Court Opinion

ID: 9458604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:56:38.904876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:49.543100
License: Public Domain

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I concur generally in Judge Tamm’s opinion. It is my view of the statute, which provides that the “Recorder of Deeds . . . shall ... (1) record all deeds, contracts, and other instruments in writing affecting the title or ownership of real estate or personal property which have been duly acknowledged and certified” (D.C.Code § 45-701 (1967 ed.) (emphasis added)), that it is essentially an ordinary recording statute which, by use of the word “shall,” requires the administrator of the office ministerially to accept for record documents which are “duly acknowledged and certified,” generally without further inquiry.
This interpretation is not changed by D.C.Code § 45-503 which provides:
The recorder shall not accept for record or record any instrument which shall not be executed and acknowledged agreeably to law by the person or party therein granting or contracting with respect to his right, title, or interest in the land therein described. [Emphasis added.]
This obviously only requires that the physical act of executing (signing) the documents, and having them acknowledged, be agreeable to the law. To read more into it, particularly in view of the provisions of § 45-701, is not justified.
It is my opinion that the deeds in question do conflict with the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c), but as set forth above it is not the duty of the Recorder to pass on the legality of documents submitted for recording, other than with respect to the form of their execution and acknowledgment. It is obviously an improper extension of the language of the Recording Act to place this additional burden upon the Recorder; his office has never fulfilled that function and it is not equipped to do so. Also, while the task may be easy with respect to some deeds it can be very difficult with respect to others where the intent and purpose is obscure and borderline. It would also apply to other restrictive covenants of a zoning nature. I would thus not attempt to make the Recording Act fulfill such unrelated and obviously unintended purposes. To my mind, Congress in enacting the Recording Act, the same as state legislatures generally throughout the country, merely intended to provide a public record of real estate documents and it will be a mistake to extend its functions substantially beyond this purpose.
The majority opinion bases its conclusion on the repeated assertion that it is illegal to file the documents; but that is not proved — it is merely asserted. At this time, when the record reflects that most deeds do not contain illegal restrictive covenants, I see no necessity to indulge in what is essentially judicial legislation.