>>Just as well, considering the long life of most records associated with
real property transactions (in most states, they are assigned PERMANENT
retention) and the notoriously short useable life of electronic records.<<

I know this thread is an old one but will throw in my two cents anyway.

I think the discussion about the life span of electronic signatures and
electronic filings is rather one sided.  What is missing is the ability to
process transactions quickly and efficiently without regard to distance or

Personally, I really don't care if the recorder prints off a copy of the
transaction and stores it in boxes in the basement.  What I care about is
the time and effort required to collect signatures from parties scattered
around the country, or world in some cases.  We have unified oil fields in
ND that potentially have thousands of mineral rights owners.  Having each of
them go to a notary and hand sign the documents is not only foolish, it is
counter productive. What could take a couple of days can now take months or

Just for the record, I agree with Texas AG.  Nothing compels the recorders
to accept electronic signatures or documents.  On the other hand, I think
any recorder that does not accept them should be voted out of office.  And
if I was the AG, I would be introducing legislation to compel acceptance.

We are quick to complain about how others fail to recognize our issues.
Sometimes we don't give enough credence to theirs.  The retention issue is
ours to solve.  We should not stop others from using technology that will
improve their processes just because we are twenty years late in developing
a solution to a records issue.

Fire away.

Bill Roach, CRM
Enterprise EDMS Coordinator
State of North Dakota
ITD/Records Management

List archives at
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance