start enforcing the laws that are already on the books.
First, let me note that to facilitate the transfer of property from one party to another, the county/city/state (varies depending on the state) needs to record the paperwork as it is received. However, in the states I have worked in, Registry personnel do have the right to reject documents if they don't meet state law for form, wrong party signed the document, notarization, number of witnesses, etc. However, I do not believe they can reject a document because they think it is forged.
Plus, how would they do that? Look up another document signed by the same person? What if one doesn't exist in the Registry records? Given how busy and short staffed some registries are, how would they have time to do this?
That said, there are, in most states, laws in place to protect land owners and in the last decade or so, states have been strengthening these rules. Usually a the owner's signature on the deed has to be notarized. A lot of states now require that the notary check see a picture ID of the person signing the deed and keep a log of the type of document notarize, the type of identification they viewed, the date, etc. Assuming that PA requires that deeds be notarized, it sounds like they need to start holding these notaries accountable for the forged signatures, by revoking their appointments and with civil penalties.
Where technology would help with this is by providing registry personnel with a computerized listing of notaries. That way is someone's appointment is revoked the Registry personnel would be able to reject the document.
This is a crappy situation for the homeowners, and I agree that something needs to be done, but a new system may not be the answer.
Now here’s a great example of an area of local government that could really use some technology: property deed management.
A Philadelphia Daily News report this morning explains how thieves are preying on residents in the city’s toughest, poorest neighborhoods by forging their names on property deed transferrals and getting their houses legally transferred out of the original owner’s hands — without them knowing about it.
That’s a crime story. What makes it a data story is the fact that Philadelphia’s Department of Records can’t determine if the signatures on paperwork are fraudulent. It can’t track people who forge signatures. And under state law, it can’t reject those that it suspects are fraudulent — even if they’ve been sued on those grounds many times before.
A system with neither check nor balance. Fun!
Jan Ransom reports:
At issue is a 1997 Commonwealth Court ruling that the Records Department had to comply with state law by recording documents immediately. The ruling followed a complaint filed by the Pennsylvania Land Title Association, which claimed the city had a backlog of tens of thousands of unrecorded documents.
“They’ve interpreted it as you have to take everything,” Greenlee said.
To address deed theft, the Records Department in 2005 began photographing anyone who walks in to record a deed and notifying property owners by mail when transfers occur. Critics argue this does nothing to stop a fraudulent deed from being recorded.
“Once you accept [the deed], it puts the victim in a defensive position,” Greenlee said. “They do some things after the fact, but it can take a year to two years to get resolved. A lot of times it can’t be resolved.”
If there’s one thing we’ve learned about implementing IT systems in city government, it’s that it’s best used to ferret out patterns that humans are either unable to see or unable to monitor in a timely manner. In this example in Philadelphia, we can see the latter: every manual step of the above process is enormously taxing on an under-resourced department, putting it — and by extension city residents — on the defensive.
A no-tech process, as well as laws that support it, that opens up a fairly large opportunity for scammers to game the system. Ouch.
Photo: P.W. Baker/Flickr
