reba letter to john o'brien re robo-signers

8/6/2019 REBA Letter to John O'Brien RE Robo-Signers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reba-letter-to-john-obrien-re-robo-signers 1/9

Officers

Edward M. Bloom

President

Christopher S. Pitt

President· fleet

Michelle T. Simons

Clerk

Michael D. MacClary

Treasurer

Thomas O. Moriarty

Immediate Past-President

Board of Directors

Paul F. Alphen

Thomas Bhisitkul

Erica P. Bigelow

Douglas J. BrunnerJon S. Davis

Wendy M. Fiscus

Rober t T. Gill

Kurt A. James

Susan B. LaRose

Charles N. Le Ray

Clive D. Martin

Gregor I.McGregor

Donald R. Pinto, Jr.

John T. Ronayne

Richard M. Serkey

Joel A. Stein

Directors At Large

Mary K. Eaton

Stephen M. Edwards

Michael J. Goldberg

Darren M. Lee

Christopher L . Plunkett

Rebecca C. Richardson

Donald H. Rousseau

Mary K. Ryan

Emeriti

Sami S. Baghdady

E. Christopher Kehoe

Robert J. Moriarty, Jr.

S·taffPeter Wittenborg

fxecutive Director

Edward J. Smith

Legislative CounselNicole Cunningham

Chief Operating Officer

Robert A. Gaudette

Information Technology

Manager

Andrea M. Hardy

Office Administrator &

Event Coordinator

I 1THE REAL ESTATE BAR ASSOCIATION

I for Massachusetts-----'

OVERN IGHT MA IL

Aug ust 8 , 2 01 1

John L.O'Bri en , Reg is te r

E ss ex S ou th D is tric t R eg is tr y o f D ee ds

4 5 Con gr es s S tre et, S uit e 4 10 0

S alem , MA 0 19 70

R e: Essex South D istrict Registry of D eeds

Dear Regis te r O 'B r ie n:

T his letter is a follow -up to our excha nge of em ails of July 14, 2011 relating to an article in

th e B o sto n G lo be . We w ant to offer you a com prehensive response on beha lf of R EBA

a nd its 2 50 0 membe rs. REBA b eliev es th at y ou r re cen t a ctio ns, p artic ula rly p ub lic

sta tem en ts a nd w eb site p ostin gs, m ay d ama ge th e c onfid enc e o f th e p ub lic and the bar in

th e in te grity o f th e r ea l e st ate r ec ord s in th e S ou th ern E ss ex D is tr ic t.

In th e la st se vera l mon th s y ou ha ve b ro ug ht a tte ntio n to th e "Ro be-S ig nin g C rise s," w hic h

r ec ei ved n a tio na l a tt en tio n in t ho se s ta te s w it h ju dic ia l f or ec lo su re s. Itb ec ame kn ow n th at

multip le emplo ye es o f d oc umen t p re pa ra tio n comp an ie s w ere sig nin g th e n ames o fcorpo ra te o ff ic er s t o a ff id av it s in t he f or ec lo su re p ro ce ss . Inmany c ase s th ey w ere

swe arin g to s ta temen ts u nd er o ath , w ith n o k nowle dg e o f th e u nd erly in g fa cts re cit ed

w ith in t he a ffid av it. P er ha ps b ec au se Ma ss ac hu se tts is n ot a ju dic ia l f ore clo su re s ta te , y ou

d o n ot fo cu s y ou r cu rre nt co nce rn s o n fo rec lo su re re la ted do cumen ts, b ut ra th er o n

a ss ig nmen ts and d is ch a rg es .

Wo rk in g w ith a c on su lta nt, M a rie M cDonn ell o f M cDon nell P rop erty A na ly tics , y ou h av e

p re pa re d a lis t o f ' 'a pp ro ve d Rob o-S ig ne rs ." McDonne ll s ty le s h er se lf a s a "Mor tg ag e

A ud it a nd F oren sic A na ly st," p ursu an t to h er w eb site www.mcdonnellanalytics.com, and

con su lt s t o t ho se p a rt ie s w ishi ng to cha lle ng e mo rt gag e f or ec lo su re s. Inre lia nc e u po n h er

list, w hic h y ou h av e p osted to y ou r R eg istry w eb site www.salemdeeds.com (wh ic h lis t w ea ssume ma y g row w ith ou t no tice ) [S ee A tta chmen t N o.1 ], y ou h av e sta ted th at y ou w illrefu se a ny d ocume nt ex ec uted b y a listed p arty [S ee p ress rele ase d ated Ju ne 7 ,2 01 1-

