Percy posted a Homework #2 docket check on Hamilton County OH last week — case numbers he posted himself in this group. It is a worked example we can read the way an operator would, and then I'll answer the question underneath it: what is the paid side for? The path Percy posted On the Homework #1 thread, Percy pulled Hamilton County OH and answered three questions from the county's own list: when the list was generated (September 1, 2026), how many entries carry both a name and an amount (233), and the oldest sale date on the list (02/09/2018). Then he took the next rep — Homework #2, the docket check on your three oldest — and posted what the docket showed on his rows. One line from his post: "NOTIFICATION TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR OF EXCESS FUNDS. SERVICE SENT BY REG MAIL TO (Claimant)… I took out the owner's name because I wasn't sure if you wanted us to post names and amounts." He also posted his row summaries — one row where a motion to distribute was contested and awarded to a competing party, and another where a motion was filed and his post states there had not been a ruling, with the line cut off by the see-more break. What his post actually shows Read exactly what Percy wrote, no further. His own summary shows one claim resolved to a party who contested it, one motion without a ruling, and a service entry addressed to a claimant. He redacted the name himself. The lesson is in what he did: the case numbers he posted himself (A 1505764 and A 1900394), dates on the lines he quoted, verbatim wording instead of a summary where it mattered, and no dollar amounts posted. The homework sequence builds exactly that — reading a record without filling the gaps. Where the paid side fits The homework sequence is posted in this group at no cost right now — Homework #1, Homework #2, and the pinned overview ("The Homework #1 path, in one post") are all here. What SFS Foundation adds is the five paid deliverables: the operator manual, the Field Kit, the simulation and source packet, the member readiness resources, and the local agent-builder learning reference. Support happens inside the paid community and at info@surplusfundssecrets.com, with replies within 2 business days. What it costs: $500 one-time for 12 months of access, paid through Stripe. No subscription, nothing auto-billed. After 12 months you can renew for $99 per year — renewal is manual only, never automatic. Refund policy: full refund within 14 calendar days, processed via Stripe on request; access ends on refund. What is not included: no automatic private integrations, no assured leads or attorney access, no promised outcome of any kind, no legal engagement, no software deployment implied. This is education, not legal advice. If you have looked at the path and decided you want what SFS Foundation adds, the checkout link is right here. Checkout link: https://buy.stripe.com/bJeeVcfqwauQbMXb6Bc3m09 SOURCES: - Percy's Homework #1 and #2 posts: his own words in this group (Hamilton County OH list answers 9/1/2026 / 233 entries / 02/09/2018; case numbers A 1505764 and A 1900394 with his row summaries; the service line quoted through the see-more break; his redaction note) — quoted as he posted them, first name only, zero dollar amounts - Pinned overview: "The Homework #1 path, in one post" (pinned in this group); homework threads "Homework #1: pull one county list" and "Homework #2: the docket check on your three oldest" - Price, term, refund, renewal, deliverables, exclusions, support route: SFS Foundation commercial spec RELEASED 2026-09-22 (offer_spec.json, owner-approved); checkout link buyer-render-verified 2026-10-07

Watch-the-machine day. Here is a real run, start to finish, including the parts that did not work. **The run** Today's target: the Collier County Clerk's site, hunting a surplus list. First attempt: the obvious URL — domain plus a guess at the page name. 404. Dead end one. Second attempt: a different county's records host. The hostname would not resolve. Dead end two — that hostname didn't resolve for me today. Third attempt: search, not guess. That found the real page on the Collier County Clerk's site, and the list itself: Tax Deed Sales Excess Proceeds List, a PDF stamped as of 9/29/2026. Downloaded today, one page. **What the machine saw** 16 rows. The header row reads: Sale Date / TDA # / Unclaimed Surplus / Claim Pending Surplus / 120 Day Deadline / Claims Filed / Legal Titleholder (prior to sale) / Address / City / State / Zip / Property ID# / Legal Description — 13 columns. The pull was fast. The judgment was not. **Where it gets interesting: the list argues with itself** I ran one arithmetic check on 14 of 16 rows — deadline minus sale date; the other 2 print no deadline at all. Here is every row's disposition: - 8 rows show a gap of 123 days, not the 120 the column implies — a consistent 3-day variance I did not chase today. - - 2 rows show 125 days, 2 rows show 133 days. - - 2 rows show a deadline that comes *before* the sale date. As printed, those numbers contradict each other. I don't know why, and the list doesn't say. - - 2 rows have no deadline printed at all. That is all 16. And the clerk's own footer says what the list isn't: "Abbreviated list provided for convenience - May not show complete information or current claims." **The lesson** This is why "the agent found the list" isn't the deliverable. The clerk's own disclaimer applies to all 16 rows, not just the two that print a deadline before the sale date — none of them are a substitute for the source records. What that deadline column actually binds is a question for counsel, not for me. Operators find and verify. Licensed counsel files claims. A list is a starting point, not an answer.

