I tend to agree with Kevin.  The address and parcel number do not mean anything, in fact, we find they are often wrong, especially when splits are involved.  It is the legal description that determines what property is encumbered by the mortgage.  It sounds as though the abstractor reported it correctly.   The mortgage had the legal description for the property searched and it was not released - it should have been, and it sounds like it was, reported. 

Because the address, or parcel number, does not control what property is encumbered, the legal description does, addresses and parcel numbers on those documents are not normally included in a title search.  For those kinds of things, I think you need to ask for copies.  I always get copies of the pertinent pages of mortgages when I request a search.

However, you also said:

The abstractor also does not notice a court order recorded referencing this mortgage which reformed the legal description so that it WAS NOT against our property.

If this court case was properly indexed in the chain of title to the property searched, the abstractor is to blame for this error. This would be something that the abstractor should have caught.

All that being said, I think that it would have been nice if the abstractor had noticed it and provided a note of the discrepancy, but I don't think I would fault an abstractor for not picking it up.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE