Wisconsin Legislature: oag1-03

Finally, the legislative history of the current Wis. Stat. § 59.54(2)(b) and (4) clearly supports the conclusion that, although several successive Legislatures have authorized storage of real property records by use of microfilm, optical disks and electronic media, the Legislature has never deviated from the directive that registers ordinarily must charge for copies by the page, regardless of whether those pages are reproduced on paper or in an electronic image.

The language of what is now Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(b) has remained remarkably stable for many decades except for occasional changes in the unit fee registers shall receive. For example, the reference to “copies of any records or papers” has appeared in the statutes since at least 1919, see Wis. Stat. § 59.57(4) (1919). From 1919 until 1968, the unit charge was “per folio,” when the unit was changed to “per page” and “page” was defined. See ch. 278, sec. 2, Laws of 1967. The current charge for copying ($2 for the first page plus $1 for each additional page) was instituted at the same time, in 1968, and has not been changed since then (see id; cf. Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(b)).

[=OAG 1-03, 6-7] Current Wis. Stat. § 59.43(4), entitled “REGISTER OF DEEDS; MICROFILMING AND OPTICAL DISK AND ELECTRONIC STORAGE,” was created in 1969 and originally dealt only with microfilm storage. See ch. 440, Laws of 1969, creating Wis. Stat. § 59.512 (1969). In 1991, Wis. Stat. § 59.512 was amended to authorize storage of deeds, mortgages and other instruments relating to real property on optical disks. 1991 Wisconsin Act 39, sec. 1612j. At the same time, the fee statute (then Wis. Stat. § 59.57(4), now Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(b)) was amended expressly to exempt the Department of Revenue from payment of copying fees, although the fees for copies of records stored on optical disk remained unchanged. 1991 Wisconsin Act 39, sec. 1615. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau note accompanying the drafting record for this provision indicates that the 1991 amendments were regarded as having no effect on the base budget.

The storage provisions were again amended in 1995, first by the substantive amendment authorizing electronic storage, 1993 Wisconsin Act 27, sec. 3294. As with the 1991 amendment, there is no indication in the legislative history of that session law that the Legislature anticipated any change in revenue or intended any change in the fees applicable to copies for electronically stored records. See Vol. 1, 1995-97 Wisconsin State Budget, Comparative Summary of Budget Provisions at 108 (Legislative Fiscal Bureau, December 1995). Finally, again in 1995, numerous separate statutory provisions relating to registers of deeds were consolidated and renumbered, resulting in the current comprehensive statute, Wis. Stat. § 59.43, including subsection (2)(b), the copying fee provision, and subsection (4), the record storage provision.

Thus, the legislative history of Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(b) reveals that the fee provisions themselves have remained the same for decades. At the same time, successive statutory amendments authorizing storage and, in turn, access and copying by means of electronic or photographic media have resulted in ambiguity concerning their application. In my opinion, had the Legislature intended to alter registers’ fees and expected program revenues as a consequence of authorizing electronic or optical disk storage, such a major funding change would almost certainly have been reflected in the legislative history of those provisions. There is, however, no evidence whatever in the legislative history of Wis. Stat. § 59.43 that the Legislature intended to alter registers’ statutory fees and to apply, by default, the much more limited fee provisions of the public records statute, Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3)(a). Based on the language, context, purpose and legislative history of Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(b) and (4), it is most reasonable to conclude that the fee provisions of Wis. Stat. § 59.43 are intended as an express exception to the general fee provisions of the public records statute.

Moreover, the contrary conclusion—that registers must provide electronic copies of real property records limited to the “actual, necessary and direct cost of reproduction” would substantially nullify the legislative directive in the contract provision of Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(c) that the negotiated contract price can be less than the regular statutory fee but “in no event . . . less than cost of labor and material plus a reasonable allowance for plant and depreciation of equipment used.” Under Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(c), title companies and others having a commercial interest in obtaining the complete daily recordings and filings are given the opportunity to negotiate a “volume discount” contract price less than the statutory fee, yet significant enough for registers to be able to function based on the anticipated revenue. At present, many registers provide electronic copies of complete daily recordings to contractors. The incentive to seek a favorable contract price under Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(c) is eliminated if the charge for those electronic copies is already limited to the actual, necessary and direct cost of producing those electronic copies.

[=OAG 1-03, 8] After careful examination of Wis. Stat. § 59.43 as a whole and Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(b) in particular, I conclude that Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(b) governs the fee registers of deeds must charge for electronic copies of mortgages, deeds or other instruments relating to real property, unless the requester has negotiated a different price pursuant to a contract authorized by Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(c). I emphasize, however, that the fee provisions of Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2) are an express statutory exception to fees permitted under the public records statute generally. Moveover, my conclusion is based on, and limited to, the language and clear legislative history of Wis. Stat. § 59.43 itself. Because the electronic storage provisions of Wis. Stat. § 59.43(4) have rendered the fee provisions of Wis. Stat. § 59.49(2)(b) ambiguous, the Legislature may wish to consider clarifying legislation.

Very truly yours,

Peggy A. Lautenschlager

Attorney General

[=OAG 1-03, 8-9]PAL:MMF:mmp

c: J. Bushnell Nielsen

Attorney for Wisconsin Land Title Association

Larry D. Eckert, President

Wisconsin Register of Deeds’ Association

Todd J. Liebman, Past President

Wisconsin Corporation Counsel Association

John C. Jacques

Interim Corporation Counsel

Brown County

Laverne Michalek

Corporation Counsel

Trempealeau County

Marlotte Dascher

Trempealeau County Abstract Company

Yianni Pantis

Attorney for First American Real Estate Solutions

Jane C. Licht

Dane County

Cathy Williquette

Brown County

Marilyn Mueller

Kewaunee County

[=OAG 1-03, 10]Summary: Registers of deeds entering into contracts pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(c) may insist on provisions protecting the identity and integrity of records obtained pursuant to such contracts and protecting the public. Authority to require provisions directly prohibiting the contracting party from selling or disseminating copies of such records is not prohibited and may reasonably be implied from the general contracting authority of sec. 59.43(2)(c). The fee requirements of Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(b), not those of the public records statute, Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3), apply to electronic copies of records obtained pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 59.43(4), unless the requester has entered into a contract authorized by Wis. Stat. § 59.43(2)(c).

You agree that this language should not be interpreted to prohibit providing copies of records when used for purposes of a title opinion and that the contract language can be modified to state that the distribution of copies used in support of title opinions is not prohibited.

One register provided us with an example of a marketing letter mailed to potential customers in Illinois offering to obtain certified copies of property deeds at the cost of $79.50 when the same document can be purchased directly from the appropriate office in Illinois for a fraction of the quoted price.

Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3)(a) provides: “An authority may impose a fee upon the requester of a copy of a record which may not exceed the actual, necessary and direct cost of reproduction . . . unless a fee is otherwise specifically established . . . by law.