORP. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE, NORTHERN DISTRICT, et al. (442408)	– PATRIOT RESORTS CORP. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE, NORTHERN DISTRICT, et al. (442408)
We return to the point of beginning: an examination of the words of the statute. Black’s Law Dictionary 1142 (8th ed. 2004) defines “paper” as “[a]ny written or printed document or instrument.” As we have observed, G. L. c. 262, § 38, as then in effect, imposed a recording fee of $10 on any “paper,” while imposing higher fees on any “deed or conveyance” or any “mortgage.”[15] The statute accordingly treats a “paper” as an object comparable to a “deed” or a “mortgage” for purposes of assessment of a recording fee, albeit in a different class for purposes of determining the amount of the fee. Chapter 36 of the General Laws, which generally describes the duties of the registers concerning the recordation of documents, consistently refers to assignments as “instruments.” See, e.g., G. L. c. 36, §§ 20, 21, & 23. Moreover, the opening sentence of G. L. c. 262, § 38, uses the term “instrument” to refer collectively to the materials that may be left for recording, including any “paper,” “deed,” or “mortgage.” General Laws c. 44B, § 8, similarly employs the term “instrument” to refer to documents presented for recording, on which a recording fee is assessed.
The argument advanced by the plaintiff, Patriot Resorts Corp. (Patriot), and accepted by the majority, is that there was but one paper filed — the covering document affixed to the computer spread sheet. According to Patriot’s theory, the 169 mortgage assignments listed in spreadsheet cells were merely an appendage, with no recording fee significance under the statutes. On this point, Patriot contends, and the majority accepts, that somehow the cover document “bundled” everything, so that only $202 was due in recording fees and surcharges under G. L.
c. 262, § 38, as then in effect, and G. L. c. 44B, § 8. In contrast, the registry of deeds charged Patriot a total fee of $5,074 for recording and processing the 160 assignments of mortgage.
Nor does submission of a computer-generated spreadsheet, in fact, change the nature, or amount, of necessary work by the registry staff incident to the indexing, cross-referencing, and recording of the assignment of multiple mortgages. Indeed, as shall be further described herein, the summary judgment record establishes that, irrespective of which way the assignments of mortgage were presented to the registry of deeds — either by hard copy paper instruments, or in a compressed multitransaction computer-generated paper spreadsheet — the same amount of administrative work by registry personnel is required. To use the words appearing in G. L. c. 262, § 38, the same registry work and same “duties pertain[]” to indexing and cross-referencing of mortgage title references, to achieve the final recording of the multiple mortgage assignments in the indexes and land books of the registry. The recovery of revenues arising out of the work of the registries of deeds is precisely the reason that G. L.
c. 262, § 38, was enacted. As was stated in the 1971 emergency preamble to an amendment to this recording fee statute, the purpose is to “provide forthwith for increased revenue for the commonwealth and the various counties by increasing certain fees and charges of the . . . registers of deeds.” St. 1971, c. 880.
According to the affidavit of Richard P. Howe, Jr.,[20] when a document is submitted to a registry which combines two or more land transactions, the registry refers to the filing as a “multiple document.” The Patriot spreadsheet is a quintessential virtual model of this kind of a multiple document, with embedded multiple transactions. Such a multiple transaction document requires the registry staff to unwind — to use the majority’s term, to un-bundle — the transactions, so that each separate land transaction listed in the multiple transaction document must be separately processed, indexed, cross-referenced and recorded. These registry duties, in effect, multiply (here exponentially by 169 times) the work that must be performed by the registry staff for a single paper instrument. Given the extra work entailed, Howe states that “[i]t is standard practice for the registries throughout the Commonwealth to assess, pursuant to
G. L. c. 262, § 38, a separate recording fee that accurately reflects the work associated with the multiple transactions or functions within a document.” To this end, both Howe and the defendant register aver in their affidavits that the fees charged Patriot by the Northern Berkshire registry under G. L. c. 262, § 38, and G. L. c. 44B, § 8, were standard fees for multiple transaction imposed generally by the registries in the Commonwealth.[21] (The two registers’ interpretation and application of G. L. c. 262, § 38, on the fees to be imposed were endorsed in an affidavit by the director of the division of the registry of deeds within the Secretary of State’s office consistent with that office’s interpretation of the statute.)
[2] A related question concerns the application of G. L.
c. 44B, § 8, which imposes a surcharge on recording fees, as part of the Community Preservation Act.
[11] The register contends that much more additional work is required to index the assignment in accordance with the dictates of G. L. c. 36, § 25, asserting that a separate index entry must record the name of each of the various borrowers on each assigned mortgage. The statute does not so require. Under G. L. c. 36,
§ 25, the register is required to maintain a grantor and grantee index, identifying as to each recorded instrument the (i) date of reception; (ii) grantor(s); (iii) grantee(s); (iv) book; (v) page; and (vi) town where the land lies. Under an instrument assigning a mortgage, the “grantor” is the assignor of the mortgagee’s interest in the mortgage, and the “grantee” is the assignee of that interest. The mortgagor’s (or borrower’s) interest in the property covered by the mortgage is unaffected by the assignment. The need to trace ownership of the mortgage interest (for, among other purposes, assuring authority to execute a discharge of the mortgage upon its satisfaction) is achieved by means of the marginal references on the mortgage and any assignments thereof.
[18] As the majority opinion notes, by St. 2003, c. 4, § 51, the Legislature rewrote G. L. c. 262, § 38, substantially increasing the base fees for recording various types of documents, and eliminating, the staircased fees for supplemental pages and marginal references. As so amended, G. L. c. 268,
§ 38, provides as follows:
Commonwealth v. Meneus (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-009-17)