What should a seller know first?
74 parcels receive tax mail elsewhere
74 of 314 parcels have a mailing address different from the property. The state and county tables describe those destinations.
47.2% of contracts fell in February–April
51 of 108 recorded contracts in the fixed 2021–2025 study fell in those months. This is historical timing evidence.
13 of 18 sales were reported as cash
13 of 18 purchases with reported terms were cash (72.2%). The table also identifies each other reported category and any unreported terms.
Where do owners receive their tax mail?
240 of 314 residential parcels receive tax mail at the property; 74 (23.6%) direct it elsewhere. 0 address comparisons are unresolved.
These are existing owners’ tax-mail destinations. They do not establish where buyers came from, primary residence, unique households or future demand. One parcel is one count; an owner with multiple parcels can appear more than once.
Leading U.S. mailing states
Off-property addresses only · bars show a share of 65 U.S. mailings
- New York18 parcels
- Florida14 parcels
- Illinois6 parcels
- New Jersey4 parcels
- Ohio4 parcels
- Pennsylvania4 parcels
What is included?
65 U.S. and 9 international mailings make up the off-property total. International mailings are excluded from the U.S. rankings.
65 U.S. mailings have an assigned county: 58 address matches and 7 ZIP-based estimates. 0 counties are unresolved.
Tax file last updated: September 5, 2026. Mailing analysis prepared October 12, 2026.
See all 17 U.S. mailing states
| State | Parcels | Share of 65 U.S. mailings |
|---|---|---|
| New York | 18 | 27.7% |
| Florida | 14 | 21.5% |
| Illinois | 6 | 9.2% |
| New Jersey | 4 | 6.2% |
| Ohio | 4 | 6.2% |
| Pennsylvania | 4 | 6.2% |
| Massachusetts | 3 | 4.6% |
| Connecticut | 2 | 3.1% |
| Maryland | 2 | 3.1% |
| Arizona | 1 | 1.5% |
| California | 1 | 1.5% |
| Delaware | 1 | 1.5% |
| Georgia | 1 | 1.5% |
| Kentucky | 1 | 1.5% |
| Michigan | 1 | 1.5% |
| Missouri | 1 | 1.5% |
| Utah | 1 | 1.5% |
| County / state | Parcels | Address matched | ZIP estimated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palm Beach CountyFlorida | 14 | 13 | 1 |
| Westchester CountyNew York | 8 | 7 | 1 |
| Nassau CountyNew York | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Allegheny CountyPennsylvania | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Cook CountyIllinois | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| New York CountyNew York | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Fairfield CountyConnecticut | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Hamilton CountyOhio | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Lake CountyIllinois | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Suffolk CountyNew York | 2 | 2 | 0 |
See all 32 assigned U.S. mailing counties
| County / state | Parcels | Address matched | ZIP estimated |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palm Beach CountyFlorida | 14 | 13 | 1 |
| Westchester CountyNew York | 8 | 7 | 1 |
| Nassau CountyNew York | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Allegheny CountyPennsylvania | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Cook CountyIllinois | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| New York CountyNew York | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Fairfield CountyConnecticut | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Hamilton CountyOhio | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Lake CountyIllinois | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Suffolk CountyNew York | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Alameda CountyCalifornia | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Baltimore cityMaryland | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Bergen CountyNew Jersey | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Catoosa CountyGeorgia | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Cuyahoga CountyOhio | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Erie CountyNew York | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Essex CountyNew Jersey | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Fayette CountyKentucky | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Geauga CountyOhio | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Luzerne CountyPennsylvania | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Maricopa CountyArizona | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| McHenry CountyIllinois | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Middlesex CountyMassachusetts | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Montgomery CountyMaryland | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Morris CountyNew Jersey | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| New Castle CountyDelaware | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| St. Louis CountyMissouri | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Suffolk CountyMassachusetts | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Summit CountyUtah | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Union CountyNew Jersey | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Wayne CountyMichigan | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Worcester CountyMassachusetts | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Use this footprint as one input when planning broad listing distribution and referral outreach. It is an ownership snapshot and does not identify prospective buyers.
When have buyers put homes under contract?
The contract month records when a buyer and seller reached an agreement. It differs from the listing month and the closing month.
Fixed historical study · complete calendar years. Historical study MLS file last updated: September 27, 2026. The chart covers complete calendar years 2015–2019 and 2021–2025.
Swipe the chart to see all months, or open the monthly counts below.
