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
Ann E Slattery <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Vermont Municipal Government Discussion Network <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:59:05 -0500
text/plain (29 lines)
Yeah John!, I agree completely.  We are not attorneys, (thank God) nor do
very many of us ever want to be.  It is not our responsibility and we
shouldn't be sending documents back.  We date and time documents, if
another document comes in after we sent one back, the title could be in

Ann, South Burlington
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 15:13:00 -0500 JOHN CUSHING
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
>        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
>        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.

Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: