Posted by Bob_Chicago on 7/15/06 3:40pm
Msg #133379

My final word on the 1003, single bwr, top of page 1 ?......

unless I change my mind and decide to say more later.
No, TG, I do not take it personally, I am just trying to help my
fellow NSAs with what I believe to be the correct proceedure.
And no, I don't think that I know it all. I would not want to
put my buddy, Brenda(TX) out of a job.
Everybody seems to be hung up on the sentance;
"If this is an application for joint credit, Borrower and Co-Borrowrer
each agree that we intned to apply for joint credit ( Sign below)

___________________ ______________________
Borrower Co-Borrower "
I believe that this language is ambiguous on the issue.
Many , obviously, think that it is clear to mean that this section should
only be signed if there are two borrowers.
I think that you have to read to entire paragraph.
I think that we can all agree that the language appears to have
been written by a government committee of little green guys , using an
English/Martian dictionary.
I believe that the opening sentance,.
"This application is designed to be compleded by the applicants(s)
with the lender's assistance" is significant , especially the word
"applicant(s) with the "(s)" To me this seems to mean that it apples to
one or more applicants.
Also consider a situation with three co-borrowers. This would, of course,
require more than one 1003 form. All would have to sign the top of page one,
but at least one form would have only one signature.
More importantly , many major lenders and TCs anre enclosing
speicific instructions to have the top of page one signed in all cases.
I have seen a total of 0 instructions to have it signed only if
there is more than one bwr.
Many instuctions to the TC included in a loan pkg require that
a (current) 1003 be signed as a condition of funding. If it is not fully signed,
the NSA may well be required to go back and get it signed.
I believe that the better practice is to have it signed in all cases.
Failing to do so leaves the NSA subject to extra work if the lender
requires the signature as a funding condition, or worse a
non-funded loan if the bwr is not available ( willing) to sign before the funding
date.
Having it signed when not reqd by the lender leaves the NSA
subject to an accusation of being extra cautious.
For whatever, you think that it might be worth, I spoke to
Victoria Rivera (NOT RING) on this issue. She agrees with me.
Ok guys come get me. I am taking my wife to see Supermgn Returns
tonight. May try to pick up some Kryptonite to defend myself.
Have a great weekend all. EOM starts cranking up Monday.

Reply by Lynn Lowry on 7/15/06 4:51pm
Msg #133386

I used to have the 1003 signed at hte top of page 1 only if there was a co-borrower, then I started getting packages with an "X" at the top for a single borrower. The directions are not well written, and I now always have a single borrower sign at the top anyway, as I don't see how it can be a problem.

Reply by Beth/MD on 7/15/06 5:05pm
Msg #133389

After reading the posts on this, I think the big deal isn't, or shouldn't be, about how the sa executes the 1003. To me, it would be more about being expected to go back to the borrower with a paper that doesn't require a notary service.

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/15/06 5:07pm
Msg #133390

My final word - No Beth. It must be debated to death!! n/m

Reply by Beth/MD on 7/15/06 5:08pm
Msg #133391

Re: Hi Brenda. nice to see you're still you :) n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/15/06 5:28pm
Msg #133395

Re: Hi Brenda. - hey gal!!! Great to hear from

you. I am still me, alright. I had a notary public ID me yesterday.

Reply by Dave_CA on 7/15/06 5:09pm
Msg #133392

OK, DEATH aleady n/m

Reply by Dave_CA on 7/15/06 5:10pm
Msg #133393

Re: OK, DEATH already n/m

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/15/06 7:20pm
Msg #133406

Ok, you convinced me.

Well, not really you, but if Renee/MI says it's so...it is so.

So....(thank goodness my signing last week didn't get kicked back for same) it's better to err on doing more, rather than doing less.

Thanks for the edumacation.

Reply by Becca_FL on 7/15/06 8:45pm
Msg #133418

Jeez Bob, give it up. Is this your life's crusade or what? n/m

Reply by NCLisa on 7/15/06 8:45pm
Msg #133419

What I've been told by the attorney

that I do contract work for is that the top of the loan app is to be signed only if there is more than one borrower. A single borrower can not apply for joint credit. And in the case of married borrowers, with only one spouse on the loan, it is still not joint credit, so no signatures at the top.

The very 1st paragraph on the loan app, applies to the entire applicaton and has nothing to do with the joint credit signature lines.

Reply by dickb/wi on 7/16/06 5:56pm
Msg #133503

Re: What I've been told by the attorney

then of course there's wi......marital property state.....when one spouse borrows the other spouse has to be notified in writing and is resposible for not less than 1/2 of the debt and in some cases all of the debt.....it's a wierd world we live in......

Reply by PAW on 7/15/06 8:58pm
Msg #133422

Re: My final word on the 1003, single bwr, top of page 1 ?..

Instructions for 1003 from FannieMae via a title company:

The Loan Application (1003)
Please pay attention to the Loan Application form. It has been recently updated. There is a new signature line at the top of the 1003 that only applies to borrowers who are applying for joint credit. Only if it is joint credit should the borrowers sign the top section.