A tta chmen t N o.2 ]' Y ou w ill retu rn th e do cumen t w ith a " re jec tio n letter" [S ee A tta chme nt

N o.3 ] a nd b la nk a ffid av it [S ee A tta chmen t N o.4 ] p re pa red for th e pu rp ose o f c ertify in g

the authenticity of the signa tures on the docum ent. Y ou state tha t if the law firm or lender

s ubm ittin g th e d oc ument s ig ns th e a ff id av it u nd er " pa in s a nd p en altie s o f p er ju ry " a nd

Serving the real estate bar for over 150 years as the Massachuset ts Conveyancers Associat ion

50 Congress Street, Suite 600, Boston, MA 02109-4075 • Telephone: 617-854·7555 800-496·6799· Facsimile: 617-854-7570www.reba.net

http://www.mcdonnellanalytics.com%2C/

http://www.salemdeeds.com/

http://www.reba.net/

http://www.reba.net/

http://www.salemdeeds.com/

http://www.mcdonnellanalytics.com%2C/



in clu de s a n a dd itio na l $ 75 .0 0 f ee to r ec ord th e a ffid av it a lo ng w ith th e o rig in al d oc ument, y ou w ill

record them forthw ith. T he A ffidavit is not a sim ple docum ent. It m ust be m ade by a licensed

a tto rn ey , wh o h as p er so na lly v erifie d t he in fo rma tio n in th e d oc ument, in clu din g re ce iv in g a nd

r ev iew ing a ll s uppo rt in g document at io n. The A f fid av it f ur th er s ta te s:

" 7. B ased o n su ch c ommun ica tio ns, rev iew o f d oc umen ts a nd my own pe rs on al in qu iry in toth e C lie nt 's p as t a nd c ur re nt s ta nd ard s o f p ra ctic es , I a ff irm th at u nd erly in g f ilin g( s) c on ta in

n o fa lse o r q uestio na ble sta tem ents o ffa ct o r law.

8 . S ho uld a ny o f the sta tem ents m a de h ere in b e in co rrec t a nd th e R eco rd in g co rru pt o r clo ud

th e h omeown er's c ha in o f'title, I w ill in demn ify a nd h old a ny on e in th e c ha in the re afte r

harmless."

You h av e r ec en tly re je cte d s ev er al d oc uments , a ll b elie ve d to b e a ss ig nments o r d is ch ar ge s r at he r

th an th e f ore clo su re re la te d a ffid av its r ef er en ce d a bo ve , a nd r etu rn ed th em to th e s ubm itt in g le nd er.

In m an y o f th e ca ses, the le nd ers p ro vid ed n ew d oc umen ts, sig ned by p artie s n ot o n th e ro bo -sig ners

lis t. In n o c irc um sta nc e, to o ur k nowled ge, h as a ny a tto rn ey c omplete d th e "A ffid av it in S up po rt o f

F ilin g." In o ur o pin io n, no a tto rn ey w ou ld e xp ose h im o r h erselfto the p oten tia l lia bility , e ven if

remo te, th at m ig ht a rise o ut o f e xe cu tio n o f su ch a n a ffid av it.

In a Ju ne 2 9,2 01 1 p re ss re le ase, y ou referen ce " key fin din gs" from a n a ud it o f y ou r R eg istry

p re pa red b y McDon nell P ro pe rty A na lytics. Y ou d eliv ere d th e resu lts o f th is a ud it a t a n atio na l

con fe renc e o f The Int erna tio na l As so cia tio n o f C le rk s, Reco rd er s, E le ct io n O f fic ia ls and T re asur er s

(IACREOT ) in Ju ne, 2 01 1. T he a ud it ex am in ed 5 65 A ssig nmen ts a nd d isclo se s th at M cDon nell

de te rm in ed th at " 75% o f mortg ag e a ssig nmen ts a re inv alid " a nd " 9 0 1 0 o f mo rtg ag e a ss ig nments a re

qu estio na ble." T here is n o d eta il to ex pla in h ow McDo rmell a rriv ed a t th ese c on clu sio ns, o r e ven

w ha t she m ea ns by "defective." H ow ever, w hen you asked M cD onnell w hat this m eans for your

cons ti tuent s, she rep li ed :

