Foreclosure Auctions: Week of November 28, 2016

There are seven mortgage foreclosure auctions in the Middlesex North Registry of Deeds District scheduled for this week:

Monday, November 28: 13 Merrimack Way, Unit F, Tyngsborough, at 9 a.m.

Tuesday, November 29: 4 Pageant Way, Westford, at 11 a.m.
                                       423 Stevens St, Lowell, at 10 a.m.

Wednesday, Nov 30: 280 High St, Lowell, at 11 a.m.
                                  36 Second St, Lowell, at 10 a.m.

Friday, December 2: 18 Mill St, Dracut, at 11 a.m.
                                  33 Wamock St, Lowell, at 11 a.m.

Lowell Real Estate: Week of November 21, 2016

The following properties sold this week in Lowell:

November 21, 2016 - Monday

3-5 Osgood Ave for $324,000. Prior slae in 1974

825 Chelmsford St for $327,500. Prior sale in 1996 for $79,000

43 Seventh St for $135,000. Prior sale in 2013 for $64,000

111 Lundberg St for $291,500. Prior sale in 1983 for $82,000

72 Berkeley Ave for $320,000. Prior slae in 2007 for $315,000

25 Miriam Ln for $420,000. Prior sale in 1968

52 Huntoon Ave Unit 4 for $180,000. Prior sale in 1999 for $113,000

16 Bachman St for $224,000. Prior sale in 1980

November 22, 2016 - Tuesday

254 Cumberland Rd for $250,000. Prior sale in 2003 for $275,000

116 West St for $235,000. Prior sale in 2004 for $254,000

39 Bowden St for $225,000. Prior sale in 1946

122 Stromquist Ave for $175,000. Prior sale in 1950

52 Lawrence Dr Unit M515 for $225,000. Prior sale in 2009 for $170,000

431 Lakeview Ave for $410,000. Prior sale in 2006 for $425,000

21 Agawam St for $499,000. Prior sale in 2006 for $405,000

14 Ash St for $95,000. Prior sale 2015 foreclosure

172 Jewett St for $60,000. New lot; former PAV Club

20 Powell St Unit 2 for $60,000. Prior sale in 2010 for $40,000

43 Fifth St for $213,675. Prior sale 2016 foreclosure

November 23, 2016 - Wednesday

20 Woodland Dr Unit 335 for $215,000. Prior sale in 2005 for $239,900

1461 Pawtucket Blvd Unit 3 for $141,000. Prior sale in 2009 for $139,000

73 Aiken Ave for $520,000. Prior sale in 2012 for $360,000

200 Market St Unit 3115 for $110,000. Prior sale in 2006 for $140,000

977 Westford St Unit 12 for $137,000. Prior sale 2015 foreclosure

172 Jewett St for $100,000. Prior sale in 2016 for $60,000

November 24, 2016 - Thursday

Thanksgiving - no sales

November 25, 2016 - Friday

345 Pawtucket Blvd Unit 8 for $98,500. Prior sale 2015 foreclosure

Registry of Deeds: Holiday Schedule

Here is the schedule of the Middlesex North Registry of Deeds during the upcoming holiday period:

Thanksgiving

Wednesday, November 23, 2016 - open normal hours (8:30 am to 4:15 pm);

Thursday, November 24, 2016 - closed all day for Thanksgiving

Friday, November 25, 2016 - open normal hours

Christmas - New Year

Friday, December 23, 2016 - open normal hours

Monday, December 26, 2016 - closed all day for Christmas observation

Tuesday, December 27, 2016 - open normal hours

Friday, December 30, 2016 - open normal hours

Monday, January 2, 2017 - closed all day for New Years Day observation

Tuesday, January 3, 2017 - open normal hours

Lowell Real Estate: Week of November 14, 2016

The following real estate sales took place in Lowell this week.