The signature at the top is only in regards to the statement immediately preceding the signatures, i.e., applying for joint credit. The paragraph references the signature of the application, which is on pages 3, 4 and 5, as applicable.

FannieMae and FreddieMac included the statement about applying for joint credit because the additional form that borrowers were supposed to sign when applying for joint credit was often not used, but necessary under federal regulations. Therefore, Frannie and Freddie added the last statement and signatures to the paragraph at the top of the 1003. Of course, this has created much ambiguity and controversy in the industry and, as far as I know, the Compliance Department has not issued a comment or explanation yet.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/15/06 9:06pm
Msg #133426

Re: My final word on the 1003, single bwr, top of page 1 ?..

Well then...status quo. We will all wait...holding our breaths for the Compliance Department.

Sheesh. Thanks Paul as always for the bulletin. I dunno Paul...you seem always to be in sync with the lenders but they frankly make me crazy, not just here, but in my day job. As they do others as well.

Reply by PAW on 7/16/06 5:46am
Msg #133459

Re: My final word on the 1003, single bwr, top of page 1 ?..

Having been employed by a major lender for a significant amount of time, I learned a lot. And I still get the Fannie/Freddie and ABA notices. 95% of the info is not relevant to what we do, but the other 5% is interesting, to say the least.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 7/16/06 9:04am
Msg #133466

Maybe if they stopped buying loans with only one obligor....

but with the top of page 1 signed, that might get the lender's attention.
Might also be good if they added a sentence at the top that said;
"Hey dude, if there is only one of you on the hook, DO NOT sign
in this section. If there is any kind of group involved, then you all
need to sign here. Cool?"

Reply by Joe Ewing on 7/15/06 9:07pm
Msg #133427

Since the new 1003 came out I have been teaching my Loan Signing class students to obtain the signature (s) at the top of page 1. Thanks Bob for backing me up earlier on this very important subject.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/15/06 9:08pm
Msg #133428

My eyes are rolling out of the room. spare me. n/m

Reply by CaliNotary on 7/15/06 10:55pm
Msg #133442

Mine are rolling after yours. It's a race! n/m

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 7/15/06 11:03pm
Msg #133446

Intent is a crucial element in many aspects of the law.

In some of the states where commonlaw marriage is still permitted, the intent of the couple to actually enter into a marital contract is an essential element of a valid commonlaw marriage. In criminal law, intent, whether actual or implied, is an essential element of any crime.

It appears to me that the 1003 wording is designed to be an expression of the intent of the borrowers, clearly setting out what they expect their actions to accomplish. A lone borrower who has no intent to enter into a joint obligation should not be expected to indicate that that is his intent, in my view, but that is what he is doing if he signs. The fact that the instructions cintigently refer to “applicant(s)” is not determinative of any different conclusion: The lender may be offering assistance to only one applicant who is the least sophisticated of two or more applicants; the others may not feel assistance is necessary. Thus the “(s)”.

Further, that the involvement of more than two applicants requires an additional copy of the application to be completed, it seems to me, results in nothing more than an addendum to the application itself, just as we frequently see addendums and riders to notes and deeds. The presence of an extended application should not determine the purpose of the application itself.

Personally, I’m pretty unfrittered by the problem, if problem it is. I don’t share Windy City Bob’s view. If I am asked by a lender, title company, or a signing service that hired me to have one, two or 15 borrowers sign the intent section, I’m going to do it. If there are consequences, they belong to those who instructed me to do it, not to me. Conversely, if I am told to get a signature and I don’t, then the consequences are mine, whether they are legal consequences or lost future business from a client whose instructions I did not follow.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 7/15/06 11:55pm
Msg #133453

cintigently = contingently

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 7/16/06 9:17am
Msg #133469

Your last Paragraph is , and has been my view. Their dox,...

their rules.
The only difference is, absent specific instructions to the
contrary, I have a sole bwr sign the top.
I appreciate you analysis of the word "intent"
(Far more cogent than Clinton saying" Depends on
what you mean by 'sex' " or W saying "Depnds on what
you mean by "imminent threat' "
Apparently some lender's lawyers agree with your analysis
and some do not.
That is the lawyer's secret. They love to disagree with other
lawyers. Then they can both charge their clients to resolve
the "dispute"

Reply by MelissaCT on 7/16/06 5:55pm
Msg #133502

The ones I've seen go on within the paragraph to state that "Co-Borrower information must ALSO be provided (and the appropriate box checked) when [] the income or assets of a person other than the Borrower (including the borrower's spouse) will be used as a basis for loan qualification ... it goes on.

I think this is where the lenders/TCs are reading that the signature at the top is required regardless of the inclusion of a co-borrower. It doesn't state that a single borrower must sign, just that a co-borrower's information must also be provided (which applies to Section III of the 1003).

It's ambiguous in the language & "we" should do as we're told on this form by the hiring entity. If they want blue ink, they get blue ink; if they want black ink, they get black ink; if they want the top of 1003 signed by a single borrower, they get...

This is strictly my personal opinion and shall not be confused for advice of any kind.