I think that we must consider the purpose for which we are reading these bills on behalf of the Association.  We follow all legislative action tediously as to whether or not it "affects our industry".  We having a lobbyist represent our association from year to year for which we pay under contract.  We devote our time and energy meeting and testifying.  All of these efforts are to protect our industry's integrity which goes hand in hand with the integrity of the land records.  I am in favor of responsible spending and governmental cut-backs when they make sense.  However, unfortunately, if we are joining together for the intention of protecting our industry and the land records for which we so very much value, we cannot support the bill or even consider 'monitoring' the bill.  To do so would be a contradiction in terms.  I think it goes without saying, also, when government gets involved, it all becomes sausage and so help us all then, and so help our land records.  I have very little faith that "everything would be alright".

This may not be the appropriate format for me to chime in but I’m doing it anyway. Please understand that I’m not taking a position for the association I’m merely offering some food for thought and will follow the committee recommendation, whatever that might be.

Anybody know why the troubled assets are classified as “troubled”? Let me summarize. No one has any idea what the loans are worth. They don’t know because when the financial sector decided it would be a good idea to offer exotic, sub-prime loans, group them in to loan pools, then split the pools and sell the leftover parts to investors never once did they consider that it might also be a good idea to track what specific loans and their associated collateral went to which investor. Now we’re faced with possible financial regulatory reform when the safeguards should have been in place from the beginning.

If multiple counties combined offices what do you suppose would happen to the records? Off the top of my head I can think of at least a couple of subdivision names that are common to Douglas, Sarpy and Washington Counties. If I’m not able to discern, from the combined records, which of the properties I’m actually searching how can I possibly produce an accurate title commitment/policy. I looked at the map that Heidi Proskocil referenced and it appears that certain of us are exempt although I suspect that the scenario above isn’t unique to my county. If a consolidation plan is not completely thought through with the safeguards in place our records would be corrupted FOREVER! If we industry people aren’t able to track specific properties, and all that that encompasses so that we may provide the assurance and insurance necessary to keep the lenders lending money for people to buy homes in Nebraska, we’ll have our own troubled assets crisis but with a different catalyst. Here’s one for the lenders - Foreclose on what? We can’t find the property. And one for our civic leaders - Go ahead. Try to bring new businesses to our state so we can expand our tax base now when a potential new resident won‘t be able to buy a home. Good Luck!

But, LB 826 essentially says: let’s make a plan. And, what if a plan were devised (I don’t know how) with statutory protection for our records including the courts. Would it still be a bad idea?

I know that for some it would mean farther distances to travel to get to the courthouse to do your work. I also know that many of you cover multiple counties. So, wouldn’t there be a trade off? Wouldn’t you be able to do more searches in one county as opposed to traveling to several different counties?

Granted, it’s been a while since I’ve traveled to search any counties outside my own but when I did, I noticed (couldn’t help but notice) the ladies at the county swapping recipes (no joke) and the guys hanging out around the coffee pot. Just a reminder…we’re paying them to do it. The intention of the bill is to come up with a “plan” that would cut costs and improve efficiency. As a taxpayer, I’m not opposed to governmental cuts that could save me money as long as they LEAVE MY RECORDS ALONE! 

I agree that this would become a logistical nightmare.  If we consolidate to 30 counties, are we going to rename the 30 or hyphenate them - Dawson-Gosper.  How do we consolidate the probate records, much less the real estate records?  I do not see any positive for our industry and think we should go on record as opposing the bill.

Our local Economic Development director shared this article with us, which includes a map showing an example of how the individual counties could be consolidated:

http://www.platteinstitute.org/docLib/20091118_County_Consolidation_FINAL.pdf

Our office is located in Valley County, right across the street from the courthouse.  If the consolidation were to take place as shown in the study and the real estate records were moved to the new county seat, the records would then be located in Broken Bow, nearly 50 miles away.  Instead of walking just across the street to the courthouse, we would have to start traveling nearly an hour to do the majority of our searches.  Any profit would quickly be eaten up by time & travel expenses.  What will this do to the smaller title companies and abstracters not located in the new county seats? 

LB 826 states in Section 3 that the number of counties will be reduced to approximately 30 by 2018.  Section 2, Paragraph 6 indicates that counties are developing ways to provide their services online, but is it realistic that each county will be able to accurately get 100+ years of real estate records online by 2018?  This bill certainly raises many questions, and I feel it could really create a lot of problems for our industry.

I, for one, have two major concerns.  First, there is no implementation date or schedule for that implementation in the bill.  If passed, how quickly will it take effect and how long will the transition period be?  Second, if passed, it would take some time, effort and funding for existing records to be scanned and become available "on-line".  How long will this transition period be and will the shorter courthouse hours and reduced staffing happen prior to full availability of on-line records?  I see the transition period becoming a real nightmare for our industry.  And, I assume that e-recording will become the norm rather than the exception as a result.

I can see this as being a logistical nightmare.  Trying to move all the records from several counties into one would be trouble to say the least.  If you have ever moved from one house to another as an individual, you know that there are things that never surface again.  Will we lose some of our precious records in the move?  And, will they decide to forever get rid of some of the older records because they don't have the room in one courthouse to house several counties' records?  I think our job will compound and be much more work trying to access the records that we need.  We should step in and at least question some of this.  Pat Miller

I take it Paragraph (5) , line 14,  is the "protection" for the court houses and real estate records. I am told that in Missouri at one time we had a county that went broke. The Courthouse "closed " for awhile. To review records you had to make an appointment with the Sheriff for access. To record you had to  appear when the recorder scheduled reduced hours. Any time you see a phrase such as "as needed" you have to be concerned about who decides on "the need." 

I would expect that we as an Association would reflexively oppose this Act, especially if real estate records were affected.  Might want to consider something, though:  If opposition becomes too energetic, might the proponents push a compromise approach that would involve central filing (a recurring theme in the recent past).  Is that something we would want?  That's a rhetorical question; I don't know the answer.