Posted by Ernest__CT on 12/3/07 11:55pm
Msg #224118

Another "What would you do?" question (Sr., Jr., etc.)

Fairly recently I had a signing for a very nice couple, I'd guess in their 40s. The docs said "John Q. Smith, Sr." and he was adamant about his name not _legally_ including "Sr.". (Yes, he has a son who is John Q. Smith, Jr., with identification that says so.) How would you handle this situation?

I will Post what I did within 24 hours, giving people a chance to think about the scenario and Post their thoughts.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/4/07 12:12am
Msg #224120

Are there any people with Sr. in their name where that's actually their legal name? Obviously it's not going to be given at birth, you'd have to do a legal name change to add it "legally". But I honestly have no idea what the law is regarding it. Seems to me the only options would be to abort the signing or cross out and initial it every place it appears. Assuming I couldn't get hold of anyone at the TC, I'd just have him correct it throughout the docs.

Reply by Larry/Ca on 12/4/07 2:26am
Msg #224122

If this guy would not sign his name as printed on the docs it is not likely that i would have the borrower modify the printed name without instructions to do so.

Reply by Ilene C. Seidel on 12/4/07 9:41am
Msg #224171

I would have called the mtg/title company and asked permission to let him sign with Sr then put it on the name affidavit to cover my butt. I doubt the mtg/title company would have a problem with it and make sure you send a photo copy of DL.

Reply by Pamela on 12/4/07 3:46am
Msg #224123

As a loan signing agent, I am responsible to have non-notarized
docs signed. In California, "signing agents" are not commissioned
to notarized docs (and are not recognized by the SOS).

Therefore, if this man wants to sign John Q. Smith Sr.
(as his legal signature) that's fine.

However, as a notary, I am responsible to have notarized
docs signed, after "reasonably" proving the identity of a person.

In this case, if this man has valid identification which identifies him
as "John Q. Smith", I would attach loose certificates and notarize the
name "John Q. Smith" to the appropriate docs (although the docs may
say "John Q. Smith, Sr.".

I would tell Mr. Smith beforehand, that I would be only listing
"John Q. Smith", on the loose notarial certificates.

But before doing any of this, I would immediately telephone
the title or escrow company and let them know of the problem.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/4/07 11:36am
Msg #224190

<<<<<As a loan signing agent, I am responsible to have non-notarized
docs signed. In California, "signing agents" are not commissioned
to notarized docs (and are not recognized by the SOS).>>>>>

Huh ?? What ?

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/4/07 5:34am
Msg #224125

In accordance with my own state ...

I would check with Title to see if he is actually vested as Sr. If he WAS, then with their okay, I would change the mtg to "John Q. Smith W/T/T/A John Q. Smith, Sr." I notarize the signature of "John Q. Smith". If he is NOT vested as Sr., then the "Sr." would be lined through (removed) & initialled on the recordables. (Depending, of course, on the agreement with the B - despite having been vested that way, some never realized it and want it cleaned up.)

Make sure both variants are on the A/K/A - and depending on directive from title/lender, he can decide how his signature is going to be placed on the rest of the docs.

If there is nobody available to direct me - I would do two mtgs, both versions, and leave B with his own decision on which version to use on non-recordables, letting him know The Golden Rules, have him do a LOX stating his decision, and following up with title in the a.m. Sometimes (I've had this happen so many times) B will have a copy of his Deed on hand.

Particularly with "Sr", I also suggest (read: SUGGEST) they do a little easy research on the benefits of distinguishing Sr from Jr.

Reply by OR on 12/4/07 11:45am
Msg #224194

If this happens after (if) the New Closing instructions are adopted. The borrower in this case will already have their docs 24 hours before we sign. So this should never be a question at the table.
In this case today I agree with calling SS/Title/LO to get permission to correct the docs.
Good point ReneeK M, in the "New Closing Instructions" It will be part of our job to make sure that the name(s) match on both the vesting/mts if not we are to call the LO/ Settlement Agent.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/4/07 11:49am
Msg #224195

"If this happens after (if) the New Closing instructions are adopted. The borrower in this case will already have their docs 24 hours before we sign"

Is there anybody on this board who thinks this is really going to happen? Maybe a few companies would get on board, but I can't imagine most companies will do anything but ignore it and push things to the last possible second like they currently do.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/4/07 11:57am
Msg #224199

That's what I thought a year or so ago ...

But CW is already using them, Wells Fargo is apparently on board as they were presenters at the webinar yesterday ... check out who's involved with this, and it might look a little more ominous. First Am is also part of this.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/4/07 12:07pm
Msg #224201

Re: That's what I thought a year or so ago ...

So all CW loan docs are now going to the borrowers 24 hours in advance? I know I've done a couple over the past 2 or 3 weeks that were emailed to me the day of the signing.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/4/07 1:36pm
Msg #224228

Re: And my understanding of this 24-hour requirement

is that if the Borrowers have NOT received their documents and the HUD 24 hours in advance to review then the signing is canceled until that condition can be met. From this I assume we would confirm this when we call to schedule the appointment with them.

Reply by Barb/MO on 12/4/07 5:10pm
Msg #224272

Had a CW assignment rec'd this A.M. scheduled for 4:00 today

It was cancelled due to the fact that the TC hadn't received the docs from CW. When I called Mrs. Borrower to advise, it was a surprise to her, but she speculated that it was because WaMu hadn't yet given CW the payoff amount. She had just gotten off the phone with WaMu giving them permission for same.

So some at CW may already be using them, but my guess is not everyone.