Court Opinion

ID: 9531564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:12:58.583517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:30.996593
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge Kaye
(dissenting in part). In 1993, members of the real estate mortgage industry created MERS, an electronic registration system for mortgages. Its purpose is to streamline the mortgage process by eliminating the need to prepare and record paper assignments of mortgage, as had been done for hundreds of years. To accomplish this goal, MERS acts as nominee and as mortgagee of record for its members nationwide and appoints itself nominee, as mortgagee, for its members’ successors and assigns, thereby remaining nominal mortgagee of record no matter how many times loan servicing, or the *101mortgage itself, may be transferred. MERS hopes to register every residential and commercial home loan nationwide on its electronic system.
But the MERS system, developed as a tool for banks and title companies, does not entirely fit within the purpose of the Recording Act, which was enacted to “protect the rights of innocent purchasers . . . without knowledge of prior encumbrances” and to “establish a public record which would furnish potential purchasers with notice, or at least ‘constructive notice’, of previous conveyances” (Andy Assoc. v Bankers Trust Co., 49 NY2d 13, 20 [1979]; see Witter v Taggart, 78 NY2d 234, 238 [1991]). It is the incongruity between the needs of the modern electronic secondary mortgage market and our venerable real property laws regulating the market that frames the issue before us.
I
The Suffolk County Clerk, pursuant to the Recording Act, has a duty to record conveyances that are “entitled to be recorded” (Real Property Law § 316-a [5]), and to discharge mortgages when presented with a validly executed and acknowledged certificate of discharge (Real Property Law § 321). Thus, as part of this ministerial duty, the Clerk is called upon to examine an instrument to see that it is, facially, a “conveyance” of real property or to see that the certificate of discharge complies with the statutory mandates.
“The performance of his uniform clerical duty requires him to compare the instruments which come to his possession for record . . . and certify as to the identity of their physical contents. Such a certificate does not involve the expression of an opinion, but calls for the statement of a fact capable of absolute demonstration” (Putnam v Stewart, 97 NY 411, 418 [1884]).
When presented with a MERS mortgage to record, the Clerk is able to discern from the face of the instrument that MERS has been appointed, as nominee, “mortgagee of record.” As the instrument appears to reflect a valid conveyance (Real Property Law § 290 [3]), the Clerk is required to record the instrument in MERS’ name “as a nominee for Lender” (Real Property Law § 291). Given that the identity of the actual lender is ascertainable from the mortgage document itself — indeed, the use of a nominee as the equivalent of an agent for the lender is appar*102ent, and not unusual — I concur with the majority that the Clerk is obligated to record MERS mortgages.*
When presented with a certificate of discharge, however, the Clerk has the duty to examine the mortgage’s prior assignments. The Clerk collects fees precisely for this purpose (Real Property Law § 321 [3] [“the fee or fees which the recording officer is entitled to receive for filing and entering a certificate of discharge of a mortgage and examining assignments of such mortgage shall be payable with respect to each mortgage”]). Section 321 (3) of the Real Property Law further provides:
“Every certificate presented to the recording officer shall be executed and acknowledged or proved in like manner as to entitle a conveyance to be recorded. If the mortgage has been assigned, in whole or in part, the certificate shall set forth the date of each assignment in the chain of title of the person or persons signing the certificate, the names of the assignor and assignee, the interest assigned, and, if the assignment has been recorded, the book and page where it has been recorded or the serial number of such record; or if the assignment is being recorded simultaneously with the certificate of discharge, the certificate of discharge shall so state. If the mortgage has not been assigned of record, the certificate shall so state” (emphasis added).
“[W]here the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” (Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. v Silva, 91 NY2d 98, 107 [1997] [emphasis and citations omitted]). Plainly, the statute requires all assignments of the mortgage to be listed on the certificate of discharge, whether recorded or not. The statute first sets out this general requirement, then it addresses each possible scenario in turn: if the assignment was recorded, the Clerk must enter the book and page; if the assignment of mortgage is being recorded simultaneously, *103the certificate shall so state; if the assignment was not recorded, the certificate similarly shall so state. To read the statute as providing that the certificate “either” list the recorded mortgage “or” simply state that the assignment has not been recorded renders the language of the preceding sentences superfluous and the clause regarding the listing of recording details “if recorded” nonsensical.
