This AMS editorial guide accompanies Craig A. Fine’s title, closing and due-diligence resource. It is a method of organizing a review, not a substitute for a title examination, inspection or advice on the transaction.
Start with a question rather than a pile of documents
An entry such as “title issue” is too broad to help the next person act. Identify the actual concern: a name that differs between records, an item listed as an exception, an unanswered request for a release, or a discrepancy between the proposed use and the available records. Write the uncertainty without prematurely deciding its legal effect.
For each entry, record the property identifier, source document, date received, relevant page or reference, question, person asked to respond and next review date. Keep the contract deadline separate from an internal follow-up date. An internal reminder does not change the parties’ agreed deadline.
Separate record research from a conclusion
A search result tells the reviewer where to look; it does not necessarily answer the transaction question. NYC Finance’s ACRIS service covers recorded-document searches for Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. The city directs Staten Island property-record inquiries to the Richmond County Clerk. Choosing the correct record system is part of a reliable starting file.
Keep the search information with the underlying document rather than relying on a cropped screenshot or a filename. Ask the relevant professional which additional records are needed. Ownership, access, financing and permission to use a building may require different sources and different reviewers.
Use status labels that describe evidence
Useful labels include awaiting document, awaiting professional review, response received and resolution confirmed. Avoid a single done checkbox that conceals what happened. If someone says a release will be obtained, record that as an expected action until the reviewer confirms the required evidence.
An illustrative entry might read: “Recorded document reference supplied; discrepancy in party name; counsel asked to review; response pending.” This describes workflow without inventing the answer. Keep the original record, later explanation and final resolution linked in the same entry.
Connect proposed changes to the agreement
When the proposed answer requires an amendment, extension or other commitment, identify which document records it and who must review it. A discussion in email should not be treated as interchangeable with whatever the agreement requires. The related Craig A. Fine business-contract guide explains how to organize the complete agreement and its attachments for a focused review.
Close the file carefully
Before marking an item resolved, identify who confirmed the resolution and where the supporting record is stored. After closing, preserve final signed documents, recording references and any outstanding follow-through. Share the register only with authorized participants and keep account details and private information out of unsecured messages.
The benefit is practical: the next conversation begins with a specific question and the record behind it. For Craig’s professional background and related reading, visit his AMS author hub and official biography.
General educational information, not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this article. Attorney Advertising.
