| Posted by Giselle_CA on 8/3/05 5:08pm
Msg #56713
Just to Follow up w mssg#55264 for CA
Have any of you have been asked to complete the incorrect jurat wording provided on the package since Lenders have another due date to comply with the new jurat requirement in CA?
I have a SS state the LO wanted the incomplete jurat wording to be completed and since I have lined through the incorrect certificate, wrote see attached certicate and attached a loose certificate, I was wrong for doing that.
Now, there was no instructions they specifically wanted a jurat stamp or a loose certificate.
Also, SS mentioned since I placed the optional description on a loose certificate, they said that was wrong too.
Now, she said they had to pay $900 to redraw docs. This signing took place on Thrusday, it was a 1st and 2nd and it suppose to be done on Thrusday. Only 1st took place on Thrusday since the docs were not done for the 2nd on time, so scheduled 2nd for Friday.
I called LO because had ?s regarding the Certificate of Confirmation-Non Rescission, an assignment of DOT and to let her know Ms. Borrower's name was wrong in some documents. She said everything was fine and to send the docs. So, I Fedex docs to arrived on Monday morning.
Two hours later on Friday, before the 2nd visit for 2nd loan, the SS and LO called and said the loan had to be "restructured" and that she will call next week to do the signing.
SS calls today and says the signing had to be done at the office due to the "errors" mentioned above. Furthermore, I received an email today from SS containing the Confirmation-Non Rescission w a date written by hand and that should have paid attn to the date. I told the SS the documents were sent to me via email and nothing was written on it when I opened them and I could send her a copy of it.
Also, told her that I specically called the LO on Friday regarding the same document since I was going to the borrowers for a 2nd visit and I could have corrected it and LO said there was no problems.
I don't know if all of this makes sense...Any thoughts?
TIA
| Reply by Merry_CA on 8/3/05 5:19pm
Msg #56715
Go to the CA Sect'y. of State website and note the following:
Effective January 1, 2005, Assembly Bill 2062, Chapter 539, Statutes of 2004, adds section 8202 to the Government Code, identifying the requirements for executing a jurat, as shown below. The new jurat form is available in PDF file format and can be viewed, filled in and printed from your computer.
In addition, the new law requires that the notary public identifies or personally knows the signer, and completes the entry in the journal.
State of California
County of _______________
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _____ day of _____________________, 20_____, by __________________________, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.
(seal)
Signature______________________
It sounds (if I understand your msg. correctly) that you did the correct thing. The loan needing to be "restructured" is a LO/TC issue, nothing to do with you. By CA law you must use the new 2005 jurat wording. Hope this helps!
| Reply by Giselle_CA on 8/3/05 5:31pm
Msg #56719
Thank you, Merry. Yes, it does help. It seems to me they just tried to blame me for their mistakes. I told the SS I could not have notarized the document without having the correct verbiage, but she insisted the LO had until certain time to correct this.
Also, she said the Recorder's office rejected the the Correction Agreement Limited Power of Attorney because I added the optional description. It just did not make sense to me.
Things like this are what makes me upset. As notaries, our reputation is on the line. And, if we are being blamed for things like this...what is next?
| Reply by Merry_CA on 8/3/05 5:51pm
Msg #56722
Are you saying that on the loose 2005 jurat, in the optional information area you added that this jurat is for the CALPA? If that is the case, you did the correct thing. SS is "playing" you! LO didn't like you doing that because now the jurat is specifically for that particular doc only and can't be moved to another doc (that's the whole idea of the optional information!). I doubt highly that it would not record... it's just an excuse... probably they will try to get you to go out on 2nd signing at a reduced fee... DON"T DO IT! You should be paid in full for both signings.
| Reply by Giselle_CA on 8/3/05 6:07pm
Msg #56728
For the CALPA I added the optional information to an Ack.
For the Signature Affidavit, I crossed out the wrong jurat wording, wrote please see attached certificate, added a loose jurat certicate and filled the optional information.
On the Occupancy Affidavit, I crossed out the wrong jurat wording, and used a jurat stamp.
Now, why is the SS/LO saying it did not record is beyond me.
There was nothing to cross or add on the DOT. I just simply filled it.
| Reply by Brian/CA on 8/3/05 6:26pm
Msg #56734
I wasn't a Ditech, was it. I got a package today for tomorrow signing. Nothing in the package or in the SS notes to add the additional Jurat to all the docs that have an ACK, I called, sure enough they need it. I think they are just looking for someone to blame, you happen to be available.
| Reply by Giselle_CA on 8/3/05 6:47pm
Msg #56742
No, it was not a Ditech, but I think you are right. They knew they had to redo the loan and have another signing no matter what.
| Reply by CaSigner on 8/3/05 6:27pm
Msg #56735
That's interesting. I had sort of the same thing happen last week with a southern california TC. I had an Occupancy Agreement and Deed of Trust that said only "subscribed and Sworn" so I crossed those words off and wrote "See attached CA Jurat for correct wording" then attached a correct CA jurat and did my thing on that as usual. The SS called me to tell me that I should never have written anything on the original and that I needed to rectify the situation by receiving a new last page and notarize that. I said there was nothing to rectify since the original had incorrect wording it couldn't have been used/notarized. They were not happy and called it "modifying" the original.
| Reply by Giselle_CA on 8/3/05 6:33pm
Msg #56739
Any other comments about this? This is interesting. The Certificate in a sense "belongs" to us since we are the ones responsible for its accuracy. The additional information is to deter fraud in the first place. I don't see anything wrong with adding this piece and helpful information.
| Reply by AngelinaAZ on 8/3/05 6:41pm
Msg #56740
Just a thought..
I have a tendancy to abbreviate everything. There may have been a problem with the description if she abbreviated it.
For instance... I remember one loose ack I did was for a document called... CLOSING ERRORS AND OMMISSIONS/BORROWER'S COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT... I had the description abbreviated as E&O/COMP AGR. and then I realized that somebody in some office somewhere... using their document integrity spyglasses might have a problem so I re-did it and wrote out the whole thing.
Just a thought...
| Reply by Giselle_CA on 8/3/05 6:45pm
Msg #56741
Re: Just a thought.. No Abbreviation. n/m
| Reply by CaliNotary on 8/3/05 7:46pm
Msg #56760
I don't know what comments you're looking for, but this situation is not a matter of opinion on what is right and wrong. We must have the correct wording on the docs, no exceptions. These title companies and signing services generally know very little to nothing at all about notary law. Their wishes do not supercede state law and it's our responsibility to make that crystal clear to them and let them know that they have absolutely NO say in how we fill out our notary certificates.
It sounds to me like their "restructuring" of the docs is their way of saying they had to redraw docs for some complete other reason and they're just trying to make you the fall guy to get out of paying you for a second signing. Any company that is going to pull this crap on you, and any signing service that will side with the title company on something like this, are not companies you should be working for in the first place. They know exactly what they're doing and clearly don't give a flying f*** about you.
Cut your losses, refuse to do the second signing, and be prepared to fight to get your rightful payment for the first signing.
| Reply by Giselle_CA on 8/4/05 11:11am
Msg #56900
I was sharing an experience and looking for support and for honest comments to see if there was anything I might have done wrong, eventhough I know I did not. I stated that to the SS and I know is not worth working for an SS who sides w the TCs eventhough there is nothing I did wrong.
Also, I tried to give a good deal to this SS to get her business (this is the 2nd time I tried this) since every time she calls she wants to pay lower than my fees. I know, I know...I should have known better, but I learned my lesson and I would never do that again. Well, needless to say that was the last assignment I accepted from them.
The documents contained the wrong name for Ms Borrower and I believe that is the reason they had to redraw the documents, but instead of admitting it was their mistake, they created all of this.
| Reply by Brian/CA on 8/3/05 6:23pm
Msg #56733
Don't you wonder what they were trying to use it for? n/m
| Reply by CaSigner on 8/3/05 6:30pm
Msg #56736
Every time! n/m
| Reply by Giselle_CA on 8/3/05 6:49pm
Msg #56743
Re: Don't you wonder what they were trying to use it for? n
When they have a problem with the description of the document...yes, it makes me wonder!
| Reply by hcampers/fl on 8/4/05 7:03am
Msg #56848
How could the recorders office have refused to record if the 3 day right of rec had not passed? They are lying to you and I would inform them that you will be reporting to the SOS. Make sure you have all your ducks in a row!
b.
| Reply by Giselle_CA on 8/4/05 10:50am
Msg #56896
I know they are. As you mentioned, the rescission could not had passed since they did not sign on Friday due to the "restructure of the loan". Second, the docs were emailed to me, so there was no handwriting on docs. But, when they emailed one doc to me, there was a date they place in their own handwriting. When I mentioned, the docs were email to me and I still have the copies of what I received, they did not know what to say. Third, stating they have time to correct the wrong wording on the jurats. If the law passed for us effective on January, why would they not abide by it or worse, why would the SOS pass laws that are conflicting? For us effective January, for them effective on another date? The way I see it, there was no way around it. I had to place the right jurat wording in order to notarize it. Fourth, the fact I place the optional information makes it a problem?
| Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 8/4/05 2:09pm
Msg #56939
Sounds like thier reasons were CRAP
Coniving
Rediculous
Accusatory
Pretence
|
| |
