I refinanced the mortgage on my Massachusetts house in August
2002. I never received a recorded mortgage discharge from the
previous mortgage lender. I contacted them last month to ask
why, and a few weeks later, they sent me a notarized discharge
which had *not* been recorded at the registry of deeds.

I'm under the impression that the mortgage lender is required
to record the discharge at the registry of deeds (as opposed
to making me do it). Can anyone confirm whether that is true?
I don't want to make a fuss with them and demand that they do
it without some confidence that they are, in fact, required to
do so.

I care about this because if I have to do it myself, I'll have
to miss a day of work to go stand in line all day, or pay a
lawyer to do it for me, and also pay the fee associated with
recording the discharge. It's also worth noting that the fee
for recording a mortgage discharge has gone up form $30 to $75
since I refinanced, so if I end up having to do this myself,
the lender's delay will cost me an extra $45.

In ne.general Jonathan Kamens wrote:
to miss a day of work to go stand in line all day, or pay a
lawyer to do it for me, and also pay the fee associated with
recording the discharge. It's also worth noting that the fee
for recording a mortgage discharge has gone up form $30 to $75
since I refinanced, so if I end up having to do this myself,
the lender's delay will cost me an extra $45.

Generally, it is done by the lawyers who conducted the recent refi. Give
them a call. Talk to the appropriate paralegal. Suggest to her that you
send it directly to her title examiner at the registry. Suggest that she
give the title examiner a call so he knows that it is coming. Put the
paralegal's name on your letter tot he title examiner so if he has any
questions he can call her.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

writes:
Generally, it is done by the lawyers who conducted the recent refi. Give
them a call. Talk to the appropriate paralegal.

It's not that simple -- the refinance was from a mortgage into
a Citizens Bank home equity loan, so I never actually saw any
lawyers -- all I saw was the loan officer.

I suppose I could call the loan officer and ask her if she
wants to take care of getting it recorded, considering that
until she does, Citizens Bank won't be able to record
themselves as the primary lien on the property, so it's in
her best interest to get it done.

All this notwithstanding, the issue of who "generally" does it
is separate from the issue of whether the prior lender has a
legal obligation to record the discharge. It would seem
strange for there to be no such obligation, because that would
mean that a lender is allowed to record a lien against your
property whether you want them to or not and is then under no
obligation to record that that lien has been discharged.

"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
writes:
Generally, it is done by the lawyers who conducted the recent refi. Give
them a call. Talk to the appropriate paralegal.

It's not that simple -- the refinance was from a mortgage into
a Citizens Bank home equity loan, so I never actually saw any
lawyers -- all I saw was the loan officer.

I suppose I could call the loan officer and ask her if she
wants to take care of getting it recorded, considering that
until she does, Citizens Bank won't be able to record
themselves as the primary lien on the property, so it's in
her best interest to get it done.

All this notwithstanding, the issue of who "generally" does it
is separate from the issue of whether the prior lender has a
legal obligation to record the discharge. It would seem
strange for there to be no such obligation, because that would
mean that a lender is allowed to record a lien against your
property whether you want them to or not and is then under no
obligation to record that that lien has been discharged.

I have two of these Citizen Bank's home equity refis, prior to my last refi
which was with GMAC. When I closed on the traditional GMAC mortgage, the
lawyer who presided over this last refi warned me about the Citizen's home
equity "mortgages" to make sure I received the discharge notes and also to
make sure that "I" went and had them recorded at the registry. He never
indicated that Citizen's was by law supposed to do this, since he told me
it was now my responsibility. Have not done it yet and wish I had now that I
know one, there is a fee ( I should have assumed this, it is MA of course)
and two that the fee went up ( ah yes no new taxes with a Repub gov, but oh
my how the fees have gone up :-)) The mortgage was held by Wells Fargo prior
to the Citizen's refis, and I do believe I received the discharge that was
"recorded" from them. I need to double check now, since I refinanced so many
times it is hard to keep track. So even though I don't have an answer for
your question, thought you would like to hear about my similar experience.

Jackie

"Jackie Brophy" writes:
I have two of these Citizen Bank's home equity refis, prior to my last refi
which was with GMAC. When I closed on the traditional GMAC mortgage, the
lawyer who presided over this last refi warned me about the Citizen's home
equity "mortgages" to make sure I received the discharge notes and also to
make sure that "I" went and had them recorded at the registry. He never
indicated that Citizen's was by law supposed to do this, since he told me
it was now my responsibility.