Monthly contract counts behind this chart
| Month | 2015–2019 | 2021–2025 |
|---|---|---|
| January | 11 | 9 |
| February | 11 | 19 |
| March | 18 | 24 |
| April | 18 | 8 |
| May | 15 | 11 |
| June | 12 | 8 |
| July | 6 | 5 |
| August | 5 | 4 |
| September | 8 | 4 |
| October | 10 | 4 |
| November | 10 | 4 |
| December | 16 | 8 |
In Old Palm, 51 of 108 recorded contracts in 2021–2025 were signed from February through April (47.2%). March had the most contracts: 24.
February–April accounted for 33.6% of 140 contracts in 2015–2019. The later share was 13.7 percentage points higher. This compares different homes over two complete five-year periods; it does not establish the best listing date for an individual property.
In the more recent 2023–2025 window, February led with 8 of 44 contracts. Both windows meet the 1% display minimum. The shift in peak month is a reminder to check current inventory as well as the longer history.
The 1% display minimum is 4 recorded contracts per period, from 314 distinct residential properties in this area and property-type scope, including verified residential vacant lots. Current tax inventory is used for these historical windows; historical parcel counts are unavailable. This display rule does not establish statistical reliability. Monthly differences can be sensitive to a few transactions and to the mix of properties represented.
MLS file last updated: September 27, 2026. Contracts are grouped by recorded contract date; 2020 and the partial 2026 year are excluded from the comparisons. All residential property types are included.
For a seller: use the historical pattern to discuss preparation and launch timing alongside today’s competition. Contracts occurred beyond the leading months; these counts do not predict the best date or the time needed to sell your home.
How have buyers financed their purchases?
13 of 18 purchases with reported terms were cash (72.2%). These are 18 completed MLS sales from October 20, 2025 through October 19, 2026, the same trailing-year sales used on the Market page.
| MLS purchase terms | Sales | Share of reported terms |
|---|---|---|
| Cash | 13 | 72.2% |
| Conventional | 4 | 22.2% |
| Other | 1 | 5.6% |
| Unreported | 0 | Excluded from reported-term percentages |
“Other” is the MLS category as reported. It does not identify a particular loan product or establish that the purchase used a mortgage.
Based on 18 sales with reported financing; 0 sales have unreported terms. Percentages use reported terms as the denominator and require the site’s 4-sale display minimum for this community.
For a seller: compare the actual offer price, proof of funds or loan approval, contingencies and proposed timing. Past cash purchases do not establish a cash-only requirement or prove that a particular offer is stronger.
Current MLS file last updated: October 17, 2026. See current prices, inventory and negotiating evidence in Market.
How would I help you use this evidence?
- Set the price from relevant sales. Review your home’s condition, living area and improvements against current competition and comparable closings.
- Plan distribution. Combine the state and county mailing footprint with the property’s features, broad exposure and professional referral outreach.
- Prepare the launch. Weigh historical contract timing against your readiness, available alternatives and current buyer activity.
- Evaluate the whole offer. Compare financing evidence, contingencies and timing, then review the response to the listing as the market changes.
How should I read these figures?
Current market as-of: October 19, 2026. Current MLS file last updated: October 17, 2026. The site carries that unchanged export to its current cutoff after the source operator confirmed no new activity.
Tax mailing analysis: source file last updated September 5, 2026; prepared October 12, 2026. Capitalization, punctuation, common street abbreviations, unit labels and ZIP+4 suffixes are normalized. Missing, confidential and uncertain same-property comparisons are kept out of off-property rankings. County assignments use the U.S. Census Geocoder; a ZIP estimate is used only where the 2020 Census ZIP area falls within a single county and agrees with the mailing state. ZIP areas approximate postal delivery geography. County boundaries use the 2020 vintage, including Connecticut’s historical counties.
Historical contract study: MLS source updated September 27, 2026. It counts unique recorded listing contract events by contract date across all residential property types. It excludes 2020 and the partial 2026 calendar year. Period totals and each plotted monthly count appear with the chart. This fixed study is separate from the current trailing-year closing cohort used for financing.
Financing: figures use the same completed sales as the Market report, with duplicate records removed. Blank and unknown terms are excluded from percentages and shown separately. Categories describe MLS reporting; they do not establish loan balances, rates or later refinancing.
Site methodology · 2026-10-19. The shared 1% rule gives 314 residential properties a minimum of 4 usable observations for gated percentages and comparisons. Meeting the display minimum does not establish statistical reliability.
Read the site methodology · U.S. Census Geocoder · 2020 Census ZIP-area relationships.