“[T]he clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text” (Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 NY2d 577, 583 [1998]). The Court need not look to legislative history when the plain meaning of the statute is clear, and surely should not look to legislative history to override the plain meaning of the statute, as the majority now does.
Here, moreover, the legislative history of section 321 is inapposite. Real Property Law § 321 was amended in 1951 to ameliorate the situation “where assignments are known by the signing party to have existed but such assignments are not in his chain of title because the mortgage has been reassigned to the assignor,” such as when “a mortgage has been pledged to secure a loan and on repayment. . . has been reassigned to the mortgagee without the assignment ever having been recorded” (Recommendation of Law Rev Commn, Bill Jacket, L 1951, ch 159, at 20; see also Mem by Exec Secretary and Director of Research of Law Rev Commn, Bill Jacket, L 1951, ch 159, at 11). Thus, the situation the amendment addressed was when a mortgagee’s assigned, unrecorded mortgage was reassigned back to the mortgagee, and the mortgage was then transferred by the mortgagee to a subsequent holder or discharged by the original mortgagee himself. In such a case, “there appears to be no reason for requiring a statement that the mortgage has not been assigned [as] the certificate is executed by the original mortgagee” (Recommendation of Law Rev Commn, Bill Jacket, L 1951, ch 159, at 20 [emphasis added]), or transferred by the original assignor after it had been assigned back to him (see Report of Comm on Real Property Law, Bill Jacket, L 1951, ch 159, at 9).
Under the MERS system, by contrast, assignments are made from one lender, to another lender, to another lender, and so on down the line. The 1951 amendment, which assumed that the mortgagee would be discharging the reassigned mortgage, or that a subsequent holder would discharge it unaware that the previous owner had assigned away and been reassigned the mortgage, is thus inapplicable to the issue under review.
*104II
The MERS system raises additional concerns that should not go unnoticed.
The benefits of the system to MERS members are not insubstantial. Through use of MERS as nominee, lenders are relieved of the costs of recording each mortgage assignment with the County Clerk, instead paying minimal yearly membership fees to MERS. Transfers of mortgage instruments are faster, allowing for efficient trading in the secondary mortgage market; a mortgage changes hands at least five times on average.
Although creating efficiencies for its members, there is little evidence that the MERS system provides equivalent benefits to home buyers and borrowers — and, in fact, some evidence that it may create substantial disadvantages. While MERS necessarily opted for a system that tracks both the beneficial owner of the loan and the servicer of the loan, its 800 number and Web site allow a borrower to access information regarding only his or her loan servicer, not the underlying lender. The lack of disclosure may create substantial difficulty when a homeowner wishes to negotiate the terms of his or her mortgage or enforce a legal right against the mortgagee and is unable to learn the mortgagee’s identity. Public records will no longer contain this information as, if it achieves the success it envisions, the MERS system will render the public record useless by masking beneficial ownership of mortgages and eliminating records of assignments altogether. Not only will this information deficit detract from the amount of public data accessible for research and monitoring of industry trends, but it may also function, perhaps unintentionally, to insulate a noteholder from liability, mask lender error and hide predatory lending practices. The county clerks, of course, are concerned about the depletion of their revenues — allegedly over one million dollars a year in Suffolk County alone.
Admittedly we do not know, at this juncture, the extent to which these concerns will be realized. But it would seem prudent to call to the attention of the Legislature what is at least a disparity between the relevant statute — now 55 years old — and the burgeoning modern-day electronic mortgage industry.
*105Judges Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and Smith concur with Judge Pigott; Judge Cipabick concurs in result in a separate opinion; Chief Judge Kaye dissents in part in another opinion.
Order affirmed, with costs.

 I also agree that the issues concerning the underlying validity of the MERS mortgage instrument — in particular, whether its failure to transfer beneficial interest renders it a nullity under real property law, whether it violates the prohibition against separating the note from the mortgage, and whether MERS has standing to foreclose on a mortgage — are best left for another day. Although MERSCORP initially requested a declaratory judgment that the MERS instruments were “lawful in all respects” (which Supreme Court denied) the instruments’ validity has not yet been addressed.