Pennsylvania’s public record has real estate information which is essential in establishing ownership, establishing priority of liens, and giving notice of encumbrances. The public records protect the interests of real estate owners, creditors, taxing bodies, and the American public. The real estate recordings have a system of written documents which affects mortgages and deeds; therefore, this article explains the recording statutes in Pennsylvania, examines court’s decision where title examinations were at issues, and measures to make the title examination process more efficient.

1. What are the Recording Statutes in PA?

Recording refers to the act of placing documents in public records. The Pennsylvania recording statutes are acts which protect specific individuals such as purchasers and mortgagees, against unrecorded mortgages. In the United States, and specifically Pennsylvania, particular rules for recording documents solely lies under the state law. The recording statutes provide that any written document is affecting any title, interest, estate, and land right should be recorded in the specific county where the land is located, to serve as public notice (Bellairs et al., 141).

The recording statute in Pennsylvania includes Title 21 P.S. Deeds and Mortgages has various subsections such as section 338.8 which highlights the inconsistencies in mortgage resolutions, failure to record conveyance, section 351, which highlights failures of acknowledging the recorded conveyance, deeds and contracts, and section 356, which spells out the agreements concerning real property (Pennsylvania State Reports, 474).

2. Find Two Cases Where Title Examinations Were at Issue. Brief Both Cases and Discuss Whether or Not You Agree with the Court’s Decision. Can You Think of a Way To Make the Title Examination Process More Comfortable or More Efficient?

Antonio versus Liberati 821 A.2d 666 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) and Pennsylvania versus Richie are examples of cases where tile examination in Pennsylvania, were at issue.

The case of Antonio versus Liberati involves a case where the plaintiff hired a lawyer to prepare a mortgage as a secured loan. Faranda-Diedrich, claims that the plaintiff lawyer took the mortgage documents to the recorder of deeds, and assured the plaintiff that it had been properly recorded. Nonetheless, the mortgage was not recorded properly due to clerical errors, which resulted in the sale of the land that was the subject to a mortgage. The land was sold, without the seller disclosing to the buyer that it was under the mortgage, and also without paying the plaintiff. When the plaintiff received the information, he sued his lawyer in a trial court and succeeded (Pennsylvania State Reports, 244). However, the lawyer appealed against the decision of the trial court because the court failed to ask for an expert testimony, which proved that he had a duty to ensure that the plaintiff’s mortgage, had been recorded correctly and that the fraudulent borrower actions resulted to the harm. The appeal court affirmed the decision by the trial court that the subject of negligence is conclusive, and does not require any expert evidence or opinion because the mortgagee must ensure that the mortgage is recorded correctly, therefore the duty lies on the representing lawyer (Faranda-Diedrich, 233-237).

I agree with the court’s decision because the Mortgage fraud could not have taken place if the lawyer protected his client’s duty. Moreover, the lawyer failed to ensure a proper record of the mortgage, thus proving his negligence which does not need expert testimony to prove.

The case of Pennsylvania versus Richie (1987), is a case where Ritchie was convicted for rape and incest after the court failed to grant him access of content files accumulated during the investigation because the records were confidential. However, on appeal the supreme court quashed the conviction, and demanded the accused lawyer to access the file, therefore obtaining facts which are crucial for the defense (Smith, ii).

I agree with the supreme court decision because all defendants are entitled to access to confidential information because the Fourteenth Amendment gives an accused person that right on the basis that it can help in the due process.

The title examination process can become efficient if lawyers and attorneys ensure that there is a proper filing of real estate conveyance. Also, courts must consider the fact that modern real estate practices have changed, hence they should consider practical implications to avoid creating dangerous practice environments for lawyers engaged in real estate transactions.

Works Cited

Bellairs, Thomas J, James L. Helsel, James L. Goldsmith, Jim Skindzier, and Herbert J. Bellairs. Modern Real Estate Practice in Pennsylvania. Chicago, IL: Dearborn Real Estate Education, 2002. Print.

Faranda-Diedrich, Anthony. “Recent Case: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds That a Lawyer May Be Liable for Malpractice for Failure to Ensure That a Mortgage is Properly Filed and Indexed.” Vill. L. Rev. 49 (2004): 233.

Jessica Smith. PENNSYLVANIA v. RITCHIE: DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO THIRD PARTY CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS., (September 2014). UNC School of Government

Pennsylvania State Reports. St. Paul: West Pub. Co, 1845. Print.