The Essex South Registry of Deeds in Salem has put most of its records online.
A privacy bill designed to keep stalking and abuse victims’ addresses out of the public record has sparked concern among some in the real estate industry who fear that information, which is an integral part of records like property deeds, could be affected.
The secretary of state’s office, in response, has said that property records most likely will not be affected by the legislation, which was awaiting Gov. Paul Cellucci’s signature as of Banker & Tradesman’s press deadline. That stance, however, could spark concern from victims’ advocates if they find that victims’ addresses are still being readily accessed through registry records.
Members of the state Legislature voted unanimously at the end of the last session on Beacon Hill to help victims of violent attacks or threats keep their home addresses private. Lawmakers approved a bill that would establish a state Address Confidentiality Program and submitted it for the governor’s approval on the last day of the session, which was Jan. 2.
Under the language of the bill, the program would be open to Massachusetts residents who maintain up-to-date restraining orders and have appeared before a judge at least one time. Those residents who apply for and are accepted into the Address Confidentiality Program would be given a post office box residential mailing address that is registered with the secretary of state’s office. First-class mail that is sent to that address would be forwarded to the victim by specially trained personnel in the secretary’s office, who will be the only ones that know the residential address of the program participant.
The program is designed to shield addresses of victims whose stalkers or attackers might access them through any of a number of public records searches.
Once a victim has been certified as a program participant, state and local agencies must accept the address designated by the secretary as a program participant’s substitute address when creating a new public record that normally would require the actual residential address.
The participant’s address would only be revealed if requested by a law enforcement agency, the head of a state agency for a bona fide purpose, through a court order, or if the participant’s certification has been canceled because they provided false information in the application.
If and when the program is finally put into place, officials in the secretary of state’s office said addresses filed at registries of deeds statewide likely would not be affected.
“Once it becomes a law, specific regulations still have to be written” said Brian McNiff, communications director for Secretary of State William Galvin. “It won’t affect what goes on at the registry of deeds.”
Filings at registries of deeds across the state already have no connection to potential program participants who rent their residence rather than owning it, and McNiff said having one’s name appear in registry records does not automatically mean that his or her home address has been revealed.
“The registries of deeds record property. It’s not necessarily their residence,” McNiff said. “The law doesn’t appear to have an effect here, because the address listed on the deed doesn’t mean it’s their address, it just shows where they own property.”
Furthermore, McNiff said searching property transactions at the registry is usually not the option first chosen by most people.
“This may come as a surprise to the people at Banker & Tradesman, but that’s not the normal place people go looking for addresses,” he said. “People will go for other places first, where it’s easier to find mailing addresses.”
In the past, the registry of deeds was arguably not the easiest source to turn to for public records, as a search often involved looking through stacks of old books in the basement of a room in a town hall or courthouse. Recently, though, there have been efforts by registers across the state to make their facilities more user-friendly, with some property records available for search from home or anywhere else with an Internet connection.
The Essex South Registry of Deeds, for example, has put most of its records online at www.salemdeeds.com, where users can search property records by owner name, among other criteria. The site has been accessed more than 321,000 times since it went live in 1998.
Essex South Register John L. O’Brien Jr. said he can understand the concerns behind removing addresses of certain victims, and that it can be tough to weigh those concerns against the integrity of public records.
“Having the Web site is a good thing, obviously, because of the convenience,” O’Brien said. “But obviously there are downsides too, when people can look up deeds so conveniently. We can’t alter public records or delete addresses.
“Usually, if people don’t want their name or address appearing, it’s because they don’t want someone to know they bought this certain house for X amount of dollars, and I have to tell them that it’s part of the public record,” he said. O’Brien added that his registry has never encountered a situation where someone wanted their information shielded because of a stalking or other threatening situation, such as those outlined by the new Address Confidentiality Program.
“If someone’s stalking you, clearly you have to protect yourself, but at the same time you have to comply with the public records law,” he said. “Years ago [the information] would have been hidden away in books, but now with the new technology, people can see it right in their own homes. I’m sure this issue will have to be addressed somewhere along the line.”
‘Bump in the Road’
O’Brien said he was having the language of the bill more closely reviewed by a lawyer to find out what effect, if any, it would have on his registry. He said registers statewide would most likely talk further about the subject at a meeting slated for later this week, and sent a letter to Galvin seeking further clarification on the issue.
“Although I support and applaud the intent of the legislation, I am concerned with the registry of deeds’ ability to implement such on a practical level, and I am particularly concerned in view of the fact that our Web site allows for the viewing of recorded documents by the public via the Internet,” he wrote in the letter dated Jan. 11. “Please advise me at your convenience as to what determination has been made about registry of deeds information as set forth in this statute and, if the registry of deeds is not exempt from the law, how the registry of deeds should deal with the implementation of this regulation, should the situation present itself.”
“I knew nothing of this statute,” before being contacted by Banker & Tradesman, O’Brien said. “Before legislative committees do something like this, they should at least come in and sit with us to find out what the effect will be.”
“The secretary does not feel this is going to be a concern, or that it will have an effect of the registries,” McNiff said. “If [accessing registry records] is seen as a problem, it will be addressed at that point.”
State Sen. Cheryl Jacques, D-Needham, a sponsor of the bill, said that she knew that public records at registries of deeds was one source of conflict for the program, but added that, overall, the Address Confidentiality Program should still prove effective.
“For virtually every public document, the secretary would keep those who are at-risk protected, while at the same time letting the normal course of business take place,” she said. “We knew about the deeds issue, and the secretary has the discretion to act on that on a case-by-case basis. The secretary will make the final call to balance the need between a victim’s protection and the public record.”
Jacques added that the deeds issue was one of several “little bumps in the road” that go along with passing a bill such as this one.
“If we can get 99 percent of the mailings and the addresses in public documents to be confidential, then I feel we have made tremendous progress,” Jacques said.
“Those who have not experienced [instances such as stalking] take for granted the security they feel,” said Jacques, a former assistant district attorney and assistant attorney general. “These individuals live in constant fear.”
