MERS and the Recording Act

In <i>Merscorp. v. Romaine</i> (<i>see</i> page 7, <i>infra</i>), 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.