Posted by RickinVA on 6/28/08 7:46am
Msg #253452

RTC

There was a log thread a while ago about the RTCs, but one thing was missing in it: I know that each borrower is supposed to get 2 copies. Often, though, there is only one in a eDOC package, and sometimes even in a O/N package. Is it my responsibility to print out (or copy) the extra required copies? I have been doing it all along, but the other day, in a rush, I missed it. I printed out the correct number the next day and delivered them to the borrower.
Your thoughts?

Rick

Reply by Kathy Fletcher on 6/28/08 7:59am
Msg #253453

I always make a copy of my recission calendar and take to each closing so I can explain the dates with a visual for my clients. On situations like this one, I leave them with this calendar to keep until I return. If I don't use it, I place it into my folder just in case I get a call later about the dates.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 6/28/08 8:55pm
Msg #253562

***I always make a copy of my recission calendar and take to each closing so I can explain the dates with a visual for my clients.***

At the beginning of each month, I print out a couple dozen copies of the rescisson calendar I use. As I am making my initial presentation -- the signing agent's role, how to sign, what to do about errors, the three-day rescission period -- I count down the days from the signing date to the rescission date, circling both on the calendar, and give the calendar to the borrowers. I think it increases their comfort level. I also make it a point to include the RTC in the first documents I present for the same reason.

I use a color calendar compiled, I think, by the Pennsylvania notary association because I believe it appears more professional in color. The link is

http://www.notary.org/PDFs/Rescission_calendar_2008_PAN.pdf

Reply by BrendaTx on 6/28/08 9:12pm
Msg #253563

Re: RTC - to each their own, but really?

Where does it stop with the signing agent taking it upon themselves to include extra documents into the loan package?

A rescission calendar is innocuous enough but it wasn't approved by the lender, it's from a notary organization, not a lender organization/association; it wasn't considered necessary by the lender and it shouldn't be in the package IMHO (for several reasons)...and besides the date is on the RTC.

Pointing to a date on their RTC and the date and moving along seems to be a fine way to leave them with the right impression.

====
If you are reading this and trying to learn how to do your job properly, IMHO a good rule of thumb is not to create your own forms or visual aids to supplement the lenders' or title companies' documents you are working for.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/28/08 9:21pm
Msg #253564

Have to agree...

Hugh might be able to get away with it because he's an attorney, but for the rest of us, seems to me like it could be asking for trouble.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 6/28/08 9:47pm
Msg #253567

Re: RTC - to each their own, but really?

On the other hand, the signing agent who isn't smart enough to read a calendar and compare it with the RTC probably should be working at the car wash.

If you are reading this and trying to learn how to do your job properly, IMHO a good rule of thumb is to keep your borrowers in mind and be prepared to do what serves them best in understanding their loan.

Reply by PAW on 6/28/08 8:16am
Msg #253454

Yes

In my opinion, as a Signing Agent, it is your responsibility (along with other things) to ensure that the correct number of copies is made and delivered. Depending on the package software and astuteness of the doc preparer, there sometimes is not the required number of copies.

Reply by Carole Breckbill on 6/28/08 10:47am
Msg #253474

RTC - Non Borrowing Spouse

How do you handle RTC when only one copy sent is for BO?

Reply by PAW on 6/28/08 12:33pm
Msg #253496

Re: RTC - Non Borrowing Spouse

First, I call the title company to ensure that the NOBS needs to sign. If so, then read on. If not, no need to read further.

If the NOBS needs to sign but their name isn't on the RTC, there are a couple of ways to handle it, depending on the particular form used. If the form has a place for multiple owner/borrower signatures, it's simple to have the NOBS sign on a blank line. If the form is for only one borrower, make a copy, whiteout the name printed beneath the signature line, and make 3 more copies. In any event, one copy needs to be signed by the NOBS and returned, the other two to be left with the NOBS, pursuant to Reg Z, in addition to the two copies for the owner/borrower.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 6/28/08 12:09pm
Msg #253493

Re: Yes

***In my opinion, as a Signing Agent, it is your responsibility (along with other things) to ensure that the correct number of copies is made and delivered.***

I don't construe it as part of my responsibilities as a signing agent to increase my workload to cover for the title company's failure to meet IT's responsibility of providing a correct document package.

My responsibility is to print, deliver, explain, execute, notarize and return what I am provided. I do pride myself on assisting title companies and lenders when I see missing documents, misspellings, etc. This week I happened to catch that a trustee in a deed had been incorrectly relocated from Colorado to Texas. But that really is not my job, and I don't want to be saddled with the expectation that I have somehow not performed as required when I don't catch such things.

Reg Z requirements for delivery of the RTC are well-known -- or certainly should be to anyone preparing real estate packages. Not to include the requisite number of copies is inexcusable. I have no objection to notifying a title company that the package doesn't contain what it should contain, whether that be a Texas homestead designation affidavit or an RTC. However, I almost never have time to check packets in advance, so a missing RTC is going to be discovered only when I'm at the table with the borrowers. To expect me to run out and have copies made at that point, especially without compensation, is unrealistic.