" It is v ita lly impo rta nt fo r y ou r co nstitu en ts to k now th at if th ey a re in fo reclo su re n ow o r if

th eir h omes ha ve b een fo rec lo sed u po n, th ey c an stop th e fo re clo su re from p ro cee din g, o r

in stitu te a c ou rt a ctio n to v ac ate a comp le ted fo re clo su re .. . I ca n te ll y ou th at ev ery sin gle

a ssig nmen t o f mortg ag e th at w as re co rd ed fo r th e p urp ose of fo re clo sin g th e home ow ne r is

in va lid , o ve rtly fr au du le nt, o r c rim in ally f ra ud ule nt. My f in din gs a ls o s how th at y ou r

c on stit ue nts wh o a re n ot in fo re clo su re , a nd h av e n ev er b ee n d elin qu en t in th eir p aymen ts

a lso h av e clo ud s o n title d ue to th e rec ord in g o f d efe ctiv e a nd in va lid d isch arg es a nd

a ss ig nment s o f mo rt gage ."

S ub se qu en tly , yo u a dd ed a d ata b ase to th e R eg istry w eb site w hic h sta tes: " To se arch 2 5,1 87

'R ob e-S ig ned ' d oc umen ts, C lick H ere ." Wh en on e c lic ks o n th e lin k, th e fo llowin g la ng ua gea pp ea rs: " To see w heth er o r n ot y ou h av e a p ote ntia l ro bo -sig ned d ocume nt in y ou r ch ain o f title,

p le ase en te r y ou r n ame a nd /o r stre et n ame." A fter en te ring in sp ec ific in fo rm atio n, if a list o f " hits"

c omes u p, it is a cc ompa nie d b y th e fo llowin g la ng ua ge : " Sh ou ld y ou fin d a p oten tia l ro bo-sig ne d

d oc umen t in y ou r c ha in o f title, w e a dv is e y ou to c on ta ct th e M a ssa ch usetts A tto rn ey G en era lis

O ffice at 617-727-8400 betw een the hours of lO am a nd 4pm and file a consum er com pla int since

this m a yo r m ay n ot a ffec t th e title to y ou r p ro perty ." REBA's e ffo rts to re view a nec do ta l ex amples



led to o ne d oc umen t w here the a lle ge d rob o-sig ner w as merely a w itne ss to th e a ctu al sig na to ries

(w ho w ere not listed "robo-signers") [S ee A ttachm ent N o.5] and one docum ent w here none of the

sign atu res w ere o n the list, bu t th e d ocumen t w as p rep are d b y D ocX [S ee A tta chmen t N o.6 ].

S tra ng ely , D ocX a pp ea rs o n y our ro bo-sig ne rs list, im ply ing tha t yo u ma y reject a ny d ocumen t

p rep ared b y th e comp an y, reg ardless o f th e a ctu al sig na tu res on the do cumen t.

In th e v ariou s newsp ap er a nd med ia a rtic les th at h av e a pp ea red w ith in th e la st few w eek s, y ou h av e

co nsisten tly re ferre d to yo ur o ffice a s a " crim e sc en e" a nd y ou su gge st th at tho se p arties w ho a re in

th e fo re clo su re p ro ce ss s ho uld b e u sin g th es e " fr au du le nt d oc uments " to h alt th e f or ec lo su re p ro ce ss .

H ow ever, you acknow ledge in a recent A P story that none of the 1,300 docum ents recorded in the

R eg is tr y u nd er th e s ig na tu re o f L in da G re en (th e mo st n ota ble " ro be -s ig ne r" ) in vo lv e fo re clo su re s.

In your July 14,2011 em ail to m e expressing your surprise that R EBA may not support your

a ctiv itie s, y ou a tta ch ed a Memora nd um p rep ared b y A tto rn ey Jamie R an ney , w ho p ra ctice s law in

Nantu ck et, a s y ou r s up po rt f or a R eg is te r's a uth ority t o r eje ct ro bo -s ig ne d d oc uments fo r r ec ord in g

[See A t ta chmen t No .7 ].

