You really should have read my posting a little more carefully before attempting to pontificate and speak Ex Cathedra on the subject. You may also wish to consider a remedial reading course. You have misquoted me.

In your earlier post you limited your comments to the impact of an abstractor's late recording of a mortgage and your perception of additional expenses to the law firm arising therefrom. That is the posting to which I responded. If I recall you said nothing about failure to follow closing instructions and insuring title.

Connecicut is a race state also, and I fully understand the
 implications of an intervening lien being recorded with respect to the priority of the mortgage.

In your earlier post you indicated that a late recording may result in the redrafting of the mortgage and some imagined extra expense to the law firm for having to close the loan a second time. Let me try to get through to you again in terms that you may more readily understand... THERE IS NO SUCH EXPENSE NECESSITATED BY A SECOND CLOSING BECAUSE THERE IS NO NEED FOR A SECOND CLOSING. Can I make it any more clear?

The loan has been closed. The loan and mortgage are binding as the the Mortgagor and the Mortgagee. The recording of the mortgage perfects the security interest, and protects the lender's priority for a future foreclosure. It serves as notice to future third party lien holder's that the lender is prior in claim to their respective liens.

If you read my earlier posting, I said that an intervening lien is a problem, and that law firms in this area do not record the mortgage in that circumstance. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A SECOND CLOSING. It creates a problem with the lender's priority of claim when the lender tries to perfect the security interest. If there are intervening liens the borrower has either misrepresented something on his loan application or has incurred an additional financial obligation (such as a mechanic's lien for work done on the property) while the mortgage application was pending. In this instance the lender will require the borrower to have the intervening liens released, and if they are not released accelerate the mortgage, demand payment and foreclose. The lender has two options. It can record the mortgage behind the intervening liens, pay the liens off to protect their position, foreclose, and seek the expenses as part of their foreclosure action. Mortgages routinely contain a clauses that allows them to do this. The other option that a lender can choose is not to record the mortgage and sue on the promissory note for money damages.

In so far as title insurance is concerned, the title insurance carriers protect themselves through an affidavit at closing indicating that the borrower has done nothing to encumber the title since the title search. Otherwise the intervening lien is an exclusion from coverage.

Now is there anything else on which you are confused?