Energy innovation and technology continues to create thousands of much-needed jobs all across the Commonwealth and in southwestern Pennsylvania in particular. But could opposition from environmental groups and the prospect of politicians seeking new sources of tax revenue slow or perhaps even stall that economic progress?

Southwestern Pennsylvania has a long, proud history as an energy-producing region.  Readily available (and seemingly endless) supplies of energy from coal, oil and natural gas were among the chief reasons that men such as Henry Clay Frick, George Westinghouse and their contemporaries selected this region as the place in which to bring their innovations and ideas to fruition and to seek their great fortunes in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.

Today, we still have the immense deposits of coal, along with the largest known reserve of natural gas shale and dozens of local firms involved in the development of alternative energy sources like wind farms and solar power. All that, plus the nation's only domestic manufacturer of nuclear power generation equipment all right in our own back yard, and it's easy to see why this region has so rapidly become a beehive of activity for industries and international investors seeking to capitalize on these vast energy resources. It's also been a boon for a lot of abstractors and examiners across the region, myself included, who felt the pinch of the recession when many of the smaller local title agencies and mortgage brokers closed their doors.

Current estimates are that the Marcellus Shale, the huge rock formation which runs throughout most of the Appalachian Basin, contains enough natural gas to meet the energy needs of the entire nation well into the next decade. Interest in Marcellus gas has attracted billions of dollars in international investment from firms in China and Great Britain. Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, which recently relocated its corporate headquarters to a brand-new 775,000 square-foot facility in Cranberry Township, Butler County, plans to hire as many as 1,000 people, according to a recent article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Company officials cite the rapid expansion of the nuclear energy industry worldwide as the reason for that growth.

Just last year, as a paralegal consultant at Westinghouse's Legal & Contracts Group, I had the privilege of working closely with many of the attorneys and other professionals involved in contract negotiations for the company's AP1000 nuclear reactor program. Four AP1000 plants are currently under construction in China, with a total of 12 units scheduled to go online in that country sometime in 2014 or 2015. Here in the US, the AP1000 reactor design has already received preliminary approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and at this writing, NRC license applications for the construction of fourteen reactors at seven power plants across the country are pending.

A recent Penn State University study sponsored by the Marcellus Shale Coalition predicts that natural gas producers will spend over $8 billion in 2010, generating about $790 million in state and local tax revenues and creating more than 88,000 jobs, more than double the numbers from 2009. But critics in the environmental movement have expressed concerns over the method of extracting natural gas from shale formations by a process known as "fracking" (short for "fracturing").

Gas drilling by Cabot Oil & Gas of Houston, Texas caused problems in a small township in Susquehanna County when methane gas seeped into the water supply through a cracked underground casing in one of Cabot's gas wells. In response, the state Department of Environmental Protection ordered Cabot to plug the wells and gave the company 30 days to supply the affected residents with water treatment systems at its own expense. In addition, Cabot was hit with nearly a quarter million dollars in fines and has been barred from drilling any new wells for at least a year.

As you can well imagine, all this talk of jobs, energy production and environmental hazards has become fodder for local candidates on both sides of the aisle seeking to score political points with their respective constituencies. Senator Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA), for example has introduced a bill that would remove the long-standing exemption from the federal Clean Water Act that allows hydrofracking. Critics of the bill contend that there has never been an instance of contamination of ground water by fracking.

A proposed three-year moratorium on leases for gas drilling on state-owned lands has passed in the state House of Representatives. Lame duck Governor Edward G. Rendell (D-PA) has promised that he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk. Rendell also advocates a severance tax on natural gas production, a measure supported by Allegheny County Executive and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dan Onorato. His Republican challenger, Attorney General Tom Corbett opposes the moratorium, saying that it will discourage energy development and cost the state jobs. Corbett instead favors a tax on the royalties produced by oil and gas leases on public lands, rather than a severance tax as a means of raising revenue.

In my view, regulation and oversight is best handled by the state authorities, who are closer to the concerns of the citizens and are therefore in a better position to respond to any issues that may arise. Believe me, having clean water to drink is just as important to me as it is to anyone. No one in their right mind wants to have to deal with dirty air or water. At the same time, however, I'm also a big fan of having a job, being able to pay my bills, taking hot showers and keeping warm in the dead of winter. I dunno, call me crazy.