A fter review of A ttorney R anney's M emo, R EBA does not believe that it presents a ny judicial or

sta tutory sup port fo r th e co nclu sio n th at a R eg ister o f D eed s h as th e a uth ority to rejec t a "rob o-

sig ned " or a lleg ed "ro be -sig ne d" d ocume nt. T he Memo n ev er a ddresses th e p ossib ility tha t th e

d oc umen ts a re pro pe rly a uth orized u nd er th e laws o f a ge nc y, b ut a ssume s tha t th e do cumen ts a re a ll

" fo rg erie s" a nd d efe ctiv e. It f ur th er p re sumes th at th e R eg is te r c an a ct w ith ou t a ctu al k nowle dg e,

but based on a "subjective good faith belief" R EBA's comments on the representations and

co nclu sion s m ade in A ttorn ey R an ne y's M emo follow .

M emo of Jamie R anney, E sq.

In R ann ey 's S ummary [supra, p g 2 ], h e h ig hlig hts th e R eg is te r's o blig atio ns w ith re sp ec t to" ass ur in g, ma in ta in in g a nd p romotin g th e in te gr ity , tra ns pa re nc y, a cc ur ac y a nd c on sis te nc y o fa

C ou nty 's la nd re co rd s," w hile a ck nowle dg in g th at "th e R eg ister's w ork a nd su pervisio n o f h is

re gis tr y mo st o fte n r ev olv es a ro un d ta sk s a nd re sp on sib ilit ie s th at a re g en era lly m in is te ria l in

nature." H e goes on to conclude that "the R egister's fiduciary duty goes w ell beyond these usua l

m in ist eria l a cts in c ir cumsta nc es whe re th e R eg is te r h as a ctu al k nowle dg e o r a s ub je ct iv e g o od -fa it h

belief/basis (emph as is a dd ed ) fo r b elie vin g th at th e d oc ument(s ) a nd /o r in str ument (s ) b ein g

p re se nte d fo r r ec ord in g o r re gis tr atio n in th e re gist ry f or whic h h e h as r es po ns ib ility a re f ra ud ule nt o r

oth erw ise n ot ex ecu ted o r a ckn ow led ged u nde r a pp lica ble law. In suc h c ases th e R eg ister m ay

law fu lly r ef us e t o r ecord such document (s ) and /o r in st rumen t( s) ."

In the body of the M emo that follow s, R anney never explains how a R egister m ight ha ve "actua lkn ow le dg e" o f a fra ud ulen t d ocumen t, w hich w ou ld b e virtu ally impo ssib le w itho ut b ein g a pa rty to

th e q ue stio na ble tr an sa ctio n. In ste ad , R an ne y c on tin ua lly a pp lie s a s ta nd ard o f" su bje ctiv e g oo d-

f aith b elie f/b as is ," w ith ou t e ve r p ro vid in g s ta tu to ry o r j ud ic ia l a uth ority f or th e a pp lic atio n o f a

"sub ject ive" s tandard.

3



In the next section "S UMMARY OF AUTHORITY" [supra, p g 3 ], R an ne y ou tline s the

c ir cumsta nc es u nd er whic h h e b elie ve s a R eg is te r may re je ct a d oc ument/in str ument, a ga in b as ed o n

a ctu al k nowle dg e o r " a g oo d fa ith b elie f7 ba sis ." The y a re e ss en tia lly a s f ollows :

• The document is eforgery, a nd b y th e a ttempte d r ec ord in g c on stitu te s th e a dd itio na l c rime o f,

uttering (or a tt emp ted u tter ing ).

• The docum ent does not com ply w ith the requirem ents of the follow ing sections of the

Mas sachuset ts Gene ra l L aws:

1. G .L . c. 36, s. 12A , w hich sim ply recites: "A Register of D eeds m ay refuse to accept an

in strumen t for re cordin g if it ca nn ot b e prop erly d uplica ted o r a p ro per reco rd c ann ot b e

made the reo f"

2 . G .L c. 1 83 , s. 5 4B , w hich is a sectio n en titled : "Mo rtga ge relea se, a ssignment, e tc.;

e xe cu tio n b efor e o ff ic er ent it le d t o acknow ledge in st rumen ts ; e ff ec t"

3 . G .L . c. 1 83 , s. 30 , w hich is a sectio n en titled : "M etho d o f m akin g a ckn ow ledgment"

4 . G .L . c. 1 83 s. 33 , w hich is a sec tion entitled: "C ertifica tes of a utho rity "

5. G .L . c. 183 s. 41, w hich is a section entitled: "P roof of deed m ade outside

commonwealth"

A fte r a re cita tio n o f "Pu blic P olic y," [supra, pg 4] w ith w hich w e have no dispute, R anney a ddresses

th e "1 . L EGAL AU TH ORITY FO R REG ISTERS OF DEEDS" [supra, pg 5]. A fter re citing the

v ariou s sta tu tes th at crea te th e o ffice o f"Re gister o f D eed s," h is commen t is:

"There is a paucity of both statutory and case law on the legal authority of Registers of Deeds

to reject document(s) and or instrument(s) for recording or registration in Massachusetts."

