Montgomery County ex rel. Becker v. Merscorp, Inc.
16 F. Supp. 3d 535
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- Nancy Becker, Recorder of Deeds for Montgomery County, PA, sued Merscorp, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS Defendants) on behalf of herself and other county recorders, alleging they maintained a private registry and thereby failed to record conveyances as required by 21 P.S. § 351.
- Plaintiff seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief for alleged negligent and willful violations of the recording statute; earlier motions addressed scope of the statute and pleading sufficiency.
- Defendants raised, among other defenses, an as-applied constitutional vagueness challenge to 21 P.S. § 351 (added in an amended answer) and moved for summary judgment on that ground.
- The court framed the dispute as an as-applied vagueness challenge to a civil recording statute and reviewed governing vagueness principles and summary-judgment standards.
- The court interpreted § 351 together with related recording statutes (e.g., 21 P.S. §§ 444, 621) to identify what must be recorded, who should record, and when recording must occur.
- The court denied summary judgment, holding § 351 is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the MERS Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 351 is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Becker contends § 351 requires recording of conveyances and MERS’ private registry violates that duty | MERS argues § 351 is vague and gives no clear notice about what must be recorded, who must record, when, or what standards apply | Denied — § 351 is not vague as applied; it requires recording of instruments intended to convey interests in real property |
| Who must record and when | Becker: parties executing conveyances must record to protect interests | MERS: statute fails to specify who must record and timing | Court: statutes construed together (§§ 351, 444, 621) clarify that parties executing instruments should record in county recorder’s office within statutory timeframes (e.g., 90 days/6 months grace) |
| Whether § 351 lacks objective standards leading to arbitrary enforcement | Becker: recording rules and priority consequences are clear and objective | MERS: absence of explicit standards permits arbitrary application | Court: statute supplies a simple objective standard — record the instrument to protect an interest — and the recording scheme and related statutes provide administrable rules |
| Proper vagueness review standard (as-applied civil challenge) | Becker: civil statute evaluated under as-applied standard with greater tolerance for vagueness in civil contexts | MERS: (implicit) contends stricter clarity required | Court: applied as-applied civil vagueness review (greater tolerance than criminal) and found statute constitutionally adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard) (movant must show absence of genuine dispute of material fact)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (vagueness principle) (laws must give ordinary people reasonable notice of prohibited conduct)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (civil vagueness tolerance) (greater tolerance for vagueness in civil regulatory contexts)
- United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (as-applied review) (vagueness challenges without First Amendment implications are reviewed as applied)
- Trojan Technologies, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 916 F.2d 903 (vagueness test) (articulates dual vagueness criteria: notice and enforcement standards)