Reply by PAW on 6/28/08 12:29pm
Msg #253495

Re: Yes

>>> I don't construe it as part of my responsibilities as a signing agent to increase my workload to cover for the title company's failure to meet IT's responsibility of providing a correct document package. <<<

Two things: We apparently have a disagreement over the responsibilities. So be it, we are different. Second, it is not the title company's responsibility to provide the correct lender documents. It is the lender's responsibility. The title company simply forwards the lender docs on down the food chain.

I agree that if you haven't had time to review the documents before heading out, there's not much you can do about it. That being said, I require documents to be available at least 3 hours before I need them to allow me time to go through them, put them in my presentation order and get any missing pieces (such as the infamous Exhibit "A" and ensure the package is complete.

This was difficult to do back a few years when we running around like chickens with our heads cut off, but today, I don't think it's too difficult.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 6/28/08 12:50pm
Msg #253498

Re: Yes

We do have a major disagreement, PAW.

I don't want to have imposed on me any more duties than I already have, unless my fee is going to be increased to compensate me for those duties. Especially is that true in the current environment, when everybody seems to want to cut fees, rather than adequately compensate.

And, given a choice as to which bears the greater reponsibility for getting a correct document package to the borrower, the TC or the SA, I'd opt for the TC every time, whether it's lender docs or TC docs. The lender docs do, after all, go through the TC, and the opportunity exists for the TC to check them for sufficiency -- just as it does for the SA.

I suspect, if you ask the average borrower, whether the title company raking in a nice fat fee for the closing, or the notary public should be responsible for ascertaining that the borrower has all he/she needs to sign, Mr./Ms. A. Borrower would also point to the title company. They would probably say that's what they're paying the title company for.

Reply by CaliNotary on 6/28/08 1:20pm
Msg #253502

I'm with Hugh

It ain't my job to do quality control for the lender.

If I happen to notice something strange or missing, then yeah, i'll do what I can do get it fixed. But I never review the packages in advance, that would eat up over 100 hours a year and I'm simply not willing to add 2.5 weeks of work without any extra compensation. Especially when the vast majority of packages I receive have no problems to begin with. It's much cheaper to just fix problems when they surface than it is to double check everything in advance looking for them.

Reply by jojo_MN on 6/28/08 1:42pm
Msg #253510

Re: Yes

Many times, the title company only gets the information for making the HUD and disbursing funds. In those cases, I only get title docs and HUD from TC and the rest of the doc package are sent to me directly from the lender.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 6/28/08 6:54pm
Msg #253552

Re: Yes

I agree with Hugh.

I had one client, an attorney, who always sent docs to BO and never included enough copies of the RTC. In fact, they specifically instructed me to leave ONE copy and send all the signed duplicates back to them. I argued that they were violating Reg Z, but they were insistent on how they wanted it done.

In that scenario, how am I responsible for providing the extra copies? If they refuse to comply with Reg Z, why should I run around trying to make copies? Correcting their legal mistakes - especially when they insist it's not a mistake - is not in my job description. In fact, it could be argued that doing so would be UPL.

Reply by PAW on 6/28/08 9:58pm
Msg #253568

Re: Yes

>>> In that scenario, how am I responsible for providing the extra copies? If they refuse to comply with Reg Z, why should I run around trying to make copies? Correcting their legal mistakes - especially when they insist it's not a mistake - is not in my job description. <<<

Since the signing agent is the person that is providing the disclosures to the borrower, it is the signing agent that has the final responsibility. This does not release the title company and lender from responsibility, just adds the signing agent to the list of responsible parties. You can bet dollars to donuts, if there is an RTC issue, the signing agent will be right in the thick of it. Unless the signing agent is a "point and sign" notary, then the signing agent would have the necessary knowledge to be compliant with Reg Z and ensure that the meaning and intent was followed. Personally, I would not want to put myself in that position.

Of course, in the situation you cited, Mike, if there was explicit instructions not to comply, and you can prove it, then you may be off the hook. That would be up to the courts to decide.


>>>In fact, it could be argued that doing so would be UPL. <<<

I've asked different title attorneys about the signing agents role in providing the dates, or correcting them, on the RTC whether or not it would be considered UPL. Considering that, by Florida's definition, we are not advising the borrower of any legal matters, nor representing them, there is no UPL.

The definition as expressed by the Florida Supreme Court was summarized as follows:
"The reason for prohibiting the practice of law by those who have not been examined and found qualified to practice is frequently misunderstood. It is not done to aid or protect the members of the legal profession either in creating or maintaining a monopoly or closed shop. It is done to protect the public from being advised and represented in legal matters by unqualified persons over whom the judicial department can exercise little, if any, control in the matter of infractions of the Code of Conduct which, in the public interest, lawyers are bound to observe." [State of Florida v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962)]

Reply by MW/VA on 6/28/08 5:23pm
Msg #253541

Re: Yes

I'm a little confused by this view of responsibilities. We do the closing, we sit there with the RTC, have them sign that they acknowledge receiving 2 copies, but don't provide 2 copies.
Who do you think that would come back on?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/28/08 9:28am
Msg #253459

"I printed out the correct number the next day and delivered them to the borrower. "

They now have an extra day or possibly 3 years to rescind the loan..the RTC clearly states they have 3 days from the later of (1) the transaction; (2) the date they receive their TIL or (3) the date they receive their NORTC....