Ran ney g oes o n to list fo ur M a ssa chu setts ca ses w hich a ddress u nrela ted d ispu tes w ith R egisters o f

D eeds but m akes no effort to connect them w ith his analysis. H ow ever, in S&H P etro le um C orp , v.

R egis te r o f D e ed s, 46 M ass. A pp. C t. 535 (1999), one of the cases cited by R anney, the C ourt

c on clude s w it h t he f ollow ing s ta temen t:

"T he fun ctio n o f a R eg istry o f D ee ds is to reco rd d oc umen ts. It is essentia lly a m in iste ria l

function, and the personnel of registries cannot be expected to - and are not required to -

dispense legal advice." [S ee A ttachm ent N o.8, pg 2].

O ne m igh t infer tha t th e A pp ea ls C ourt, b ased o n th e forego in g dec isio n, w ould no t ex pe ct a

R eg ister to m ak e a " sub jectiv e" a na lysis of th e leg al va lid ity o r impa ct o fa n in strumen t tha t a pp ea rs

p ro pe r o n its fa ce .

4



Ran ney mov es o n to a na ly ze th e re le va nt sta tu to ry law in th e fo llowin g se ctio ns o f h is M emo

beginning w ith: "II. D IR EC T S TA TUTO RY A UTHO RITY TO R EJE CT D OCUM EN T(S )

A ND /O R IN ST RUM EN T(S ) F OR F IL IN G" [supra, pg 5]. Int his s ec tio n, R ann ey a dd re ss es G .L .

c. 3 6, s. 1 2A , w hic h sta tes :

"A reg ister of deed s m ay refu se to a ccept a n instrum ent for recording if it c anno t b e p rope rlyd up lica te d o r a p ro per re co rd c an no t b e ma de th ere of"

Wh ile R an ne y in dica te s th at h e c an no t fin d a ny re po rted ca se s o n th e a pp lica tio n o f th is se ctio n, h e

c on tin ue s w ith h is own in te rp re ta tio n o f w ha t is se em in gly p la in la ng ua ge . H e sta te s [supra, p g 6 ]:

"A lth ou gh th is se ctio n m ig ht b e in te rp reted to re fe r to th e p hy sica l c on ditio n o f th e

d oc umen t(s) a nd /o r in strum en t(s) s ou gh t to b e re co rd ed , th is is th e o nly se ctio n o fG .L . c . 3 6

- or section of the M assa chusetts G eneral L aw s - th at a ppea rs to deal squa rely w ith the leg al

a ut ho rit y o f a R e gis te r to u nila te ra lly , a nd in h is d is cre tio n, r eje ct d oc ument (s ) a nd /o r

in st rument ( s ) f or r ecording o r r eg is tr at io n. "

A fte r a ck nowle dg in g th at th ere is n o o th er sta tu to ry a uth ority fo r a R eg iste r to " un ila tera lly a nd in

h is d iscre tio n re je ct d oc umen ts" a nd th at th is s ec tio n "m ig ht b e in te rp re te d to re fer to th e p hy sic al

con dition of the d ocument," he go es o n to comment:

"C onsistent w ith th e plain la ngu ag e ofG .L . c. 3 6, s. 12 A, w here a R egister w ho ha s a

s ub je ct iv e g oo d f aith b elie f t ha t a d oc ument( s) a nd /o r in str ument (s ) p re se nte d f or r ec or din g

o r r eg is tr atio n o n t he la nd re co rd s a re in va lid , f or ge rie s o r o th erwis e fr au du le nt a nd /o r

d ef ec tiv e ( as d is cu ss ed h er ein ), th at R eg is te r may lo gic ally d et erm in e th at a 'a p ro pe r r ec ord

c an no t b e ma de th ere of a nd th e R eg iste r m a y re je ct th e d ocumen t(s) a nd /o r in strume nt(s)

fo r reco rding . As a p ra ct ic al ma tt er , r ec or din g s uc h a d oc ument( s) a nd /o r in st rumen t( s) may,

b ase d o n th e R eg iste r's su bjec tiv e g oo d fa ith b elie f, res ult in c rea tin g a c lo ud o n th e title o ft he p ro pe rt y t o wh ic h th e a lle ge dly fr au du le nt d oc ument( s) a nd /o r in st rumen t( s) r ela te a s

w ell a s d eg ra de th e re lia bility , a cc ura cy a nd in te grity o f th e p ub lic la nd rec ord s w hic h th e

R egis te r manage s f or t he p ub lic b en ef it.