Well, the 'net is buzzing once again with news of the latest screw-up by Bank of America. Seems that they took possession on the wrong house...again. My question is: how does a thing like this keep happening with the same company over and over again?

This time, it's Angela Iannelli of Gibsonia, PA just north of Pittsburgh who is the victim of BoA's gaffe. But she's not taking things lying down and has filed suit against the bank.

"If you or I did to Bank of America what Bank of America did to my client, we would be in prison for 10 years," says attorney Michael Rosenzweig, a partner at Edgar Snyder & Associates, the law firm which represents Ms. Iannelli.

The suit, filed Monday in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, alleges that the bank's third-party contractor Snyder Property Services of Ebensburg, PA damaged her furniture, cut off the utilities to the house, put dangerous chemicals in the drains and water fixtures, removed Ms. Iannelli's pet parrot and padlocked the house.

According to Attorney Rosenzweig, the contractor "[t]ook her family pet of 10 years and denied any involvement in it for over a week before they finally told her how she could seek retrieval of her pet." She did eventually get her parrot back, but had to drive to Ebensburg, Cambria County some 80 miles away to do so. Ms. Iannelli says that she has always made her payments on time and that her mortgage has never been in default. Under Pennsylvania law, a lender must give a 10-day notice before entry of default and notice of intent to foreclose at least 60 days before any proceedings are initiated.

This isn't the first time Bank of America has pulled a stunt like this. Similar cases in Florida and Texas have resulted in a spate of lawsuits against the mortgage giant, which recently took ownership of Countrywide Financial. One guy whose home was wrongfully siezed doesn't even have a mortgage with BoA.

I could see this happening in an isolated incident, after all, with all the foreclosure activity taking place, someone was bound to get careless. But my question is how does a thing like this keep happening over and over again, and with the same lender? Who at Bank of America is responsible for seeing to it that proper procedure is being followed? A little due diligence on the part of the contractor could have gone a long way toward avoiding a lot of hassles for Ms. Iannelli and the others as well. Maybe I'm thinking too much like a researcher, but it seems to me that a trip to the local courthouse to verify the defaulting borrower's name and address could have prevented this from happening. For its part, BoA says it's "sincerely sorry" for the mixup and says it has "zero tolerance for this kind of error."

Yeah, and as Dr. Phil would say, "how's that workin' for ya?"

A recent local news item provides the perfect illustration of why the proper evidencing and reporting of title to real estate interests is so important to our fundamental rights as well as to our regional and national economies. 

A local businessman is filing suit against Allegheny County, PA, claiming that the county is denying him the right to remove about 700,000 tons of coal that he owns.  74-year-old Nello Fiore, of Whitehall, PA says that if the county won't let him mine the coal, then they should pay him for the value of the coal, which lies beneath 92 wooded acres in the Sleepy Hollow section of the county's South Park, located just south of Pittsburgh.  The high-quality coal, which sells for about $143 per ton locally, could be worth well over of $100 million, according to Attorney Thomas W. King, who represents Mr. Fiore.

Southwestern Pennsylvania, which lies in the heart of the Appalachian Basin, has often been referred to the "Saudi Arabia of Coal".  In fact, coal mining has been a mainstay of our region's economy since the dawn of the Industrial Age.  Because of this, Pennsylvania real estate law recognizes surface and subsurface interests separately.  Typically, when someone purchases a parcel of real estate in Pennsylvania, only the surface interest is conveyed unless the mineral or subsurface interest is specifically mentioned in the deed.  (See my previous blog entry, Searching Mineral Interests: Don't Try This at Home.)

The county, to which the surface interest in the land was donated in the 1930s, considered a proposal to strip mine the coal at a community meeting this past June, which was attended by about 300 people, including Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato.  Mr. Onorato nixed the plan after it was discovered that a 2001 County Parks Master Plan designates the area as "an important biological zone" which has also been recommended for designation as an Open Space Reserve.

