Court Opinion

ID: 9750521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:04:52.229612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:11.777618
License: Public Domain

Allen, C.J.,
dissenting. I disagree with the result reached by the majority. A purchaser of real estate for value without actual or constructive notice of any defect in the title will hold the same against a prior grantee or attaching creditor who has failed to have his conveyance recorded, whether through his fault or that of the town clerk. Burchard, Wilson & Co. v. Town of Fair Haven, 48 Vt. 327 (1875). This is so because purchasers have the *266implicit right to rely upon the land records required by law to be kept for that purpose. Id. at 335.
One of the land records required by law to be kept is a general index of transactions affecting title to real estate which shall include “every deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease or other instrument affecting the title to real estate, and each writ of attachment.” 24 V.S.A. § 1161. An earlier version of this statute was first enacted in 1858, arguably to correct the mischief created by the holding in Curtis v. Lyman, 24 Vt. 338 (decided in 1849 and published in 1852), and followed in Barrett v. Prentiss, 57 Vt. 297 (1884).
At the time of the events described in Curtis, supra, the clerk was required to maintain an index to a particular book in that book. (This requirement still exists. 24 V.S.A. § 1154(b)). The Court in Curtis stated that the purpose of this act was to point out the duty of the clerk to not only make a paper record of conveyances, but also to furnish “facilities for their discovery, examination and use by all persons interested in them.” Id. at 340. The Curtis Court concluded that there were “many practical difficulties in the way of making an index to the record an essential requisite to the validity of the title,” and further, that if this were done, it would open the way for “a serious and embarrassing course of litigation” to determine what would constitute a sufficient index. Id. at 341. The legislature promptly addressed a majority of the concerns expressed by the Court in Curtis and actually set out the form for the general index as well as specifically describing the method for entering and keeping the names of the grantors and grantees. 1858, No. 21. This statute has since been amended to prescribe in even greater detail the mechanics for indexing land transactions.
Our recording acts were passed for the purpose of providing a method by which an intending purchaser or encumbrancer might safely ascertain the condition of title. An integral part of the recording scheme for real property is the general index.
There may have been a time in our early history when it would have been reasonably possible to examine all of the pages of all of the volumes of land records in a clerk’s office to determine the true state of title. Today, there are in some communities hundreds of volumes of recorded materials relating to land transactions. The task of examining the necessary number of volumes to accurately determine the state of title under the majority holding *267is unduly burdensome. It was the legislative intent to avoid this necessity that led to the requirement of a general index.
It is here agreed that the parties were equally blameless for the error that led to this action, and it may be that an inquiry to the clerk might here have disclosed the location of the attachment. A like inquiry to a clerk or successor clerk would, in all probability, be fruitless in the case of a misplaced or misfiled document. The filer knows of its existence and has the opportunity to make certain that it is properly indexed. The filer should suffer the consequences of improper indexing as he is usually the only one who can make certain that it is done right. Compiano v. Jones, 269 N.W.2d 459, 462 (Iowa 1978). As was stated in Prouty v. Marshall, 225 Pa. 570, 576-77, 74 A. 550, 552 (1909):
If from any cause she fell short of giving legal notice [i.e., by recording and indexing], the consequence must fall upon her. She cannot hide behind the mistake of the recorder. It is an easy matter for a mortgagee, or a grantee in each particular instance, either in person, or by a representative, to look at the record, and see that the instrument has been properly entered.
The dictates of convenience and certainty require that one be able to rely on the general index.
The unreasoned one paragraph holding in Barrett has created a general disclaimer for misindexing in certificates of title by the signers of those instruments. The resulting and potentially highly damaging exposure to subsequent innocent purchasers ought to be avoided. This can best be accomplished under our present recording scheme by the simple requirement that one recording an instrument affecting the title to real estate make certain that the instrument is properly indexed.
I am authorized to state that Justice Peck joins in this dissent.