T o h old o th erwis e would r eq uir e th e R e gis te r to k now in gly p ar tic ip ate in p os sib le f ra ud ule nt

a nd ille ga l c on du ct th ere by s ub je ctin g h ims elf a nd h is R eg is try t o p os sib le c iv il a nd c rim in al

liability."

S ome how th e " pla in la ng ua ge " o f th is o ne s en te nce sta tu te a llows R an ney to sp ec ula te th at th e

R eg ister h as th e rig ht to re je ct a d oc umen t b as ed u po n th e R eg is te r's " su bjec tiv e g oo d fa ith b elie f'

th at a n in strum en t is fra ud ule nt o r d efe ctiv e. R ath er th an re ad in g th e sta tu te to a llow re je ctio n w he na "p ro per rec ord " c an no t b e ma de o f th e "in strum en t," (in o th er w ord s, a g oo d p ho to co py ), R an ne y

in te rp re ts th e la ng ua ge to e xten d to a p ro per re co rd o f th e underlying t it le to the property. B y

a pp ly in g th e sta nd ard o f a "s ub je ctiv e g oo d fa ith b elie f' to th is sc en ario , h e h as g iv en th e R eg is te r

mo re p ow er th an th e L a nd C ou rt, w hic h w ou ld req uire th e ex pertise o f L a nd C ou rt title e xam in ers

a nd ju stice s to in su re th at a p ro pe r re co rd is m a de o f th e u nd erly in g title . R an ney fu rth er s ug ge sts

th at f ailu re t o re je ct d oc uments th at, w h ile o th erwis e p ro pe r o n t he ir fa ce , m ig ht a ff ec t u nd er ly in g

5



title w ou ld su bje ct th e R eg ister to " po ss ib le c iv il a nd c rim in al lia bility ." T his is a fa r cry f rom th e

"m in is te ria l fu nctio n" .. . " to re co rd d oc umen ts" su gg ested b y th e C ou rt in th e S & H P e tr ole um case

c it ed above .

I n h is n ex t s ec tio n, "Ill, FORGERY AND UTTER ING," R anney a ddresses th e tw o M assa chusetts

c rime s o f F or ge ry a nd U t te rin g [supra, p g. 6 ] a nd s ug ge sts th at th ey a pp ly to " ro be -s ig ne d"documents.

W i th r es pe ct t o " fo rg er y," h e p ro vid es th e f ollow in g d ef in itio n:

" 'F a ls ely makin g' d oc ument( s) a nd /o r in st rumen t( s) w ith k now le dg e t ha t s uc h d oc ument( s)

a nd /o r in strum en t(s) h av e b ee n e xe cu te d w ith a n 'in te nt to in ju re o r d efra ud ' is a c rim e in

Ma ss ac hu se tt s t yp ic ally r ev iewed u nd er th e 'fo rg er y' s ta tu te at G .1 . c.2 67 s.l."

H e fu rth er q uo te s th e Mo de l P en al C od e:

"S ee M odel P ena l C ode § 224 .1(1980) ('A person is guilty of forgery if .. . the actor (a)a lte rs a ny w ritin g o f a no th er w it ho ut h is a ut ho rit y; o r (b) m akes ... any writing so that it

p urp orts to b e th e w ritin g o f a no th er w ho d id n ot a uth oriz e th e a ct' (emph asis s up plied );"

W i th r es pe ct to th e c rime o f " utte rin g," h e p ro vid es th e f ollow in g d ef in itio n:

"Whe re d ocumen t(s) a nd /o r in strume nt(s) h av e b ee n fra ud ule ntly o r 'fa ls ely m a de ' a nd a re

t he re aft er p ub lis he d ( i. e. re co rd ed o r re gis te re d o n th e p ub lic la nd r ec or ds ), th e c rime o f

'uttering' has been comm itted and m ay be punished under G .L . c. 267 , s. 5 ."