Mr. Fiore's lawsuit alleges that the county is acting unlawfully in preventing him from removing the coal, which he inherited from his brother, who purchased it from Consolidation Coal Co., the predecessor to Consol Energy.  According to Attorney King, the deed gives Mr. Fiore the right to mine the coal at any time, regardless of who owns the surface interest.  "If the county will continue to tell us we can't mine the coal, Mr. Fiore, under the Pennsylvania Constitution has a right to be paid for it."  Mr. Fiore and his attorney claim that to deny his mining rights amounts to the county exercising eminent domain over his coal, thus he is entitled to reimbursement.

The county says that it's not preventing Mr. Fiore from mining his coal because he can still retrieve it by underground mining.  "He has access to his coal," says Kevin Evanto, a spokesman for the County Executive's office, "[the county] is just saying that we're not willing to allow you to destroy 91 acres of park land to get at it."  However, the lawsuit states that "the coal cannot be recovered by the deep-mining process."  Attorney King says that Mr. Fiore has offered to include a post-mining reclamation plan for soccer and football practice fields and picnic facilities, as well as royalties to the county in excess of $1 million.

Several members of the County Council are on record as saying that they wouldn't support the proposal, which would be subject to review by the state Department of Environmental Protection.  Local residents like Mary Franko have also expressed concern about what strip mining operations will do to their property values.  Some nearby homes are located as little as 1,000 feet away from the proposed mining area.  In an interview with a local television station, Ms. Franko said, "It's dangerous, dirty, and I don't know how they can possibly protect the perimeter when there's going to be blasting going on.  I'm afraid that this is going to devastate our township.  We're a small township.  Our property values will absolutely diminish".

To be honest, I'm not really sure where I come down on this one.  Mr. Fiore certainly does seem to be on firm legal ground here, (no pun intended) and if I was in his position, I'd probably move to assert my rights as well.  On the other hand, if I was one of the residents of that area, I'm not sure I'd want someone coming in and "tearing up my back yard", regardless of any promises to improve the area afterward.  One thing is for sure, the Court is going to have its work cut out for it in dealing with this issue.  Let's just hope the abstractors who researched this thing knew what they were doing.

In the current market, we all do what we can to generate business for ourselves, and sometimes it's tempting to promise more than we can deliver.  I believe that in the long run, however it can backfire when we are unable to deliver.  A while back, I received a search request in an email from a client that went something like this:

Can we have both of these by Tuesday? Unless they are dirty searches, of course.

Attached were two 60-year title requests.  Keep in mind, this request was sent after 5:00 PM on a Thursday afternoon, and I've just come in from being out in the field all day.  Not wanting to make a promise I can't keep, I replied:

Hey, "Joe"! (not his real name)

Cutting it kind of close, but I'll do the best I can. I'll let you know if I run into any issues.

I figured this way, I had a little "wiggle room" in case one or both of these searches turns ugly.  So, I get back to the office the following day to find this little missive in my "IN" box:

Scott,

Three full days should not be cutting it close. If you would like, I could find someone else to do my searches. I know that you don't go to Armstrong [county] everyday, but three days notice for a search should not be asking too much. Now I understand that some searches tend to be difficult and get more involved, but for the most part, three days should be more than ample time to complete a 60 year search.

Please let me know your thoughts on this, I have to have the information to my client within 4 days. Otherwise, the delay may cost me a client. This is not good for business, as you know. I hope that you can appreciate the situation that I am in, and try to work with me to achieve the goals of customer service that I have been requested to fulfill.

Thank you for your time,

"Joe Doe"

Well, I think to myself, this puts me in a fine mood on a Friday afternoon.  After resisting the temptation to put a .45 round through my computer monitor and muttering a few choice references to "Joe's" questionable parentage under my breath, I replied thus:

Dear "Joe":

I must admit that I am taken somewhat aback by your response. Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate your business. What I don't appreciate is your tone or your threats. However, I shall take the occasion of your email to clarify a few points:

1) "Three full days should not be cutting it close."

When you originally approached me to engage my services, I informed you that the normal turnaround time for a 60 Year Title History is THREE-TO-FIVE BUSINESS DAYS. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, I have ALWAYS allowed ample time to complete ANY search, be it a Current Owner Search or a Sixty-Year Title History. At NO TIME will ANY deadline take precedence over a properly conducted and thorough search. I have worked too hard over the past six-and-a-half years at building my business' reputation and earning the trust of my clients to risk losing it all because of a shoddy search, hastily completed to accommodate one company's "rush" request.

