MUNINET Archives

December 1999


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Deborah Markowitz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Vermont Municipal Government Discussion Network <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:44:36 -0500
text/plain (80 lines)
Hi Bobbi and everyone on the list serve,

I have been following with interest the conversation about your
situation.  As Linda Spence pointed out, Title 27, section 341(b) of
the Vermont Statutes Annotated provides that " A deed or
other conveyance of land which includes a reference to a survey
prepared or revised after July 1, 1988 may be recorded only if it is
accompanied by the survey to which it refers, or cites the volume
and page in the land records showing where the survey has
previously been recorded." Although it looks like the statute
prohibits the clerk from recording a deed unless the referenced
survey plat is referenced, an argument can also be made that the
directive prohibits a person from bringing such a document in to

Because of the language of 341(b) Bobbi was fine when she
rejected the deed.  This is different from your obligation to record a
deed that has insufficient signatures - since 341(b) specifically
prohibits recording the deed that does not reference an appropriate
survey.  On the other hand, because an argument can be made
that it is the attorney that is bringing in the record that is
"recording" the deed, so that the obligation not to record a deed
without survey is on the attorney, if Bobbi had accepted the deed
under the circumstances she described it also would have been
okay.  I guess the final word on this is that, until a court rules on
the issue, or the legislature clarifies the law, clerks can exercise
their discretion in these matters.

I hope this helps.

Deb Markowitz

On 17 Dec 99, at 16:25, Bobbi Brimblecombe wrote:

> Deb,
> I am interested in your opinion on whether or not I have the right to
> refuse a deed that references a survey that is not on file.  Joseph
> Jaminet from Public Records instructed me to record anything sent to me
> EXCEPT deeds referencing surveys not on file, deeds without a property
> transfer return, or deeds without the property tax check attached.
> Is he right, or is John Cushing right?  Should I be refusing this deed?
> >X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: [log in to unmask]
> >X-Return-Path: [log in to unmask]
> >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by id
> PAA13474
> >Date:         Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:13:00 -0500
> >Reply-To:     Vermont Municipal Government Discussion Network
> >              <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sender:       Vermont Municipal Government Discussion Network
> >              <[log in to unmask]>
> >From:         JOHN CUSHING <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject:      RECORDING
> >To:           [log in to unmask]
> >
> >        In reference to Bobbie's request I would never return a document
> sent to me for recording. I do not believe it is our responsibly to
> determine the legality of the document sent to us by anyone.
> >        In cases were signatures are missing I might try to make
> >        telephone
> contact with the sender of the document only to see if they wish that it
> be returned. If they still wish that it be recorded we have no choice. We
> have to be very careful about becoming involved in determining the
> legality of a document. We are not qualified nor are we party to the
> transactions to determine the legality. Although on the face of this
> particular document it appeared there may be a discrepancy, that is
> between the two parties and their attorneys. We should never want to have
> the responsibility of determining the legality of documents sent to us for
> recording. >