It sounds to me like this lawyer wasn't doing his job.
Lenders register liens on property to protect themselves.
It's important to the lender of the first mortgage for it to
be recorded as the primary lien, but that can't happen unless
all previous liens are discharged and the discharges are
recorded. It sounds like the lawyer you were dealing with was
representing GMAC, in which case it doesn't seem like he
represented his client's interests adequately -- if he didn't
make sure your previous liens were discharged and recorded, he
couldn't have registered the GMAC mortgage as the primary
lien.

wrote:

Generally, it is done by the lawyers who conducted the recent refi.

I don't know about MA, but lawyers are uncommon in CA and AZ.

Generally, it is done by the lawyers who conducted the recent refi.

I don't know about MA, but lawyers are uncommon in CA and AZ.

Practices vary a lot from state to state. In the northeast, there's
no such thing as an escrow company, and lawyers do real estate
closings. Every closing I've done in MA, VT, NY, and NJ has been at a
lawyer's office.

Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:21:40 -0500, someone wrote:

..... since I refinanced so many
times it is hard to keep track...

Now THERE'S an interesting way to waste money on transactional
costs....

-v.

(v) writes:
Now THERE'S an interesting way to waste money on transactional
costs....

My last two refinancings have both been no points, no closing
costs, with a lower interest rate than I'd had before.

Alas, it looks like those days are probably over for a while,
but there was certainly a good chunk of time in the last few
years when consumers could repeatedly refinance at no cost to
them and get a lower rate each time.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:46:15 +0000 (UTC), someone wrote:

All this notwithstanding, the issue of who "generally" does it
is separate from the issue of whether the prior lender has a
legal obligation to record the discharge. It would seem
strange for there to be no such obligation, because that would
mean that a lender is allowed to record a lien against your
property whether you want them to or not and is then under no
obligation to record that that lien has been discharged.

The rationale is not strange at all.

They want to record the lien because the lien protects THEIR
interests.

You want to record the discharge because that is to YOUR benefit.

Just like the Seller is under no obligation to record the deed. The
Buyer wants to protect himself as the record owner of the property so
the BUYER is the one who wants it recorded (and there have been
various cases of unrecorded deeds) but who is he obligated to. (I am
just talking about the rational being strange or not, which I don't
think it is.)

You phrased it as if ALLOWED = OBLIGATED, which is not correct. Of
course they are ALLOWED to record their lien. But they are not
obligated to (under traditional common law). Maybe there is some
banking regulatory statute that ends up requiring them to do so or
they can't count it as an asset or something, but not under basic real
estate law. For example, I hold several mortgages. It is up to me
whether to record them or not. You damn well know I did. I am
allowed to but not obligated to.

Now, I am NOT saying that there *cannot* be a statute that requires
the (former) lender to record the discharge. There certainly are
statutes that OBLIGATE the former lender to *furnish* the Discharge.
I don't practice R.E. law. Call the Registry of Deeds and see if they
will tell you, or do you know any local R.E. practitioners well
enought to get a free answer?

Better yet, call the former lender and say "I thought you were
obligated to RECORD the discharge" and see if they deny it.

-v.

"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
(v) writes:
Now THERE'S an interesting way to waste money on transactional
costs....

My last two refinancings have both been no points, no closing
costs, with a lower interest rate than I'd had before.

Alas, it looks like those days are probably over for a while,
but there was certainly a good chunk of time in the last few
years when consumers could repeatedly refinance at no cost to
them and get a lower rate each time.


Yes and that comment was aimed at me. My last 5 refinances have all been no
points, no closing costs and NO escrow accounts. Down from 7.5 to 4.87 with
very little pain or time spent on doing these. My comment on not keeping
track was at which ones were the home equities vs. the traditional mortgages
and require some time making sure that the home equities have been properly
discharged and recorded. So my only "transactional" costs will be the
recording of the 2 home equity loans. Not bad if you ask me.

"Jonathan Kamens" wrote...

I'm under the impression that the mortgage lender is required
to record the discharge at the registry of deeds (as opposed
to making me do it). Can anyone confirm whether that is true?