2) "If you would like, I could find someone else to do my searches."

Do what you have to, "Joe", but don't think that threatening me is going to get me to move any faster. It is very unprofessional. My clients keep coming back to me because they know they can depend on me! I produce a good quality product--I don't HAVE to beg for work. I know of no other abstractor in southwest Pennsylvania who offers the level of Customer Service and support that I do. When you have a question about any of my work, all you have to do is pick up the phone and I am available. I am constantly hearing horror stories from my clients who have been "blown off" by title searchers who do this work "part-time" or as a "hobby". Let's also not forget, you looked me up, not the other way around. Someone else recommended me to you, so I must be doing something right.

3) "I know that you don't go to Armstrong everyday, but three days notice for a search should not be asking too much."

I'm a little confused here, "Joe". Has there ever been an issue with me getting your searches back to you in a timely manner? If so, this is the first I'm hearing of it. A review of your Account History shows that we have never taken more that four days to return one of your searches.  Oh, and FYI, I am SINGLE-HANDEDLY covering 13, (count 'em, THIRTEEN) counties, sometimes working 12- and 14-hour days and an occasional weekend here and there, and am pretty darn proud of my track record of being able to turn my clients' work around in a timely manner.

4) "Now I understand that some searches tend to be difficult and get more involved, but for the most part, three days should be more than ample time to complete a 60 year search."

Speaking strictly from a title searcher's point of view, I do think that asking for TWO sixty year searches in three days' time is, in fact, "cutting it kind of close", particularly in light of the fact that I will not have three full days in which to complete these searches. If you wanted me to move your work to the front of the line, I do offer expedited service for a premium of $25.00 per search.

5) "Please let me know your thoughts on this, I have to have the information to my client within 4 days. Otherwise, the delay may cost me a client. This is not good for business, as you know. I hope that you can appreciate the situation that I am in, and try to work with me to achieve the goals of customer service that I have been requested to fulfill."

My twelve-plus years of experience in this business has taught me what can and cannot be done; it has also taught me that promising something to a customer that I don't think I can (or that I know full well I can't) deliver is not good for business, either. As I indicated, I'll do the best I can. Please let me know if that will be good enough. Please bear in mind when placing future orders that normal turnaround for 40- and 60-Year Title Histories "will be" THREE-TO-FIVE BUSINESS DAYS.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to clarify my position. If you wish to reach me for comment, my contact information is below.

Cordially,
Scott L. Perry, President
Jireh Business Information Solutions, Inc.
724.863.7270 FAX 734.863.7271
Mobile 724.640.0725
www.jbizinfo.com

I hear stories all the time from owners of firms who tell me that "so-and-so company promises they can turn a Current Owner around in 'x' time--can you match that?"  Believe me, it's tempting to simply say "yes", but I truly don't think it's good practice to make promises without knowing whether or not I can deliver just to get business.  I'd sooner be honest with myself and my clients and risk losing a deal than to compromise myself in that way.

I've got a mortgage to pay and a family to feed, in addition to the overhead I'm putting out just to keep the doors open.  I'm taking work wherever I can find it, but I believe there is a God and that what goes around comes around.  Jesus Christ said it best in Mark 8:36 "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"  I just can't compromise my integrity for the sake of a buck.

Realizing that this is not exactly a real-estate related post, I feel compelled to remind everyone (myself included) that Memorial Day is about more than just the "unofficial start of summer" or having the day off for a backyard barbeque.  As we pause to reflect upon the sacrifices of our military men and women, we also need to remember those "unsung heroes", the families and loved ones who have "kept the home fires burning" while our nation fought for its freedom.

Not everyone who has served our country has worn a military uniform.  Countless others have answered the call to duty right here on the homefront, keeping our boys on the front lines supplied with the food, clothing, tools and equipment they needed to fight the good fight for our beloved America.

