Kent McMillan, post: 395014, member: 3 wrote: I don't think that is true in Texas. Here, when the County Clerk is presented with an illegible document for record, this is what gets recorded:
So there is a law in Texas requring the recordation of illegible documents?
MightyMoe, post: 395018, member: 700 wrote: hey, looks better than the GLO notes from Montana. Wonder if they faxed them, then scanned them?
The page of the document that the page above came from was evidently faxed at least once and quite possibly twice, attached to the instrument and filed for record. The rest of the document (a Deed of Trust) is legible and the clerk marked the one page above as illegible when filed. The problem isn't at the recordation end, but probably originated in the office of whoever prepared the deed.
Tommy Young, post: 395022, member: 703 wrote: So there is a law in Texas requring the recordation of illegible documents?
The Texas Local Government provides in Sec. 191.007. SPECIFICATIONS FOR LEGAL PAPERS; INCREASED FEES that on any legal papers presented to a county clerk for recording "printing, typing, and handwriting must be clearly legible." However, after stating that requirement, the same section goes on to provide that:
"This section does not authorize a county clerk to refuse to record a legal paper for the reason that it fails to meet one or more of the requirements prescribed by Subsections (b) through (g). Failure to comply with these requirements shall not in any manner alter, amend, impair, or invalidate any document or legal instrument of any type or character and upon recordation by the county clerk the document or legal instrument shall be deemed and considered as fully complying with the provisions of law dealing with the recordation of documents or legal instruments of every type and character."
In other words, that instrument was required to be legible, but the County Clerk couldn't refuse it for record just because it wasn't. Hence the "Illegible page" stamp is the solution.
A lot of the records in my area were photographed to microfiche many years ago (the 1960's, perhaps?) and while they were mostly in fair shape then, the films have become scratched and degraded over the years and the viewers - and the copiers attached to them- are not working as well as they once did. The originals are warehoused somewhere, i suppose.
Mark Mayer, post: 395026, member: 424 wrote: A lot of the records in my area were photographed to microfiche many years ago (the 1960's, perhaps?) and while they were mostly in fair shape then, the films have become scratched and degraded over the years and the viewers - and the copiers attached to them- are not working as well as they once did. The originals are warehoused somewhere, i suppose.
I always preferred the microfiche although the image eventually gets scratched. The microfilm on rolls always seemed to get pretty scratched up from all the high-speed whizzing that occurs when you're trying to get to where you want to be.
Kent, that font is called obscurus faxus. I am very familiar with it and have been waiting for an OCR Software company to generate a conversion to a Word file.
One of the better archival formats is the CCITT Group 4 Fax format. It is a fairly compact lossless compression method.
Ironic considering it is was created for the fax machine.
Daniel Ralph, post: 395033, member: 8817 wrote: Kent, that font is called obscurus faxus. I am very familiar with it and have been waiting for an OCR Software company to generate a conversion to a Word file.
Adobe Acrobat Pro actually does a decent job doing just that.
Tommy Young, post: 394982, member: 703 wrote: There is not a register of deeds in the country that is required to record an illegible document.
There was a fella (surveyor) about 5 years ago who was turned away at the recorder's office. His map was not produced by a cad program: Hand drawn and lettered. It was apparently not what you'd expect in the 21st century.. He was told to produce a better quality map for recording.