{"id":2347,"date":"2022-07-15T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-07-15T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.deeds.com\/articles\/?p=2347"},"modified":"2024-04-25T23:18:43","modified_gmt":"2024-04-26T03:18:43","slug":"states-scrub-racial-deed-restrictions-from-the-records","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.deeds.com\/articles\/states-scrub-racial-deed-restrictions-from-the-records\/","title":{"rendered":"States Scrub Racial Deed Restrictions From the Records"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Missouri\u2019s on a mission \u2014 to end racial deed restrictions. Its new law would require deletions of language regarding anyone\u2019s race, religion or national origin from any deeds recorded from now on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some Missouri homes have deed language that dates back a century, barring people from groups \u201cother than the Caucasian race\u201d from buying or renting homes. The language could go something like this (to quote a real example):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No persons of any race other than white shall own this property or use or occupy any structure on the property except in the capacity of domestic servants<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of the language bans any \u201cNegro.\u201d<\/a> \u00a0Some of it bars Jews or people of Asian ancestry. Some of it excludes people with disabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These restrictive covenants aren\u2019t legally enforceable today<\/a>. But the discriminatory language lives on, and it\u2019s grotesque. Why should it be allowed to linger?<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Real Effects<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Needless to say, prejudiced language dampens the enthusiasm of potential buyers. And imagine someone looking for a home who isn\u2019t sure what the language might legally mean. Many people in minority communities have reason to mistrust the process. There is, after all, a long history of agencies and lenders on the wrong side of this issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u261b<\/em> Discrimination through deed <\/strong><\/em>covenants and restrictions<\/em><\/strong><\/a> were legally valid until just a few decades ago.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Racially restrictive covenants appeared in Massachusetts and California deeds and title abstracts in the late 1800s. Excluding minority groups from developments soon became common. The government itself, through the Federal Housing Administration, had a history of financing whites-only subdivisions, effectively bringing white working families from the cities to the suburbs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This had real effects \u2014 keeping real people\u2019s grandparents out of some of the better serviced areas and out of whole developments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the Missouri Independent<\/em><\/a> states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beginning in 1935, the federal government required housing developers to sign agreements, or racial deed covenants, that they would not sell these homes to \u201cnon-Caucasians,\u201d in order to be eligible for federal construction loans.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, this past practice still has real effects. Homeownership and wealth disparities continue throughout the country. Restrictive covenants are a big reason why financial inequities persist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once a deed is in the records, the language is passed on from homeowner to homeowner. Why? Because covenants that run with the land are considered binding. Why wouldn\u2019t any <\/em>potential homeowner be leery of such language?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decades of Frustration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court case Shelley v. Kraemer<\/em> held racial deed restrictions unconstitutional, barred by the 14th Amendment\u2019s Equal Protection Clause. The court forbade the states from enforcing these restrictions, but fell short of actually prohibiting them! And racially restrictive language kept advertising properties to white buyers even after 1948. In 1968, the Federal Fair Housing Act finally banned race-based deed covenants. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1993, Missouri passed its own law to codify Shelley v. Kraemer<\/em> and forbid enforcement of the race-based restrictions. But, like most states that did this, Missouri failed to create a path for property owners to actually delete this kind of language from deeds where it was already embedded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For decades after this language was deemed unconstitutional, it still passed from deed to deed, because language in a deed had to be copied exactly for the document to be considered valid. So the language in the old deeds hasn\u2019t budged. When people have tried to delete the offensive words, they\u2019ve come up against the rigid system that says deed language can\u2019t be changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Recorders\u2019 Association of Missouri has lobbied for change. On the Missouri legislature\u2019s second try, it approved a bill permitting the removal of unconstitutional covenants. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u27a4 NEWS FLASH: At the end of June 2022, Gov. Mike Parson signed Missouri\u2019s racial covenant deletion law<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Missouri\u2019s new law is especially meaningful. J.D. Shelley, in the Supreme Court\u2019s Shelley v. Kraemer<\/em> case, was a Black homeowner in Missouri.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Deed Scrubbing Works<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Under the Missouri law, title companies, or anyone who creates a deed, must remove the offending language before submitting it for recording. When the recorder of deeds spots improperly exclusive language, it will return the deed for changes before it can be entered into the records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Residents can check with their particular county\u2019s recorder of deeds to learn more. Deed holders wanting to remove these covenants now, even if they aren\u2019t ready to transfer their deed to a new owner, can pick up a one-page document to fill out and pay $24 for processing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Missouri has tens of thousands of unconstitutional deeds. It\u2019s now one of the early adopters of laws to have county deed recorders delete racially restrictive language. States that have also done this? California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia. Here\u2019s how a few of these states are handling their new policies:<\/p>\n\n\n\n