This might explain why some abstractors limit their liability - think of this - I tested Dallas county for you - Smith, R - gives you over 25,000 records, Smith, Ron gives you 1560 records.  Think you can narrow it down to Judgments - think again - judgments can be indexed as Liens, Abstracts of Judgment, Judgments, and many more variables.  The liability in this county is very high and dangerous to the point some abstractors are refusing to work it with years and years experience in the county.  The county switched to a new company the latter half of 2005.  There were problems before but now we really have problems.  For property related documents, you can't even even search just one way by property.  There are at least 5 different ways only known by the experienced abstractors that will pull all the records needed - only the ones very experienced with this county and informed of all the changes can do this.  Names are varied in the indexes - from the full names to variations that are not even legal abbreviations of the name.  Many will search variations, as I will, but I only hold liability to the name searched also.  Ron could be Ron, Ronnie, Ronney, Ronny, Ronald, along with like people say - misspellings like Ronni, R(space)onnie, Ronal - they counties are not having someone check the inputted information, but they should.  Counties should have some type of cross-reference to judgments, like addresses, which would not pick them all up because one can change their address in the statute of limitations time, but it would help pick up the misspellings of some.  At this point, the point of misspellings, etc - I believe the county to be liable for the improper indexing - not the abstractor.