November 14, 2016 - Monday

1217 Pawtucket Blvd Unit 58 for $162,300. Prior sale in 2009 for $130,000

26 Kearney Dr for $255,000. Prior sale in 1958

32 Hudson St for $125,000. Prior sale in 2009 for $74,900

200 Market St Unit B38 for $125,000. Prior sale 2016 foreclosure

101 Glenmere St for $263,000. Prior sale in 1956

November 15, 2016 - Tuesday

651 Varnum Ave for $309,900. Prior sale in 2015 for $260,000

79 Fairlawn St for $267,000. Prior sale in 2012 for $220,000

200 Market St Unit 3109 for $100,000. Prior sale in 2005 for $139,900

November 16, 2016 - Wednesday

308-310 University Ave for $370,000. Prior sale in 2014 for $210,000

81 Longmeadow Dr for $519,000. Prior sale in 2010 for $250,000

101 Fairfield St for $270,000. Prior sale in 2013 for $215,000

116 Congress St for $120,000. Prior sale in 2010 for $125,000

2 Coburn Dr for $291,500. Prior sale in 1986 for $74,000

42 Staples St for $355,000. Prior sale in 2008 for $285,000

70 Austin St Unit 13 for $180,500. Prior sale in 2010 for $99,900

November 17, 2016 - Thursday

124-126 Crawford St for $319,000. Prior sale in 2005 for $329,900

28 Brian Rd for $288,000. Prior sale in 1959

69 High St for $1,150,000. Prior sale in 1999 for $240,000

21-23 Todd St for $320,000. Prior sale in 2015 for $287,000

33 Pemberton St for $175,000. Prior sale in 2016 foreclosure

November 18, 2016 - Friday

864 Central St for $149,175. Prior sale in 1972

856 Princeton Blvd for $279,900. Prior sale in 2014 for $245,000

15 Grafton St for $290,000. Prior sale in 2016 for $150,150

22 Juniper St for $225,000. Prior sale 2015 foreclosure

33 Bachman St for $285,000. Prior sale in 2011 for $154,900

80 Van Greenby Rd for $366,000. Prior sale in 1997 for $179,900

40-42 Shirley Ave for $330,000. Prior sale in 2012 for $180,000

15 May St for $190,000. Prior sale in 2009 for $152,000

408 Lincoln St for $152,900. Prior sale 2016 foreclosure

28 Llewellyn St for $265,000. Prior sale in 1996 for $119,900

11 Oberlin Ave for $408,700. Prior sale in 2010 for $343,500

253 Aiken Ave for $229,900. Prior sale in 2013 for $195,877

611-613 Merrimack St for $1,200,000. Prior sale in 1965

35-37 Sawtelle Pl for $137,500. Prior sale in 1996 for $27,000

New Notary Law and Electronic Documents

Earlier this month, I wrote about the new Massachusetts law on notaries public (Chapter 289 of the Acts of 2016). The law covers many things but is silent on electronic acknowledgements which I believe is an unfortunate oversight rather than an indirect rejection of the concept.

Electronic recording has been embraced by our users. Fifty percent of all documents and sixty-five percent of all mortgages at this registry are recorded that way. The march towards electronic recording will inevitably lead to electronic documents and electronic signatures, both of which were legalized back in 2007 by the Massachusetts Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (MGL ch. 110G).

An impediment to electronic documents (as opposed to paper documents that are then scanned) is the silence on our notary public rules on electronic acknowledgements. There's no point to having a client sign a document that only exists as an image on a glass screen if the notary public must affix an inked stamp to it.

The solution to this problem can be a very simple one. Just permit the notary to sign the document electronically and require the notary's name, office, jurisdiction of appointment, and expiration date of commission to also appear. The only thing that can't be done electronically is to put all that information in the form of a stamp that also includes the seal of the Commonwealth.

Much that has been written about electronic notaries dives deeply into complex technologies that would, among other things, render the acknowledged document tamper-proof and unalterable. While such a feature would be desirable, it is not essential to fulfilling the core function of a notary in taking an acknowledgement, which is to certify that the person signing the document is indeed the person he purports to be. All of the aspects now part of the notarial act - having the person signing the document appear in person before the notary, having that person identify him or herself with a drivers license or other reliable form of identification, can easily be carried over to the type of electronic notarization contemplated here.

