The question arrives three years later, usually from a lawyer, about a deal nobody at the brokerage worked on, filed by an agent who left in the meantime.
The short answer
A closed transaction stops being a working folder and becomes a record, and the two have different requirements: a record has to be complete, unchanging, and findable by someone who was not there. A workflow uses the On a Schedule trigger to sweep closed transactions into an archive organized by year and address, the Check File Details step to pick out the transactions old enough to archive, and the Ask a Person to Approve step to put each one in front of somebody before it moves. The point of archiving deliberately is that the gaps are visible while somebody can still fix them.
Steps this uses
Before and after
As they arrive
After the workflow
Two closed transactions archived by year and address, with one flagged as incomplete before it was filed away.
Setting it up
This is the sentence. Send it to the builder and the steps below appear on a canvas, wired and named, for you to change before anything runs.
Every week, move transactions closed more than thirty days ago into an archive organized by year and address, and ask me to approve each move before it happens.
Retention obligations are expressed in years, so the archive is organized the way the obligation is. Within a year, the address — the same identifier the working folder used, so nothing has to be renamed on the way in.
What a closing still owes is tracked on the checklist of the file request it collected through, so the folder can be read against that list before it is archived. A gap found at archive time is recoverable; the same gap found three years later is not.
The On a Schedule trigger sweeps closed transactions periodically. Archiving as a manual end-of-quarter task is the first thing dropped in a busy quarter, and the omission is invisible until it matters.
Ask a Person to Approve puts the archive move in front of somebody with the list shown first. Moving a deal that has not actually closed is a mistake worth one click to avoid.
Working folders are messy because they are being worked: drafts, superseded versions, a document saved twice. That is fine while a deal is live and a problem once it is a record, because the person who eventually reads it has no way to tell which version governed. Archiving deliberately — checking completeness, keeping the executed versions obvious — is the step that turns one into the other, and skipping it is invisible until the day it is not.
A missing disclosure can be re-obtained shortly after closing, when the parties are still reachable and still remember. The same gap discovered years later is simply a gap. This is the entire argument for checking completeness at archive time rather than trusting that nothing was missed: the check is nearly free and the window it protects closes quickly.
It organizes, checks against a list and archives. It does not know your state's retention period, enforce a legal hold, or guarantee immutability the way a records system does. Retention requirements come from state law and brokerage policy, and a brokerage with formal obligations should confirm that this arrangement meets them rather than assume it does.
FAQ
By year, then by property address, with the executed versions clearly named and the working drafts left behind. Retention obligations are expressed in years, so organizing the archive that way matches the way the requirement is stated and the way anyone will eventually search it.
Shortly after closing, on a schedule rather than as a manual task. The reason for doing it promptly is that a missing document can still be obtained while the parties are reachable — a gap found at archive time is fixable and the same gap found years later is not.
That is set by state law and brokerage policy and varies, commonly running to several years. The practical point is that the archive has to stay readable for that long, which means a structure that survives staff changes and storage migrations rather than one that depends on who filed it.
No. It organizes, checks completeness and archives on a schedule. It does not enforce legal holds or provide the immutability guarantees a formal records system does. A brokerage with strict obligations should confirm this meets them rather than assume it.
Because a gap found three years later is not a gap you can close.
5 GB free · No credit card required