If this is an attorney like Korey ran into (see his thread about being stiffed) or a very savvy borrower, this could be a major problem somewhere down the road...JMHO

Reply by RickinVA on 6/28/08 9:53am
Msg #253461

They got the one the TC provided. The other 3 were delivered the next AM.

Rick

Reply by MistarellaFL on 6/28/08 10:08am
Msg #253462

Re: RTC Linda makes a good point.

That has happened to me a couple of times early in my career (my not checking the package, and not having enough RTC copies in the original package).
If it happens, and you don't have enough time or too far to travel back to the office to print another one, you can always go to the nearest copy place and make a copy to leave with the brws SAME DAY.
Linda makes a good point...copies must be received same day as signing.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 6/28/08 10:12am
Msg #253464

What is the point Kathy of making a copy of the recission

calendar for the borrower? I don't get the purpose at all. I print out a new recisson calendar at the beginning of each year, but honestly don't use it at all. I haven't looked at 08's since I printed it. It only takes 3 fingers and counting to 3 not inculding Sunday or Federal holidays. How hard is that?

Reply by CaliNotary on 6/28/08 1:22pm
Msg #253503

Re: What is the point Kathy of making a copy of the recission

I've never understood that either. Anyone who is halfway competent at this job doesn't need a rescission calendar.

Reply by Lee/AR on 6/28/08 10:13am
Msg #253465

Re: RTC Linda makes a good point.

I've had o/n packages with only 1 in the b's set. And have even seen that in a docs to Bo scenario.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/28/08 10:16am
Msg #253466

I've had that happen too, Lee...

so I make the extra copies required...

Reply by hcampersFL on 6/28/08 10:32am
Msg #253467

Re: I've had that happen too, Lee...

I think Lee is saying that the docs were o/n to the BR's and that is when it was discovered that they didn't have enough.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/28/08 10:37am
Msg #253469

I carry a small copier to take care of that...

Not trying to be a wiseguy but my portable HP has come in very handy....

Reply by BrendaTx on 6/28/08 10:42am
Msg #253471

Re: I carry a small copier to take care of that...

I like the way you think, Linda...but not everyone is equipped like that. Nor should they be expected to be IMHO when the docs are shipped to borrowers.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/28/08 10:45am
Msg #253472

I know, Brenda...and the copier was bought more to

accommodate those who don't get a copy of their ID, which happens more often than not - it just happens to have that added benefit..

Reply by jojo_MN on 6/28/08 10:50am
Msg #253476

Re: I know, Brenda...and the copier was bought more to

I carry a digital camera with me. I've never had a borrower refuse. Sometimes they have a computer with printer, so I put my sd card in and print it at the house and delete it right in front of them. If they don't have a computer, I take it back to my office to print.

I do also carry a printer and laptop with me, but I only use it in emergencies.

Reply by BrendaTx on 6/28/08 10:54am
Msg #253477

Digital cameras are great for this. I carry one also. n/m

Reply by jojo_MN on 6/28/08 10:35am
Msg #253468

Re: RTC Linda makes a good point.

I've had instances where the docs were o/n to borrower. There was only once copy of RTC, so I just pointed out to the borrower that if they would cancel for some reason, to make a copy of the signed RTC showing that it was cancelled before sending it.

Unfortunately, even some employees at the lenders don't pay attention to the fact that they need two copies for each borrower, that is why there is only one copy to begin with. If they are sent directly to the borrower, it is not our place to make one for them.

Reply by BrendaTx on 6/28/08 10:40am
Msg #253470

Re: RTC So...what? Lee...

You don't tear off down the mountain and across ten miles of dirt road burning up 45 miles of gas both ways to the nearest place with a copier to get copies?

Hmmm...I wouldn't either. If title or the lender doesn't ship enough copies to the borrower, that's not the problem of the notary, IMHO.

This is in response to: " And have even seen that in a docs to Bo scenario." So, have I Lee. The best you can do is to advise the hiring entity that the copies weren't sent. And, then they might want you to go back...for free...because as notaries know--no good deed goes unpunished.

Reply by jojo_MN on 6/28/08 1:48pm
Msg #253511

If they received one copy, they received it. Just because they don't have the full set, doesn't mean that it is extended until they receive the other copies. The reason for the two copies per person is that if they cancel, they can send in one copy and still have one for their records. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 6/28/08 1:53pm
Msg #253513

I don't know if it would be extended because only one was received, all I can say is that when they sign the RTC they are acknowledging receipt of 2 copies of the NoRTC.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 6/28/08 7:06pm
Msg #253555

If they sign, they acknowledge that they received two copies. Whether they received zero or 15 copies, if they signed then they acknowledged that they received two.

Not understanding what you signed is not usually considered to be an excuse after the fact. My guess is that the attorney could only argue either that there was something defective about the signing (wrong dates, dates missing, etc), or that they never actually signed it in the first place.