Foreclosure Auctions: Week of November 14, 2016

Foreclosure auctions were scheduled on the following properties this week:

Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1 pm - 129 Third St, Lowell
Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10 am - 19 South Ridge Circle, Lowell
Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9 am - 13 Arthur St, Lowell
Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11 am - 12 Olive St, Lowell
Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at noon - 38 Foch St, Lowell
Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11 am - 13-15 Fay Memorial Dr Unit 2, Tyngsboro

Lowell Real Estate: Week of November 7, 2016

The following real estate sales took place in Lowell last week:

November 7, 2016 - Monday

29 Emerson Ave for $200,000. Prior sale in 2015 for $55,000

73 Bigelow St for $329,900. Prior sale in 2009 for $198,000

85 Sherman St for $219,694. Prior sale 2016 foreclosure deed

November 8, 2016 - Tuesday

1524 Gorham St Unit 206 for $127,750. Prior sale in 2004 for $138,000

November 9, 2016 - Wednesday

136 Hildreth St for $267,000. Prior sale in 2003 for $323,000

85 Fort Hill Ave Unit 3 for $185,000. Prior sale in 2009 for $174,000

6 Martin St for $280,000. Prior sale in 2012 for $202,000

23 Oak St for $250,000. Prior sale 2016 foreclosure

November 10, 2016 - Thursday

35 Homestead Rd for $232,000. Prior sale in 2013 for $133,000

99 Third St for $219,000. Prior sale 2012 foreclosure

34-36 Daniels St for $240,000. Prior sale in 2016 for $240,000

51 Fulton St for $195,000. Prior sale in 2014 for $70,500

19 Carmine St for $190,400. Prior sale in 1951

197 Parkview Ave for $377,000. Prior sale in 1994 for $161,000

43 Madonna Circle for $217,000. Prior sale in 2008 for $165,000

791 Andover St for $588,162. Prior sale in 2002 for $625,000

307 Pawtucket Blvd Unit 29 for $129,000. Prior sale in 2012 for $74,900

35 Llewellyn St for $195,900. Prior sale in 2001 for $163,000

11 Newell St for $240,000. Prior sale in 2016 for $182,000

November 11, 2016 - Friday

Veterans Day - no sales

Veterans Day

The Middlesex North Registry of Deeds will be closed tomorrow, November 11, 2016, in recognition of the Veterans Day holiday.

New Registers of Deeds

Two new registers of deeds were elected yesterday. Paulo DeOliveira won the Dukes County Registry of Deeds race and Stephen Murphy won in Suffolk County. In both registries, the incumbent registers retired, thereby creating mid-term vacancies in the office. In Dukes, the outgoing register was Dianne Powers, who had served since 1995. In Suffolk, it was Francis "Mickey" Roache, who had taken office in 2002.

Excise Tax consequences of Deed in Lieu and Assumed Mortgage

Massachusetts Department of Revenue Directive 88-18 ("Computation of Excise; Lien or Encumbrance") explains the deeds excise tax consequences of a deed in lieu of foreclosure and of an assumed mortgage. It is sometimes difficult to keep the two straight, because they reach the opposite result.

On a deed in lieu of foreclosure (i.e., where the lender excepts a deed from the borrower instead of foreclosing on the property), there is a deeds excise tax due based on the amount of the debt being forgiven plus any other consideration paid to the borrower/transferor. As a practical matter, it would be rare for the borrower/transferor to get any money in a transaction such as this. However, the essence of a deed in lieu is forgiveness of a debt. Under federal income tax rules, forgiveness of a debt is income to the debtor. That analysis carries over to the deeds excise calculation. Let's say you owe the bank $100,000 on a mortgage which is in arrears, and you convince the bank to take a deed from you in lieu of foreclosing on the property. When that deed in lieu was recorded, the deeds excise tax would be assessed on the $100,000 forgiven debt.