In Seattle, I had to do it myself.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:02:53 +0000 (UTC), (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:

I refinanced the mortgage on my Massachusetts house in August
2002. I never received a recorded mortgage discharge from the
previous mortgage lender. I contacted them last month to ask
why, and a few weeks later, they sent me a notarized discharge
which had *not* been recorded at the registry of deeds.

I'm under the impression that the mortgage lender is required
to record the discharge at the registry of deeds (as opposed
to making me do it). Can anyone confirm whether that is true?
I don't want to make a fuss with them and demand that they do
it without some confidence that they are, in fact, required to
do so.

I care about this because if I have to do it myself, I'll have
to miss a day of work to go stand in line all day, or pay a
lawyer to do it for me, and also pay the fee associated with
recording the discharge. It's also worth noting that the fee
for recording a mortgage discharge has gone up form $30 to $75
since I refinanced, so if I end up having to do this myself,
the lender's delay will cost me an extra $45.


Can't say there but in Texas all they have to do is provide you with
the notorized form and you file it yourself on your own dime.

In ne.general Jonathan Kamens wrote:

I suppose I could call the loan officer and ask her if she
wants to take care of getting it recorded, considering that
until she does, Citizens Bank won't be able to record
themselves as the primary lien on the property, so it's in
her best interest to get it done.

That's correct.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

"Jonathan Kamens" wrote in message
...
I refinanced the mortgage on my Massachusetts house in August
2002. I never received a recorded mortgage discharge from the
previous mortgage lender. I contacted them last month to ask
why, and a few weeks later, they sent me a notarized discharge
which had *not* been recorded at the registry of deeds.

I'm under the impression that the mortgage lender is required
to record the discharge at the registry of deeds (as opposed
to making me do it). Can anyone confirm whether that is true?
I don't want to make a fuss with them and demand that they do
it without some confidence that they are, in fact, required to
do so.

I care about this because if I have to do it myself, I'll have
to miss a day of work to go stand in line all day, or pay a
lawyer to do it for me, and also pay the fee associated with
recording the discharge. It's also worth noting that the fee
for recording a mortgage discharge has gone up form $30 to $75
since I refinanced, so if I end up having to do this myself,
the lender's delay will cost me an extra $45.

Most of the time, a release or discharge is sent to the recorders office,
but in some states it is sent to a trustee or to the homeowner.

Have you checked to see if it was sent to the recorders office and recorded
already?

They should have sent you a copy if they did, but this does not always
happen. They can give you a copy if it is recorded.

If you received a discharge from the previous mortgage company that is not
recorded, they should have sent a check with it. Is it possible that there
is no recording fee where you live?

"kissme126" writes:
Most of the time, a release or discharge is sent to the recorders office,
but in some states it is sent to a trustee or to the homeowner.

When I contacted the prior lender shortly after the refinancing to ask
where my discharge was, they claimed that they had mailed it to the
registry of deeds to be recorded but it was taking a long time because
the registry was extremely backed up (budget cuts, you see). I called
the registry and they confirmed that they were backed up but were
unable to confirm whether my discharge was sitting in their queue
waiting to be registered.

The other facts of which I am aware are that (a) I never received a
recorded discharge in the mail as the lender claimed I eventually
would and (b) the registry's on-line database does not show the
discharge.

Neither of these facts is absolute proof that no discharge was
recorded. As for (a), the registry could have screwed up and not
mailed the discharge back to the lender after recording it, or the
lender could have screwed up and lost the discharge after it was
mailed back to them. As for (b), the registry's on-line database is
really sucky so the data could have never been entered or could have
been entered in such garbled form that my searches for it wouldn't
work.

Therefore, if I end up dealing with this myself, I'll start by going to
the registry, pulling the book containing the original mortgage page
off the shelf and checking if a discharge is already been registered
for it. If so, I can go home a happy man without paying the $75 fee
:-).

If you received a discharge from the previous mortgage company that is not
recorded, they should have sent a check with it. Is it possible that there
is no recording fee where you live?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Didn't I just say in the
message to which you were replying that there's a $75 fee for
recording a discharge?

In article ,
"Arthur L. Rubin" wrote:

wrote:

Generally, it is done by the lawyers who conducted the recent refi.

I don't know about MA, but lawyers are uncommon in CA and AZ.

