Preserving and Accessing Title to Land in Maryland
Testimony before the Appropriations Committee, Maryland House of Delegates
by  Dr. Edward C. Papenfuse, Jr., State Archivist  February 24, 2000
in support of HB 641-
An Act Concerning Circuit Court Real Property Records Improvement Fund

Mr. Chairman,
members of the Committee

My name is Ed Papenfuse and I am Archivist of the State of Maryland.  With me today is Chris Allan, Deputy Archivist. We are appearing today in support of HB 641 which permits the Circuit Court Real Property Records Improvement Fund to continue.

In an effort to preserve almost 300,000 oversized recordations of information relating to land titles, usually known as plats,  and make them readily accessible at the courts and over the Internet, I proposed a web-based imaging and retrieval system to the State Court Administrator called plats.net, or PLATO which the Administrator, with the approval of the Clerks and on the advice of the oversight committee, asked us to provide under the auspices of the Real Property Records Improvement Fund.

Today, with support from the Real Property Records Improvement Fund in an Archives of Maryland on line publication called plats.net, or PLATO (http://www.plats.net), we are reducing equipment maintenance and storage costs, providing images that preserve what in many cases are rapidly deteriorating originals, and creating a universal retrieval system that indexes comprehensively all recordation information relating to oversized materials.   To date we have brought over 60,000 images of records from Baltimore and Montgomery counties on line.  Washington, Queen Anne's, Worcester, St. Mary's, Calvert, Caroline, and Anne Arundel should be complete by the end of this fiscal year.  I have attached to this testimony a proposed schedule of installation for the remaining counties that is contingent upon legislative approval of the renewal of the fund.

In a moment I would like to review a few examples with you of what we have accomplished to date with plats.net, but before I do,  I would like to address one aspect of the intent of the law.  The language of the law at 13-603 (c), (lines 25-28 in the bill before you) refers to 'equipment related services'  which the Archives takes to mean an equipment based computerized service such as plats.net, which improves access to all records that bear on the title to land in Maryland.  For example all valid titles to land in Maryland must be traceable to an original land grant, known as a Patent, and to resolve questions of title, recourse must often be made to recorded decisions of equity, some of which are to be found among the records of the now-defunct Chancery Court of Maryland. In providing plats.net, which encompasses all such recorded material, as well as plats in deeds, subdivision and condominium plats, and plats in equity, we believe that we meet the intent of the Improvement Fund to access and image any record that affects the legal title to land, whether or not it is currently under the jurisdiction of the Clerk of Court.  If we are mistaken, the law should be clarified, but if the Committee agrees with our interpretation of legislative intent, the language need not be changed.

We have with us today users who will testify to the success of plats.net.

I will confine the remainder of my remarks today to an outline of what we have accomplished to date and to an indication of how extensively the service is being used by patrons of two of the courts currently on line.

The Digital Image Reference System at plats.net, generally referred to as PLATO
 


Over 60,000 plats for Baltimore and Montgomery counties are currently on-line. Use of the system during January indicates how this approach to making records available is a benefit to the courts and their patrons. In January, the system handled 26,386  requests for survey records. Court staff assisting the public accounted for 40% of the demand or 10,563 requests. Public users at the courts made 9,247 requests amounting to 35% of the activity on the site. The remainder, 6,576 requests, were made by users with Internet access provided by the courts, accounting for almost 25% of the system use. In contrast to January, 2000, only 18% of the system activity in November, 1999, was generated by users accessing the site via the Internet.

Briefly, with your permission, I would like to show you some examples of how the system works and what it produces for the user:

Outline of Exhibits