Such were the men and women who served with the Manhattan Project.  Begun in mid-1942 under the leadership of Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Project was a top-secret joint military-civilian effort by the United States to develop an atomic weapon capable of bringing the war to a swift close.  There were three sites which comprised the Manhattan Engineer District: Los Alamos, New Mexico; Hanford, Washington; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

My grandfather, Hallie Nolen Perry was a journeyman lineman for the Clinton Engineer Works at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and was involved in the construction phase of the three main plants which were built to refine raw uranium ore into the fissionable material neccessary to produce the Atomic Bomb.  He worked for various civilian contractors during that time, after which he was employed as Chief Fire Alarm Technician for the entire Oak Ridge reservation.

Wartime security at Oak Ridge was so tight that even those working on the project had no idea what they were building until after the war.  All personnel, including townsite residents, were required to wear color-coded ID badges.  Each color code gave the bearer access to specified areas within the project.  My grandfather wore what was commonly referred to as a "rainbow" badge, which granted him unquestioned authority to access any building or facility on the reservation.

The work being undertaken at Oak Ridge was cloaked in such secrecy that residents of the surrounding communities could only guess at what was taking place right in their own back yard.  A common saying of the time was, "Tons and tons of stuff goes in, but nothing ever comes out!"

On 6 August 1945, the nation and the world discovered the true purpose of the Manhattan Project.  Two atomic bombs were dropped, first on Hiroshima, then three days later, Nagasaki, forcing the unconditional surrender of the Japanese Empire on 15 August 1945.

This story is dedicated to the memory of my "Papaw" Perry and countless others like him who served in secrecy right here at home to assure our victory and to save the lives of untold thousands of American GI's.  We must never forget the efforts and the service of these truly "unsung heroes" of our nation.

Respectfully submitted,
Scott L. Perry

I've been meaning to give my review and commentary on an interesting piece from here in southwestern PA that came out a few weeks ago.  Seems that a couple from Franklin Park, PA, (a suburb just north of Pittsburgh) has filed suit in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court against Google, Inc., alleging that pictures which appeared on the Street View feature of the Internet giant's mapping function violated their privacy, according to a story from the AP.

Google obtains its "Street View" photos utilizing still cameras mounted on passenger vehicles which drive around taking pictures from different angles, which are then digitally "sewn" together to create panoramic 360-degree views of cities, towns and neighborhoods.  In their six-page complaint, plaintiffs Aaron and Christine Boring (swear I didn't make that up) allege that Google's "reckless conduct has exposed [the Borings'] private information to the public at large with the commensurate risks this entails".  The complaint further states that Google's vehicle trespassed onto their property when it drove down a private right-of-way to snap pics of their house that included their swimming pool.  The couple's attorney, Dennis Moskal says the Google vehicle came close enough to the pool "to hand them a drink."

Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who specializes in First Amendment and privacy law says that the case may have some merit, citing Daily Times-Democrat v. Graham, 162 So. 2d 474 (1964), an Alabama case in which a newspaper photographer had snapped a picture of a woman whose skirt had been blown over her head, á la Marilyn Monroe, in a carnival funhouse.  Although the newspaper argued that it was justified in printing the photo because it was taken in a public place, the court ruled that the photo violated the woman's right to privacy.  (In an interesting side note, Bankston has himself been captured by Google's cameras on more than one occasion and once was even observed smoking a cigarette outside his San Francisco office.  He'd told his family he had kicked the habit.)

Perhaps the greatest irony here is that the Borings, in an attempt to enforce their right to privacy, may have unwittingly put themselves under the microscope, since much of the info about their home is readily available to anyone who logs onto the county's online Real Estate Assessment website.  Not only that, but their home address is prominently displayed in the complaint, which can be obtained (for a fee) from the county's Department of Court Records website.

Google spokesman Larry Yu says that all the Borings had to do was to ask that the images be taken down.  "We actually make it pretty easy for people to submit a request to us to remove the imagery."  Not good enough, says Attorney Moskal, stating that simply removing the pics won't undo the damage or discourage Google from engaging in similar future conduct.  "Isn't litigation the only way to change a big business' conduct with the public?" he asks, "What happened to their accountability?"

That's funny, I've been wondering the same thing about Big Title.  A favorable ruling for the Borings may not set a precedent, but whatever the outcome, it's sure to have lasting implications in the debate over information vs. privacy.