Denton County, Texas. The District Clerk publishes an excess tax funds file — one page in the version I pulled today: cause number, name, deposit amount, an "Excess Fund Date" column, plus a footer. With just four columns it teaches something worth practicing: the rows carry two different time markers, and they mean different things. The two markers: 1. The year in the first segment of the cause number, before the first dash — written full or two-digit on this page (2012-0756-16, 18-9095-362). 2. The date in the Excess Fund Date column. Those are not the same event. And the gap between the prefix year and the excess date is not constant — on the three rows below it runs from five to nine years. Three examples straight off the page: - Cause 2012-0756-16 — prefix year 2012, excess fund date 5/5/2021. Nine years between the two. - Cause 18-9095-362 — prefix 2018, excess dated 9/21/2023. Five years. - Cause 19-7161-16 — prefix 2019, excess dated 9/30/2026. Seven years. Now the exercise. The list is sorted alphabetically by name, not by date. So if your method is "start at the top," you're working the list in an order that tells you nothing about age. Before you touch a row, sort by the Excess Fund Date column yourself. And notice what the four columns do not include: any claim-status field. A 2021 excess date on a 2012-prefix cause number is a fact about this page, not a fact about availability. One way to go deeper is to take a cause number to the district clerk's records search and read what the docket shows — the same docket-check rep as Homework #2. Your rep for today: open the Denton file, sort the 28 rows by Excess Fund Date, then take the oldest-dated row that is NOT one of the three examples above and run its cause number through the district clerk's records search. Post in the comments on this post: the cause number, and what the most recent docket entry shows. No dollar amounts — this stays a counts-and-dates exercise. Education, not legal advice. Claims are prepared and filed by independent licensed attorneys.

1|One of your own posted a real rep this week, and it's worth walking file by file. 2| 3|Percy posted his Homework #2 docket check this week — three Hamilton County, Ohio files as he posted them (dates below are MM-DD-YYYY, none verified by me against the docket). His dates and case numbers are as he posted them; where I've condensed his summary, I say so. Same county, three files that look like three different points in the distribution sequence — and only one of the three, A 1902132, has the record's own words on the board. That took a nudge. 4| 5|- A 1505764, foreclosure judgment 12-06-2017. Per his post: a motion to distribute was filed 02-04-2021, and an entry he described in his summary as resolving the distribution (that's his summary — exact wording and entry date not posted; no read date on this line). 6| 7|- A 1900394, foreclosure judgment 03-10-2020. Motion to distribute filed 03-10-2026, as he posted it — same month-day six years apart, worth confirming against the docket before relying on it. Separately: no ruling entry as of his 10-06-2026 read. 8| 9|- A 1902132, foreclosure judgment 11-05-2020. No motion to distribute in his pull. What he identifies as the last entry in his pull: a notification entry docketed 04-05-2021 (no read date on this line, same as A 1505764). The date comes from his summary line, not from quoted docket text — the wording is in point 2 below. 10| 11|What this rep got right — and what tightened after a nudge: 12| 13|1. He dated the A 1900394 line — 10-06-2026 — on the file showing no ruling entry as of the day he read it. My read: a docket reading means something anchored to the day you read it. Date every line with the day you read it, not just one. 14|2. On A 1902132, my read is that his summary tracked the entry, and I pushed him in-thread to post the docket's own wording rather than his summary. He posted the wording he identifies as that entry, name redacted: NOTIFICATION TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR OF EXCESS FUNDS. SERVICE SENT BY REG MAIL TO [name redacted]. That line is as he posted it in the thread. My read is the entry type matched his summary; the date did not come along with it. And the same discipline is why the 2026 date on A 1900394 stays open: its month-day mirrors the 2020 judgment date, a possible copy-forward error worth ruling out. Only the docket's own entry settles it.

Teardown day. We pulled a county whose last four years of auction results are short enough to read in one sitting. Churchill County, Nevada. The county publishes its delinquent tax auction results as reconciliation files, one per year. We pulled the last four years. Four short files. What these files show: - 2026 auction (May 15, 2026): 9 parcels sold - 2025 auction (April 17, 2025): 1 parcel sold - 2024 auction (April 18, 2024): 2 parcels sold - 2023 auction (April 14, 2023): 3 parcels sold Fifteen parcels in four years. That is a different world from the multi-county statewide lists we have walked through here before, and it changes how you work the file. Three things these four files teach: 1. A short file lets you read every row. The recent files list parcel, previous owner, successful bidder, and the bid and sale columns. When a file is this small, you can genuinely read it end to end and see exactly what the county chose to publish — and equally, notice what an auction-results file by definition won't show, such as redemptions or sales that never reach auction. Once a list runs into the thousands of rows, in our experience a full read stops being practical. 1. Ownership patterns are visible. In the 2026 file, one previous owner's name appears on 5 of the 9 rows, and those parcels sold to two different bidders. In 2024, the same bidder took both parcels sold. One read of that pattern: whether these same names recur across years is exactly what next year's file lets you check. That is a question to carry forward, not a conclusion from one file. 1. Some counties publish more than others. In our reading, many counties post auction results and stop there. Churchill's reconciliation layout makes the outcome of each sale that reached auction readable. Before you commit hours to a county, pull one of its own files and see how much it actually discloses — a county that publishes clearly is easier to work from and easier to check yourself against.