R an ne y a ck nowle dg es th at th e crim e o f "u tte rin g" a lso req uires th e in te nt to in ju re o r d efra ud . H e

g oe s o n to e nd th is se ctio n w ith th e fo llowin g c on clu sio n [supra, p g. 8 ]:

"Rob o- sig ne d d oc ument (s ) a nd /o r in str ument( s) a re f or ge rie s u nd er Ma ss ac hu se tts law

whe re th e d ocumen t(s) a nd /o r in strum en t(s) w ere k nowin gly ex ec ute d b y someo ne o th er

th an th e in div id ua l w ho se n ame is s ta te d o n th e d oc umen t(s ) a nd /o r in strum en t(s). T he

re co rd in g o f su ch d oc umen t( s) a nd /o r in strume nt( s) o n th e p ub lic la nd re co rd s w here th e

in te nt ca n o nly b e to in ju re o r d efra ud b y re co rd in g su ch fo rg ed d ocumen t(s) a nd /o r

in strum en t( s) fo r th e p urp ose o f a ttemp tin g to in du ce re lia nce o n w ha t th e d ocumen t(s)

and/o r i ns tr umen t( s) s ta te , is u tt er in g. "

R an ney n ev er a dd re sse s th e p ro ba bility th at th e "ro bo -sig na tu re s" w ere m a de w ith th e a uth ority o f

th e a ctu al o ffic ers w ho se sig na tu res w ere a ffix ed . N eith er d oes h e a dd re ss h ow a ffix in g sig na tu res

to s imp le a ss ig nments o r d is ch ar ge s, wh ic h c on ta in in fo rma tio n th at is s ub st an tiv ely a cc ur ate ,

evidences "intent to defraud ." R EBA is not aw are of an y circum sta nce w here the "gran tor" B ank

h as a ttemp ted to d isa vow th e v alid ity o f a n a ss ig nmen t o r d isc ha rg e b ec au se o f a " ro be-sig na tu re ,"

nor do w e expect tha t such an a ttem pt w ould be successful.



In this next section, "IV . DOCUMENT (S ) AND /OR IN STRUMENT(S ) R ECORDING

REQU IREMENTS ," R arm ey addresses G L . c. 183 s. 54B , a nd the N otary requirem ents a nd

Acknowledgements.

R elevant portions ofG L. c. 183 s. 54B , as cited by R anney [supra pg.B], r ead a s f ollows:

"No tw ith sta nd in g a ny law to t he c on tr ar y, (1) a discharge of m ortga ge; (2) a .. . pa rtia l

release or assignm ent of m ortgage ... if executed before a notary public, justice of the peace

o r o th er o ff ic er e ntitle d b y law to a ck nowle dg e in str ument s, w h eth er e xe cu te d w ith in o r

w ith ou t th e commonw ea lth , by a p erso n purporting ( empha sis a dd ed ) to h old th e p os itio n

o f p re sid en t, v ic e p re sid en t, t re asur er , c le rk , s ec re ta ry , c ashie r, l oan r ep re sent at iv e, p rin cip al,

in ve stment, mo rtg ag e o r o th er o ff ic er , a ge nt a ss et mana ge r, o r o th er s im ila r o ffic e o r

p os itio n, in clu din g a ss is ta nt to a ny s uc h o ffic e o r p os itio n, o f th e e ntity h old in g s uc h

mortg ag e, o r o the rw ise pu rpo rting to b e a n a uth orize d sig na to ry fo r su ch e ntity, . . . , a ctin g in

its own c ap acity o r a s g en era l p artn er o r c o-v en turer o f th e e ntity h olding su ch mortg ag e,

sh all b e b in din g u po n su ch e ntity (emph as is a dd ed ) a nd sh all b e en titled to b e recorded,

(emp ha sis a dd ed ) a nd n o v ote o f the en tity a ffirm in g su ch a utho rity sh all b e re qu ired topermi t record ing ."