While perusing some of the local online publications, I ran across this article by Ron DaParma, Real Estate Reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Pittsburgh region sidesteps much of subprime storm

The Pittsburgh region isn't at the top of the list of U.S. cities stung by mortgage foreclosures and problems with subprime loans, experts say.

Residential foreclosures here actually declined slightly in 2007 versus 2006, according to a recent report.

Mr. DaParma's article goes on to spotlight a couple of anecdotal instances of how folks are dealing with their own foreclosure worries, but there's also this article by Ben Semmes in The Pittsburgh Business Times:

Foreclosure flood in Pittsburgh region

A flood of foreclosures swamped the Pittsburgh region in February, which saw the most foreclosed homes in more than two decades.

Four hundred owners lost their homes in February in the five-county Pittsburgh region, 64 more than February of last year, according to RealSTATs, a South Side-based real estate information company.

In the 22 years since RealSTATs began keeping records, no one month has recorded more foreclosures than February's total.

These articles were written about 3 weeks apart from one another.  Can they both be true?  I suppose, but from where I sit, it's all a matter of perspective.  Personally, I've always been a glass-half-full kind of guy, although I can see where it's easy to get discouraged when faced with the prospect of losing one's home.  This isn't the first time this region has faced an economic downturn, however; we were hit hard by the decline of the steel industry in the late 70s and managed to come back from that.  That's why I prefer to remain optimistic.  The people of southwestern PA are a resilient lot.  We never give up and always find a way to win.

The recent news that the passport files of the three presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain have been accessed by contract employees of the State Department has brought the issue of information security and personal privacy to the public's attention.  According to an AP report, passport files containing personal information about several "high-profile Americans", including the late Anna Nicole Smith, have been accessed on at least 20 separate occasions.  Although the review of Ms. Smith's file appears to have come from a "legitimate" source, the report states,

"Supervisors recorded each instance a file was viewed because the applications in question belonged to members of a select group of several hundred citizens whose passport files were "flagged" for extra protection due to their visibility, the officials said. Among these people are government leaders, movie stars and athletes, the officials said.

The list maintained by Bureau of Consular Affairs has included as many as 500 people at any one time, they said. The list is kept secret partly to deter workers from making unauthorized inquiries into high-profile records. Although there are no formal criteria for inclusion, people on the list are deemed to warrant special consideration because of their public status, the officials said."

Don't you wish you warranted such "special consideration"?  I guess if Joe Ordinary Citizen (read: all you peons out there) has all the details of his private life trotted out online on public record websites for the whole world to see by Big Title, the information industry and their willing accomplices within his local county government, it's no big deal; but when the passport records of three "high-profile Americans" (read: the ruling classes) are breached...oh, my word, that's just SHOCKING!

"It is a common misconception that easy access to public records has facilitated other types of fraud, identity theft, or land fraud."

That's the assertion set forth in a white paper authored by members of the Property Records Industry Association entitled, "Privacy and Public Land Records: Making Practical Policy".  PRIA, a self-described membership-driven organization composed of business and government members of the property records industry, released the white paper in January 2006, which goes on to say that,

"[w]hile posting documents that contain certain key information on the Internet, such as credit card numbers, social security numbers, and signatures, can provide a criminal with some of the information needed to commit identity fraud or theft, there is no evidence to support any claim that this is systematically being done to perpetuate identity theft crimes. There are many easier, and far more efficient, ways for identity thieves to obtain this information in today's world, as opposed to combing through public records and hoping to find something - a ‘needle in the haystack' approach."

I have to wonder just how much research PRIA did before reaching that conclusion, because it didn't take very much effort for me, a dumb ol' abstractor, to find numerous such instances doing a simple Google search.  The rampant deed fraud in Florida and Texas that I blogged about recently must have escaped PRIA's notice.  I wonder if they knew of the incident in December 2005 in Scottsdale, Arizona, in which a 23-year-old methamphetamine user showed police the method he used to steal identities.  He logged onto a local county website and pulled up a divorce document which listed not only names, but addresses of the parties, bank account numbers and even scans of signatures.  According to one report, the website contained thousands of such documents.

