Carteret Title
DRN Title Search
Log In
Forget your Password?

About Us
Contact Us
Privacy Policy

Slade Smith's Blog

Wikipedia: good enough for government work?
by Slade Smith | 2009/12/01 |

As I wrote about in my last post, "Debate over New York title insurance public option seems to miss the point", a group of New York state legislators have proposed legislation to create a "public option" for title insurance.  These legislators have pointed to Iowa's Title Guaranty Program, a system of public land title insurance established by Iowa state law.

Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion on the part of the New York legislators as to the nature of Iowa's land title laws.  In short, it appears that they have leaned too heavily on the vast online encyclopedia Wikipedia in their research of the issue.

Slade Smith's Blog ::

In a white paper on the issue, the New York legislators' research says this:

After careful review and consultation with a broad range of interested parties, we have concluded that speedy, fundamental reform of the current system is a practical and politically possible outcome that will preserve the legal and social benefits of guaranteed title while saving New Yorkers literally hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

That reform can use an enhanced regulatory model, or a fundamental market reform. While the enhanced regulatory model is easier to conceptualize and perhaps easier to enact, it will inevitably be slower and bring with it the less desirable consequences of a command-and-control system. We believe, however that fundamental market-based reform would create a swifter, more competitive, cheaper and more efficient system. We propose the creation of a “public option”, a state entity charged with guaranteeing title and reducing costs. 

That system is based on a modification of the theoretical basis for guaranteeing title. In the mid-19th century Australia, using a concept known as “Torrens Title”, replaced the old English land law, which was based on medieval concepts and made the transfer of real property cumbersome, time consuming and expensive (i.e., the title insurance system). That alternative system is now widely used in many parts of the world, and in Iowa. In Iowa the title or ownership right to the property is actually created by the very act of recording the transaction in a central, state-run register, which is legally conclusive. This is also called “title by registration”, and no document is effective to pass title or an interest in a property unless and until it is recorded at the centralized registry. In 1947, after a series of title company bankruptcies, Iowa adopted this system, and it exists today in the form of the Iowa Title Guaranty Program. While estimates of the savings to the citizens of Iowa vary, a conservative estimate is that Iowans pay about one-half of what citizens of other states are paying for similar title guarantees. While there are no intrastate title insurance companies in Iowa, constitutional protection for interstate commerce requires that out-of-state title companies be able to compete in Iowa and they now provide insurance for about 10% of real property transactions.

All fine and good, except that Iowa is not on the Torrens title system.  In fact, apparently Iowa legislators considered it and rejected it.  According to the Iowa Land Title Association, there was a significant public battle over Torrens title that lasted in some degree for the first half of the 20th century.  But ultimately, the Torrens system of land titles was not adopted.

Where did the New York legislators get their faulty information?

All signs point to Wikipedia.  Until very recently, Wikipedia's entry for "Torrens title" had an error in it.  If a researcher had read the Wikipedia entry for Torrens title a few months ago, they would have read this:

In the United States, only Iowa has all its land under the Torrens system; other states with a limited implementation include Minnesota, Massachusetts, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington.

This reference to Iowa having its land titles on the Torrens title system was corrected in August, and the passage now reads like this:

In the United States, states with a limited implementation include Minnesota, Massachusetts, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington.

Wikipedia is a great resource, no doubt about it.  When I was seeking out information for my last blog post, Wikipedia was the first place I went.  And I did this even though I know from experience that Wikipedia is far from error-free.  I guess the difference between myself and the New York legislature is that I'm not basing billion-dollar legislation solely on what I read on Wikipedia.


1132 words | 5422 views | 5 comments | log in or register to post a comment

Still wrong

No New York county currently uses a Torrens system for its real property records.

by William Collins | 2009/12/02 | log in or register to post a reply

New York Torrens


I am curious.  I took a quck look at Article 12, section 436 of New York Real Property law and I see where voluntary filings are no longer allowed after some time in 2000, but adverse filings to the certificate were still valid.  Are you saying that all the counties have now followed the procedures to cancel the existing certificates?  It looks as though the full cancellation of the existing certificates requires much the same effort as here in Ohio.





by Douglas Gallant | 2009/12/02 | log in or register to post a reply


Suffolk County was the last NY county to still have active Torrens certificates.  I don't know the details, since Suffolk is far away from our area, and this happened before I became involved in statewide title issues, but I believe they cancelled their remaining certificates more than 10 years ago.

by William Collins | 2009/12/04 | log in or register to post a reply

Torrens New York


I see where I misread Section 436 a bit.  Reading it again, I see where all certificates were to be delivered on or before 1-1-2000 to the County Clerk for recording, and that from January 1997 to December 1999 adverse instruments were allowed.  Voluntary instruments were disallowed at the first of January 1997.

Here in Ohio, the Torrens System never really caught on outside of Hamilton County in a major way, but was a required option in all counties.  There was legislation passed a few years ago to allow individual counties to opt out of the system, but the requirements are a bit of a burden.  All certificates, whether active or not, must be examined by a "master examiner" and presented to Common Pleas Court in the county for verification.  The certificates are then entered into the general index and the Torrens system is over.

It seems New York did a quicker job by doing it on a mandatory basis, and not requiring the re-examination of the certificates and the courts blessing.

Thanks much for the information.  I also would like to apologize to Slade for getting away from the gist of his blog.

by Douglas Gallant | 2009/12/04 | log in or register to post a reply

Doug, by all means, be my guest!

You are welcome in my blogs any time and for any purpose that suits you :-) 

by Slade Smith | 2009/12/05 | log in or register to post a reply
Slade Smith's Blog

I'm the web developer for Source of Title.  Due to this role, I have become an interested observer of the title insurance industry and the broader issues arising out of real estate and finance.   I have also blogged extensively about politics under the pseudonym "skymutt" at the partisan Democratic blog Daily Kos and the non-partisan community Swords Crossed






Recent Comments

Hi, I tried to post a comment but the comment section was closed. I am completely clueless about w...
by Tatiana Lilly
"Welcome to the new age",  the one where 'anything goes'? Glad I already like Cole Porter.&nbs...
by john gault
It's inescapable that review was only sought shortly before the borrower's bk. The odds are the bor...
by john gault
There is a time limit for mortgages to be recorded in order to not be considered a preferential tran...
by James Newberry
Well said Bobbi Shorthouse.   It serves them right for being so sloppy.  And a stiff...
by Judy Maclauchlan
I'd imagine that with all the lenders that were sold or went out of business during the period of th...
by Slade Smith
"If decisions like this were handed down often enough, banks might think they were better off...
by Bobbi Shorthouse, Notary Public
Here's a scary thought to keep Full Spectrum awake at night (or BNY Mellon if this one is also in it...
by Slade Smith

    © 2007, Source of Title.