An assumed mortgage carries a completely different calculation. If you purchase property "subject to a mortgage" or if you "assume and promise to pay an existing mortgage," the outstanding amount of that mortgage is deducted from any consideration paid when assessing the tax. So for example, if you agree to pay $100,000 for a house, but also agree to assume an existing $80,000 mortgage on it, your deeds excise tax liability would be calculated based on $20,000 (consideration less amount of mortgage assumed).

Long reach of Massachusetts homestead law

The November 7, 2016 issue of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports on a bankruptcy court decision that construed the automatic homestead exemption under Massachusetts law to extend to property outside the Commonwealth. In Re: Paul Reynolds St. James involved a man who filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Massachusetts. The debtor rented property in Massachusetts, but owned a condominium in Florida and at an evidentiary hearing, asserted that he intended to make the Florida condo his personal residence. Because he owned no real estate in Massachusetts, the debtor had never recorded a declaration of homestead at a registry of deeds.

The Bankruptcy judge ruled that when the Massachusetts legislature enacted the automatic homestead in 2011, there was nothing in the statute that limited its usage to real estate in Massachusetts. The judge held that this silence as to the statute's extraterritorial application, plus the Supreme Judicial Court's general rule that ambiguities in homestead law should be resolved in favor of the debtor, led him to conclude the Massachusetts automatic homestead could be used to protect real estate outside of Massachusetts from creditors, provided the debtor could prove that he either used or intended to use the out-of-state property as his primary residents.

The bankruptcy trustee disagreed with the decision and is contemplating an appeal.

Lowell Real Estate: Week of October 31, 2016

The following Lowell properties sold this week:

October 31, 2016 - Monday

1271 Middlesex St for $225,000. Prior sale in 1973

786-788 Merrimack St for $345,000. Prior sale in 2000 for $140,000

599-601 Stevens St for $320,000. Prior sale in 2004 for $292,600

84 Billerica St for $329,000. Prior sale in 2005 for $295,000

790 Merrimack St for $230,000. Prior sale in 2000 for $140,000

46 Gardner Ave Units 1-5 for $672,000. New condos

123 Shaw St for $370,000. Prior sale in 2002 for $235,000

240 Jackson St Unit 618 for $218,500. Prior sale in 22002 for $235,000

54 Daniels St for $316,000. Prior sale in 1962

161 18th St for $204,000. Prior sale 2016 foreclosure

130 Smith St for $281,000. Prior sale in 2009 for $241,000

22 Robinson St for $225,000. Prior sale in 2003 for $189,000

799 Gorham St for $156,100. Prior sale in 1926

November 1, 2016 - Tuesday

53 Charant Rd for $380,000. Prior sale in 2004 for $394,635

1221 Pawtucket Blvd Unit 93 for $165,000. Prior sale in 2004 for $165,000

14 Gaudreau St Unit 1 for $228,000. Prior sale in 2008 for $218,000

114 Fairfield St for $220,000. Prior sale in 1954

November 2, 2016 - Wednesday

No sales

November 3, 2016 - Thursday

1959 Middlesex St Unit E for $155,000. Prior sale in 2008 for $140,000

69 Arnold Ave for $137,500. Prior sale in 2006 for $160,000

November 4, 2016 - Friday

161 Mt Vernon St for $235,000. Prior sale 2016 foreclosure

35 Tanner St for $400,000. Prior sale in 1971

51 17th St for $266,200. Prior sale in 2000 for $179,900

421 Parker St for $240,000. Prior sale in 2009 for $195,000

34 Roper St for $183,500. Prior sale in 1955

81 Queen St for $315,000. Prior sale in 2008 for $175,000

17 Kearney Sq Unit C1 for $225,000. New condo

New Notary Law

On October 7, 2016, Governor Charlie Baker signed An Act Regulating Notaries Public To Protect Consumers and the Validity and Effectiveness of Recorded Instruments (Chapter 289 of the Acts of 2016). The law appears to be a codification of Governor Mitt Romney’s 2004 Executive Order on notaries. Real Estate Bar Association seems to have been a prime proponent of this new law (I’ve seen a “Overview of REBA’s Notary Legislation” memo).

