The point you were trying to make was made clear in the original post:

 "...The debt secured by the mortgage described above has been partially paid.  Therefore, this discharge does not constitute a satisfaction of the debt.  Absent a separate agreement in writing providing otherwise, the debt remains in full force and effect.  This discharge serves only to release the lien of the mortgage upon the property described therein..."

The post ends with "Anyone have any answers?"

 As you can see, the question is a bit vague.  It's reasonable to see this as a question as to why this release may have been recorded, since the 'what' answer was right there in the post.  So, yes.  Unless I'm completely missing the point, most of the replies above were relevant to the question posed.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, just disagreeing .  : )