Acting Chief Justice, HEARN.

This case is a consolidation of five separate lawsuits instituted by county administrators and registers of deeds in Allendale, Beaufort, Colleton, Hampton, and Jasper Counties (collectively, Respondents) against MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (MERS); and numerous banking institutions (collectively, Petitioners). Respondents contend Petitioners have engaged in a practice of fraudulent recordings that have disrupted the integrity of the public index Respondents are statutorily required to maintain. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. Petitioners then filed a motion for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 245, SCACR, which this Court granted. We now reverse the decision of the trial court and dismiss Respondents' suits.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because this appeal arises from the denial of a motion to dismiss, we accept the facts as alleged in the complaint for the purposes of our analysis. MERS is a subsidiary of MERSCORP and is a member-based organization made up of lenders and investors, including mortgage banks, title companies, and title insurance companies. When MERS member-lenders issue a mortgage and promissory note, MERS is listed as the mortgagee, specifically as "nominee" in place of the lender. The mortgage is then recorded in the county where the real property is located, and internally, the loan is registered in the MERS system. Accordingly, MERS becomes the grantee in the public index, despite the fact that MERS holds no security interest in the promissory note. This allows the lender to retain priority with MERS as the nominee without having to record each time there is an assignment of the mortgage when the promissory note is transferred. MERS essentially provides a convenient framework through which members can transfer notes amongst themselves without having to record each exchange. However, as a result of this system, the public index may not accurately reflect who has an interest in the real property, as the note has been severed from the mortgage.

Respondents filed lawsuits in their respective counties against Petitioners, alleging fraud and misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, conversion, and trespass to chattels. Additionally, Respondents sought a declaratory judgment stating Petitioners had caused damage to the public index in recording false documents. Furthermore, they requested injunctive relief enjoining Petitioners from recording any document indicating MERS has a lien on real property as well as requiring Respondents to correct the falsely filed documents. Respondents prayed for direct and consequential damages to remediate deficiencies in the index, as well as compensatory and punitive damages in the event the errors in the records could not be ameliorated. Chief Justice Jean H. Toal signed an order consolidating the cases and assigning them to Business Court Judge R. Lawton McIntosh.

Petitioners then filed a joint motion to dismiss, arguing Respondents "lack contractual standing," the lawsuit was barred by section 30-9-30 of the South Carolina Code (2007), the parties may designate MERS as mortgagee, and the complaints fail to state a cognizable claim.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss in a form order stating: "As this is a novel issue of law[,] motions to dismiss are inappropriate at this time under Byrd v. Irmo [High School, 321 S.C. 426, 468 S.E.2d 861 (1996)]. No formal order to follow." Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted.1

ISSUE PRESENTED

Did the trial court err in failing to grant Petitioners' motion to dismiss because Respondents failed to state a cause of action?

LAW/ANALYSIS

Petitioners contend section 30-9-30(B) does not provide Respondents authority to bring this cause of action, and on this ground, the suit should be dismissed. Respondents argue this statute allows them to bring this suit by implication. We agree with Petitioners.2

At the outset, we find the trial court erred in declining to dismiss the suit on the ground this was a novel issue. Although our Court has held that "important questions of novel impression should not be decided on a motion to dismiss," this general rule does not apply when the determinative facts are not in dispute. See Unisys Corp. v. S. Carolina Budget & Control Bd. Div. of Gen. Servs. Info. Tech. Mgmt. Office, 346 S.C. 158, 165, 551 S.E.2d 263, 267 (2001). Where, as here, the question is one of simple statutory construction, a trial court should not deny a meritorious motion merely because the question is one of first impression.

Our focus in statutory construction is ascertaining the intent of the legislature, and we turn first to the text of a statute as the best evidence of legislative will. Horry Tel. Co-op., Inc. v. City of Georgetown, 408 S.C. 348, 353, 759 S.E.2d 132, 134 (2014). Therefore, questions of whether the legislature intended to create a private cause of action should be resolved by the language of the statute. 16 Jade St., LLC v. R. Design Const. Co., 405 S.C. 384, 389, 747 S.E.2d 770, 773 (2013). "When a statute does not specifically create a private cause of action, one can be implied only if the legislation was enacted for the special benefit of a private party." Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 397, 645 S.E.2d 245, 248 (2007). Generally, "a statute which does not purport to establish a civil liability, but merely makes provision to secure the safety or welfare of the public as an entity is not subject to a construction establishing civil liability." Whitworth v. Fast Fare Markets of S.C. Inc., 289 S.C. 418, 420, 338 S.E.2d 155, 156 (1985) (quoting 73 Am.Jur.2d, Statutes § 432 (1974)).

Section 30-9-30(B)(1)-(2) provides:

(emphasis added). Respondents suggest that because section 30-9-30 allows the register of deeds to reject and remove fraudulent documents, by implication, the statute provides Respondents "the power to commence litigation to remediate the record and ask guidance from this Court."

Although a statute need not expressly create a cause of action, we do not agree the language of section 30-9-30(B) can be expanded in the manner Respondents propose. Our rules of construction allow this Court to infer a cause of action "only if the legislation was enacted for the special benefit of a private party." Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. at 397, 645 S.E.2d at 248 (emphasis added). Here, Respondents ask the Court to imply a right of action to government officials who are not expressly entitled to some special benefit under the statute; rather, the statute merely offers guidance as to how they should carry out their job duties. If anything, the language clearly acknowledges that it is incumbent on Respondents to accept and record appropriate filings and any dereliction in that duty is actionable by the party who filed the document.4 Contrary to Respondents' assertion, it is the "person presenting the document" who is entitled to "commence a suit in a state court" to require the clerk of court or register of deeds to accept a document for filing or to prevent him or her from removing a document. S.C.Code Ann. § 30-9-30(B)(1)-(2). When the legislature delineated who would be able to bring a suit pursuant to section 30-9-30(B), it chose not to afford that right to government officials. We decline to imply language into a deliberate silence because to do so would be to rewrite the statute.

Additionally, the statute already provides a remedy to government officials by allowing them to remove or reject any fraudulent records; by its express language a judicial blessing or directive is not required (and thus, not permitted) in performance of this executive function. Nevertheless, Respondents complain "[t]he tools provided were not sufficient to preserve the integrity of the public record from fraudulent and pervasive effects of a shadow recording system which would go undetected until substantial harm had been done." However laudable the interest in protecting the public index may be, our limited role here is discerning legislative intent from the statutory text. If Respondents are dissatisfied with the powers the legislature has outlined for them, that should be taken up with the General Assembly. It is not the province of this Court to legislate or imply remedies not specified by the legislature.5

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we find Respondents have failed to state a claim and therefore reverse the trial court's denial of Petitioners' motion to dismiss.

Acting Justices APHRODITE K. KONDUROS, JOHN D. GEATHERS, WILLIAM H. SEALS and TANYA A. GEE, concur.