I am a "technology guy," too.  I love it.  I have all the latest gadgets: tablet PC, Verizon AirCard, high-speed scanners, Dual 24" wide screen LCD monitors, etc.  However, I am not a fan of the "online searches".  I agree that technology makes life easier - most of the time.  But it has not really made title searching any easier.  There are some HUGE drawbacks to it.

I prefer the old book indexes for title searching - they were far more accurate.  A minor mis-spelling would still have been indexed on the same page in the book. With computer indexing you better search EXACTLY the way it was entered. Think about O'Malley, O Malley, OMalley, etc.  That is just one simple example. I have seen one slum lord's company indexed 13 different ways!!

I have no doubt that some of these companies that provide online access do a far better job of providing the information.  Its better indexed with more searching options and often times linked with other databases to return more relevant results with one search.  However, its really a different product.  The information they offer is limited to what is available in digital form.  It's limited both in terms of time, and in scope.  For instance it may only go back to 1990, and may not include non-computerized office records like Probate or Common Please courts. 

Thus, those who rely on a search from an online database are accepting far less than my clients require from me.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing if they appreciate the difference, however many clients do not.  Those of us who still go to the courthouse and do a thorough search are in an unfortunate position - we have to compete with lower prices and faster turn-around-time, but the product is NOT the same.

If I tell my clients that I can do their search for $25 and have it back in 2 hours, but I'm not going to check anything before 1990 and I'm not going to run the clerk's office for judgment liens or review probate cases, they would laugh at me.  However, when they get that lesser product from someone who didn't tell them what it really was, they don't know the difference.

If this were a tool for me, as an abstractor, I would be all for it.  However, since I am expected to include a greater depth of research in my report, I cannot use it.  When our competitors use it to offer a "title search" the clients don't realize that they aren't getting the same product.

We are really arguing over "apples" and "oranges."  They are two completely different products with entirely different uses.  The problem is that they are referred to with the same name and most do not realize the differences.  A "title search" is a "title search," right?  Not anymore.

Just my $0.02.
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE