Jarrod A. Clabaugh, Source of Title
Reprinted with Permission May-03-07

On April 5, 2007, Doug Bennett, a representative of the Michigan House, submitted House Bill 4582 to the Committee on Intergovernmental, Urban and Region Affairs that would amend the fees structure maintained by the state's register of deeds' offices. Bennett's bill would significantly increase the costs associated with the various services the county provides, but, most significantly, the bill would require registers to apply a $6 rate increase to the $1 fee they currently charge.

Registers of deeds from around the state are opposing the bill, according to individuals with whom Source of Title spoke. One register said that a $6 increase on any copy is tremendous and that the county officials, and not the state lawmakers, will be the ones held accountable for the increase by county constituents.

Although copy fees were initially intended to cover the cost of making copies and maintaining the public record, these guidelines have been skewed in some counties. Legislation such as that which is being proposed in Michigan would not only provide for monies to be directed to the counties, but also to the state. According to Ginny McLaren, the register of deeds for Tuscola County, she and other registers were told that the state intends to divide the $7 fee in half and return an additional $1.00 from their cut back to the county coffers. These funds would be made available to the counties via the state's revenue sharing program.

Yet, McLaren and others who service the county record offices question the state's true intentions for implementing such legislation. Some of them believe that the significant budgetary restraints the state is currently facing have led to the creation of this bill.

"While an increase to $2 for the county might be justifiable in the future, $7 will never be," McLaren said. “This may be the only service that counties provide that actually pays for itself. It doesn’t put a burden on the county general fund or the county residents. I think some legislators are viewing this office with dollar signs in their eyes but counties shouldn’t be bailing out the state. These county fees have a specific purpose and that’s how it should remain.”

The registers are also worried that the state is so far removed from most constituents' daily lives that they, the registers, will receive the brunt of the blame for the legislation. Taxpayers are likely to remember what office it was that overcharged them and ignore what legislator was behind the development of a specific bill. Based on previous laws that the state implemented, the registers were the ones that were criticized for the laws rather than simply acting as agents carrying out their required, legislative duties.

Additionally, some fear that this significant bump in copy fees would threaten the livelihoods of small abstracting companies and independent examiners who often have a difficult time getting paid for the charges incurred from copy costs at the current rate. An increase of this magnitude would surely draw criticism from clients who consider the $1 fee to be too substantial. McLaren also pointed out that to many of the county offices small companies and businesses are substantial to the economic growth as the counties and, thus, they should not be negatively effected by such a large increase in copy costs.

Under the current law, registers of deeds are required to charge an $8 fee for the first page and $3 for each additional and succeeding page when an individual drops off a document for entering and recording, such as a deed, mortgage, certified copy of an attachment, notice of the pendency of a suit, or other instrument. The fee is paid when the document is left for recordation. The register of deeds then deposits $5.00 of the total fee collected for each recording into the automation fund if a fund was established under section 2568 of the state law. For any document that assigns or discharges more than one instrument, $3.00 is added to the recording fee for each additional instrument assigned or discharged. The proposed legislation would not change any of these fees.

Are You Eligible for Economic Recovery Money?