While th e la ng ua ge o f sa id sta tute w ould a ppe ar to ha ve p la in mea nin g, R an ney do es n ot be liev e tha t

" en title d" r ea lly me an s " en tit le d," b ut o nly p ro vid es a " pr es ump tio n o f re co rd a bility ." H e fu rth er

s ta te s th at th e st atu te d oe s n ot " re gu ire th at th e R eg is te r a ctu ally r ec or d th e d oc ument(s ) a nd /o r

instrument(s)." As th e ra tio na le for h is c ommen ts, R arm ey retu rn s to h is u nsu pp orted sta nd ard of

"su bjectiv e go od fa ith b elief th at the 'pe rso n pu rp orting to ho ld the po sitio n' o f v ariou s o ffices .. .

does not in fact hold such an office; . .. and is know n to ha ve executed said docum ent(s) and/or

instrument(s) f raudulen tly" [supra pg.9].

N ot o nly d oe s R an ne y sug gest th at th e R eg ister m a y lawfu lly rejec t a ssig nmen ts a nd disc ha rg esba se d o n h is "su bjective g oo d fa ith be lief' tha t do cumen ts w ere ex ec ute d fra ud ulen tly , b ut h e sta te s:

"T o h old oth erw ise w ou ld force the R eg ister to a ba nd on h is fid ucia ry d uties to th e e lectora te

a nd th e p ublic a nd su bject th e R eg ister to p ossible crim ina l lia bility u nde r the fo rg ery a nd

ut ter ing statu tes ."

T his co nclu sio n w ould seem to c on tra dict the C ou rt's v iew o f th e R eg ister's m in iste ria l du tie s, a s

d is cu ss ed in t he S&JJ P etro le um C orp . c as e c it ed above .

R ann ey sp en ds th e n ex t s ev er al p ag es d is cu ss in g th e s ta tu te s th at a dd re ss r eq uiremen ts f or

a cknow ledgem ents, G .L . c. 183 s. 30, 33 and 41[suprapgs. 10-13].

S ectio n 3 0 sta tes: "T he a ck now led gemen t of a d eed o r o th er w ritten in strumen t req uired to b e

a cknow ledged sha ll be by one or m ore of the gra ntors or by the attorney executing it." R arm ey

su gg ests th at th is p re clu de s a n ind iv id ua l w ho w as ro bo -sig nin g th e d ocumen t from mak in g th e

a ck nowle dgeme nt, w hich may b e co rrec t, bu t th e a ctu al o ffice r m ay h av e a ppe ared b efo re the n ota ry

and acknow ledged the docum ent (or a la rge pile of docum ents) to be her free act and deed. T he

7



nam ed signatory. W ere they found to be forgeries, there is no legal support for a R egister to reject a

docum ent ba sed on a "good fa ith belief' tha t a docum ent m ay cloud title .

B y s ug ge stin g, w ith ou t a de qu ate s up po rt, th at th e R eg is trie s a re f ull o f fr au du le nt a nd d ef ec tiv e

d ocumen ts, clou din g tho usa nd s o f titles, y ou a re a dd in g to th e p ub lic's c on fusion a nd h esita nc y to

re-en ter th e re al esta te m ark et. Y ou a re a lso g iv in g unwa rra nte d su ppo rt a nd h op e to p arties info re clo su re b y su gge stin g th at a ro bo -sig ned a ssig nmen t in th eir ch ain o f title m ay p rev ent th e

fo re clo su re. A t th e momen t, to th e b est of o ur k nowle dg e, co nve ya ncin g a tto rn ey s a nd title

e xam in er s in Ma ss ac hu se tts a re n ot tr ea tin g " ro be -s ig ne d" d oc uments a s d efe ctiv e.

T he A ssociation plans to seek the support of the A ttorney G enera l's office and the L and C ourt in

req uestin g th at y ou retra ct y ou r cu rren t p ra ctic e o f refu sing to reco rd sa id do cuments. W e a sk th at

you cea se t his p ra ct ic e immed ia te ly .

Ve ry t ru ly you rs ,

~~/~-!~~~;d M . B loom

REBA Pre sid en t

Cc: Board of Directors

The Rea l E sta te B ar A ss oc ia tio n f or Ma ss ac hu se tts

H on. K ary n F aith S che ier

Chief Justice

L a nd C ou rt D epa rtm ent o f the T ria l C ou rt o f M a ssa chu setts

A tt or ne y Gen er al Ma rth a Coakle y

Wi lliam F ranc is Ga lv in

Sec re ta ry o f t he Commonwea lt h

B a rr y 1 . Ama ra l

President

Ma ss ac hu se tts R eg ist ers a nd A ss is ta nt R eg is te rs o f D ee ds A ss oc ia tio n

A ll by o ve rn ig ht m ail

9

reba letter to john o'brien re robo-signers

Documents