Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
MERS and the Recording Act
In Merscorp. v. Romaine (see infra), Suffolk County Supreme Court was faced with a clash between the traditionally local real property recording system and the increasingly national secondary mortgage market. The County Clerk's office had refused to accept for recording instruments filed in the name of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Recording Systems, Inc.), prompting a proceeding by MERS and the operating company that owns the MERS system for a writ of mandamus compelling the County Clerk to record and index MERS instruments. The case resulted in a split decision: The County Clerk is required to record MERS mortgages, but not assignments or certificates of discharge. The court's opinion, however, reveals some misunderstanding both of the MERS system and of the recording act.
The Traditional Recording Process
In New York, as in most other states, the recording act is designed to safeguard prospective purchasers and lenders against double-dealing by property owners. The prospective purchaser or lender can check at the county recording office to assure that the property to be purchased, or the property to serve as security for a mortgage loan, is not encumbered by any interests the property owner has failed to disclose. The system does not rest on any verification by the state of the validity of any recorded instruments; the system's effectiveness rests solely on notice. Prospective purchasers or lenders are on notice of all recorded instruments; once they have notice, it is up to them (or their title insurers) to determine the validity and effect of those instruments.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.