Nonsense. I've been to both states and can say that lawyers are as
common as cockroaches as they are in all the other states.

--
-JR
Hung like Einstein and smart as a horse

Last time I got a mortgage discharge, the lender mailed it me and told
me to go file it at the Registry. I tried to re-delegate that
responsibility to my cat, but it didn't work.

RPD / Cambridge

Jonathan Kamens wrote:
I refinanced the mortgage on my Massachusetts house in August
2002. I never received a recorded mortgage discharge from the
previous mortgage lender. I contacted them last month to ask
why, and a few weeks later, they sent me a notarized discharge
which had *not* been recorded at the registry of deeds.

I'm under the impression that the mortgage lender is required
to record the discharge at the registry of deeds (as opposed
to making me do it). Can anyone confirm whether that is true?
I don't want to make a fuss with them and demand that they do
it without some confidence that they are, in fact, required to
do so.

I care about this because if I have to do it myself, I'll have
to miss a day of work to go stand in line all day, or pay a
lawyer to do it for me, and also pay the fee associated with
recording the discharge. It's also worth noting that the fee
for recording a mortgage discharge has gone up form $30 to $75
since I refinanced, so if I end up having to do this myself,
the lender's delay will cost me an extra $45.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 18:23:01 +0000 (UTC), someone wrote:

(v) writes:
Now THERE'S an interesting way to waste money on transactional
costs....

My last two refinancings have both been no points, no closing
costs, with a lower interest rate than I'd had before.

Jon, TANSTAAFL. Of course there were closing costs. RE financing
costs a lot to close. The lender (or the broker) paid those costs.
In my own recent refi, the broker offered X rate and my closing costs
were $Y. I countered with X + .25% rate and broker to pay costs,
which he took. It is not that there are no costs. Of course your
rate after refi was lower than it had been (or you would not have done
it). But it would have been lower still if you had not "financed" the
rate, not by adding to principal, but by taking a lower rate.

But, no matter, you are happy with your result.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:53:13 -0600, someone wrote:

why, and a few weeks later, they sent me a notarized discharge
which had *not* been recorded at the registry of deeds.

I'm under the impression that the mortgage lender is required
to record the discharge

Can't say there but in Texas all they have to do is provide you with
the notorized form and you file it yourself on your own dime.

Coincidentally - The Feb. 2, 2004 issue of Mass. Lawyers Weekly (which
I just today got around to looking at) contained an insert from the
Real Estate Bar Assoc. for MA. The lead article was "Missing
Discharges and Assignment of Mortgage".

Seems this is known as the issues that vexes closing lawyers the most.
There was a rundown of other states' laws, including FL which makes it
an actual CRIME (misdemeanor) to not execute & RECORD within 60 days,
but this is the most draconian of all the states. Some others have a
recording requirement plus monetary sanctions, in SC $25k or half the
debt whichever is less. More typical are flat fees such as $500, or
limited sanctions like $200/wk up to $5,000.

Anyways, the idea is that this is a problem because in MA there is
*not* an obligation for the lender to record. And that is the
traditional common law & (formerly at least) majority rule.

So there.

-v.

(v) writes:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 18:23:01 +0000 (UTC), someone wrote:
(v) writes:
Now THERE'S an interesting way to waste money on transactional
costs....

My last two refinancings have both been no points, no closing
costs, with a lower interest rate than I'd had before.

Jon, TANSTAAFL. Of course there were closing costs. RE financing
costs a lot to close. The lender (or the broker) paid those costs.

Um, yeah, v, I'm not an idiot, I know that. The point is that you
claimed that a previous poster "wasted money on transactional costs"
because he had refinanced numerous times, and that's just not true if
he didn't pay a penny of his own for any of those refinancings and the
rate was lower each time he did it.

The fact that the lender or broker paid the closing costs is obvious,
but irrelevant.

JR wrote:

In article ,
"Arthur L. Rubin" wrote:

wrote:

Generally, it is done by the lawyers who conducted the recent refi.

I don't know about MA, but lawyers are uncommon in CA and AZ.

Nonsense. I've been to both states and can say that lawyers are as
common as cockroaches as they are in all the other states.

Use of lawyers in refis and real estate sales is uncommon
in CA. Lawyers may be more prevalent in CA, but not in
real estate transactions.