Methodology Disclosure

How we actually do the work

A public, documented description of BIC REA's comprehensive title research methodology — the records we examine, the verification steps we take, the curative paths we identify, and the explicit limits of our work. We publish this because rigorous research deserves a rigorous explanation.

Why publish this

Methodology is the work

A title report is only as defensible as the methodology behind it. The conclusions in any report — present-day ownership, undivided interest fractions, curative items — only matter if they tie back to specific recorded instruments, examined in a documented way. Anyone can render an opinion. Defending an opinion under scrutiny requires a method.

This page describes the method BIC REA uses, what we examine, what we do not, and what a finished report contains. It is also a scope statement: the boundaries of our work are the boundaries of the report. Where we hand off to attorneys, title insurance underwriters, or curative specialists, those handoffs are stated explicitly in every engagement.

If you are evaluating BIC REA against another firm, this is the page to read closely. Specialist research practices should be willing to publish how they work. We are.

The Process

Eight steps from engagement to delivered report

Standard title reports follow this sequence. Curative-heavy projects, multi-tract assemblies, and drilling-unit work add depth at specific stages but use the same core method. As you scroll, the chain on the left lights up to mark where each step lives in the work.

Scope definition and written engagement

A research project starts with a scoping conversation: the tract description, the depth of search required (sovereignty-to-current, vs. a defined look-back period), the specific concerns the client wants addressed, and any deliverable preferences. We ask deliberately to avoid scope drift later.

The engagement is then memorialized in a written letter that states scope, flat fee, committed delivery date, and any assumptions or carve-outs (for example: limits on work involving probate proceedings outside the recorded chain). No research begins until the engagement letter is signed and any agreed retainer is paid.

Time estimate: typically 24–48 hours from initial inquiry to signed engagement.

Sovereignty establishment

Every chain of title traces back to a sovereign source — typically a federal patent issued by the U.S. General Land Office (records held by the Bureau of Land Management), a state-issued grant (records held by the relevant state land office), or in parts of the country, a Spanish or Mexican land grant. We confirm the sovereign source and the parties named, and document the patent or grant as the root of the chain.

For Florida tracts, this often involves BLM Tract Books, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Division of State Lands records, and where applicable, Spanish land grant indices held at the State Library and Archives of Florida.

Records typically examined: BLM patent indices, state land office records, county clerk's deed indices for the originating period.

Chain-of-title build (forward from sovereignty)

From the sovereignty source, we trace each conveyance forward through the chain to present-day ownership. For each conveyance we record: the parties (grantor/grantee), the instrument type (warranty deed, quitclaim deed, mineral deed, royalty deed, lease, assignment, etc.), the recordation reference (book/page or instrument number), the date of the instrument and date of recordation, the legal description as recorded, and any reservations, exceptions, or partial conveyances.

Where the surface and mineral estates have been severed, we track each separately from the point of severance forward. Identifying when, how, and to whom the mineral estate was severed is one of the most consequential single steps in any chain.

Records typically examined: county clerk official records (grantor/grantee indices, deed books, mineral deed books), probate records where conveyances passed by inheritance, and where applicable, federal court records for federal-court-confirmed conveyances.

Severance and reservation analysis

Once the chain is built, we analyze each severance, reservation, and partial conveyance to calculate the undivided interest fractions held by each present-day owner. Mineral fractions are notoriously sensitive to small drafting choices — a "non-participating royalty interest" is materially different from a "mineral interest," and a "1/16 royalty" is materially different from a "1/16 of 1/8 royalty." We compute the math from the recorded language.

For Florida specifically, we account for state-specific mineral law including the dormant minerals interest provisions where applicable (Fla. Stat. §704.05) and the state's specific treatment of phosphate, oil, and gas reservations historically common in particular regions.

Outputs: undivided fraction table by current owner; severance event list; reservation/exception summary.

Encumbrance and active-instrument review

For the mineral estate (and surface where in scope), we identify recorded encumbrances and active instruments: oil and gas leases (and their HBP/non-producing status to the extent ascertainable from public records), mortgages affecting mineral interests, recorded judgments, tax liens, mechanic's liens, lis pendens, and any pending litigation reflected in the official records.

We do not adjudicate the validity or current effect of these instruments — that is legal work — but we identify them so that the client (and the client's counsel) can.

Records typically examined: official records, court dockets accessible through the relevant clerk of court, tax collector records, UCC indices.

Curative identification

Where the chain has gaps, ambiguities, or defects, we identify the issue precisely and propose a curative path. Common items include missing-heir gaps (curable by affidavit of heirship plus probate, or by quiet title action), unreleased mortgages (curable by satisfaction or by probable-cause arguments depending on age), recordation gaps (curable by ratification or quitclaim), and ambiguous fractional language (often requiring counsel interpretation).

We do not issue legal opinions on the validity or effect of any curative path. Where curative work involves drafting legal instruments or initiating proceedings, that work is performed by licensed counsel — sometimes counsel we coordinate with on the client's behalf, sometimes counsel the client retains directly.

Outputs: prioritized curative list with our suggested path and an indication of whether each item appears critical, recommended, or informational.

Internal review

Before any report is delivered, a second BIC REA principal independently reviews the runsheet against the source documents — verifying that each conclusion in the report ties to a specific recorded instrument, that the math on undivided interests reconciles, and that flagged curative items are properly characterized. Discrepancies between the original researcher's conclusions and the reviewer's reading are reconciled before delivery; if reconciliation requires additional research, that research is performed before the report ships.

Standard: every report receives a four-eyes review. No exceptions for time pressure.

Delivery and walk-through

The final deliverable is a structured PDF report containing: an executive summary; the runsheet (chain table); undivided interest summary by present-day owner; encumbrance summary; curative item list; and a source-document index allowing each conclusion in the report to be traced back to the underlying recorded instrument. Source documents themselves are included as appendices or referenced by recordation citation, depending on the engagement.

Every report is followed by a 30-minute walk-through call to discuss findings and answer questions. For 30 days after delivery, follow-up questions on the file are answered without additional charge.

Standard delivery: structured PDF, executive summary, runsheet, source-document index, 30-minute walk-through call.

Scope and Limits

What this work is — and is not

Rigorous title research has clear boundaries. We state ours explicitly so that clients, the clients' counsel, and any third parties relying on our work understand exactly what they are reading.

A BIC REA title report is:

A documented analysis of public records and other available materials, organized as a chain-of-title runsheet with supporting documentation.
A statement of identified record ownership, undivided interest fractions, encumbrances, and curative items as of the search date.
A working foundation that landmen, attorneys, operators, and rights-owners use to inform decisions, support legal opinions, and direct curative work.

A BIC REA title report is not:

A formal legal title opinion. Drilling title opinions, division-order opinions, and supplemental title opinions must be issued by an attorney admitted to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. We do not issue these.
Title insurance. Title insurance is issued by licensed title insurance underwriters; our research does not insure any party against loss arising from a title defect.
Legal advice. We do not advise on the legal effect of any instrument, the validity of any reservation, or the merits of any curative path. Those are legal questions and require licensed counsel.
A guarantee of completeness. Public records reflect what has been recorded; off-record matters (unrecorded leases, undisclosed heirs not appearing in probate records, drafting errors not yet adjudicated) are by definition outside the scope of records-based research.
A real-time service. A report reflects the records as of its search date. Subsequent recordation activity is outside the report unless we are engaged for a specific update.

For BIC REA's full regulatory disclosures, including our position under Florida real estate law, the Florida Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Prevention Act, the FTC Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule, and FDUTPA, see our disclosures page.