The Federal Trade Commission lists the top five states for identity theft as Arizona, Nevada, California, Texas and Colorado.  The numbers from Arizona are double the national average, due in large measure to the decision of county officials to post public records on the Internet, according to a 2006 study by Javelin Strategy and Research, which states that one in six adults in that state has had their identity stolen within the past five years.

PRIA's white paper also argues that free access to sensitive information contained in public records is "actually a very effective weapon in combating identity fraud and theft", although it cites no direct evidence to support that claim.

"Commercial databases compiled using public records for identity authentication are routinely used to detect fraud, including credit card application fraud, insurance application fraud, and other types of fraud. Thus, efforts to restrict the collection and use of personal information contained in public records, though well intended, actually may hinder efforts to prevent identity theft by depriving businesses, government and law enforcement officials of valuable data that is used to authenticate identities and protect the public."

That's small consolation, I'm sure, to the family of Amy Lynn Boyer, a New Hampshire college senior who was stalked and murdered in 1999 by an obsessed former classmate who purchased her Social Security Number and other personal information from an online data broker.  Or the 145,000 Americans whose personal information was stolen from data giant ChoicePoint by criminals who set up fake company accounts and downloaded sensitive information compiled from public and private records.

So, as the Internet increasingly becomes a haven for fraudsters, cyberstalkers and identity thieves, organizations like PRIA continue to assure us that that's "just a common misconception" and that free access to online public records actually helps to fight cybercrimes.

As a result of the efforts of ActiveRain All-Stars like Ed Rybczynski, Fran "the Title Man" Gaspari and Lenn Harley, AR members and visitors are being made aware of the risks that real estate buyers are being exposed to by Big Title's ever-increasing reliance on offshore "thin" title plants and online public records.  I defer to Lenn's wealth of expertise in the real estate industry, whose statement in an earlier blog post summed things up better than I ever could have: "The title search is one of the most important transactions involved in buying a home.  It's isn't the place to begin an economy drive."

I always say that a title policy is only as good as the search that was relied upon to issue it, and by extension, the search is only as good as the abstractor who prepared it.  In today's business climate, with real estate fraud and forclosures at all-time highs, it's important to know who you're working with.  Real estate agents and brokers need to start asking the right questions of the lenders and title agents with whom they do business.  Do their abstract vendors/providers use "hands-on" abstractors with "boots on the ground" and an intimate knowledge the intricacies of local indexing systems (which vary greatly, even from county to county)?  Do they have a point-of-contact to verify questionable items when necessary??  Is the title agent issuing policies on "short searches" or do they insist on having a full 40- or 60-year title search which has been reviewed by a qualified title examiner or attorney?  Are they putting your consumer at undue risk just to save a couple hundred bucks?

Founded in 2001, our company has established itself as southwestern Pennsylvania's premier provider of title abstracting, court-related services and paralegal support to the legal, financial, real estate and insurance industries. As a fan of David Letterman, I've compiled a "Top Ten" list of reasons to choose us for your search and abstract needs in southwestern Pennsylvania:

10) Direct coverage of thirteen southwestern Pennsylvania counties, more than any regional competitor;

9) Offering all types of search services, from Document Recovery to Current Owner Reports to Full Title Histories;

8) All work performed "hands-on" by a local abstractor within the four walls of the courthouse--no online searches or offshore processing;

7) Over ten years of search and abstract experience;

6) Typewritten search reports delivered in a concise, easy-to-read format;

5) All Real-T-SMART^TM Search Products backed by a $1M Errors & Omissions policy;

4) Computerized monthly invoicing streamlines recordkeeping and reduces paperwork;

3) Competitive all-inclusive pricing and generous volume discounts add up to exceptional value;

2) Flexible Billing Date option enables customers to better plan their monthly cash flow;

AND THE #1 REASON TO CHOOSE JIREH BUSINESS INFORMATION SOLUTIONS FOR YOUR SEARCH & ABSTRACT NEEDS IN SOUTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA:

Abstracting Is No Hobby -- It's Our Business!!

www.jbizinfo.com

SPECIAL OFFER FOR AR MEMBERS:  MENTION THAT YOU FOUND US ON ACTIVERAIN AND RECEIVE 15% OFF YOUR FIRST ORDER OF $150.00 OR MORE!