I just read through the new statute with two things in mind: Did it change any of the practices I currently follow as a Notary Public; and did it address electronic documents, electronic signatures, or electronic acknowledgements in any way?

In answer to the first issue, the new law seems simply to have turned the executive order into law. (One thing I did learn from today’s reading is that it is permissible for a notary to identify the person signing a document by the “oath or affirmation of a credible witness unaffected by the document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual.”). Otherwise, the rules for notaries seem to mirror the Executive Order.

The new law reamplifies many of the prohibitions on practices that misused the term Notary Public. When the Executive Order first came out, there was much talk about Notaries misrepresenting themselves as authorized to do things that were the sole domain of lawyers. Those provisions remain.

The new law also contains a pretty emphatic section about real estate closings that I don’t believe existed in the old Executive Order. The section I refer to states:

A notary public who is not an attorney licensed to practice law in the commonwealth shall not conduct a real estate closing and shall not act as a real estate closing agent; provided, however, that a notary public who is employed by an attorney so licensed may notarize a document in conjunction with a real estate closing conducted by the attorney and a notary public who is employed by a lender may notarize a document in conjunction with the closing of such lender’s real estate loans.

Perhaps this section explains REBA’s claim of authorship of this new law.

Real estate documents make another appearance in the new law which sets out all of the requirements of a proper acknowledgement, but then concedes that failure to comply with these requirements “shall not have any effect on the validity of the underlying document or the recording of the underlying document.” (Within the Registers of Deeds Association there has been some debate on whether a notary’s failure to strictly follow the rules should prevent a document from being recorded. This law seems to hold that the document should be recorded anyway).

Regrettably, the new law is silent about electronic or digital acknowledgements. That is good, in a way, because it does not specifically prohibit them. But it does not specifically authorize them either. Perhaps that is because there is not a strong market for electronic notarization. The flaw in that logic is that in 2005, there was no great demand for electronic recording, but we started doing it anyway and now it accounts for more than 50% of all recordings. As electronic acknowledgements become more feasible and desirable, hopefully the codification of these ambiguities will not stand as an obstacle to future technological innovation.

Uniform Access to Court Records

This past Tuesday, November 1, 2016, the new Trial CourtRule XIV: Uniform Rules on Public Access to Court Records went into effect. There are five sub-rules covering (1) scope and definitions; (2) access to court records in a courthouse; (3) requests for compiled data; (4) requests for bulk data; and (5) remote access to electronic court records. The rule applies to clerks, clerk magistrates, registers of probate, recorders of the land court, and their assistants or designees. Since each register of deeds is also an assistant recorder of the Land Court, the new rules would apply to the registered land department at each registry of deeds. However, the new rules are clearly directed at case files and court dockets. The registry of deeds does not use either to organize our records. We have indexes and record books, now mostly virtual but some still of paper. And a core part of our mission is to make public our records, something we do at the registry and freely and fully on the internet. While we should be cognizant of the requirements of these new rules, I don’t believe they will change our operations in any meaningful way.  

October Recording Statistics

Here are Middlesex North Registry of Deeds recording statistics for October 2016 compared to October 2015, and 2016 year-to-date compared to 2015 year-to-date:

October

The number of deeds recorded this October was up 4% from October 2015 (603 to 629)
Mortgages were up 25% (946 to 1178)
Foreclosure deeds were up 61% (18 to 29)
Orders of Notice were down 22% (68 to 53)
Total documents were up 6% (5337 to 5678)

Year-to-date

Deeds recorded thru October were up 11% from from the same period in 2015 (5035 to 5583)
Mortgages were up 7% (8410 to 8974)
Foreclosure deeds up 32% (139 to 184)
Orders of Notice up 2% (370 to 377)
Total documents up 5% (44739 to 46949)