Posted by Nomad/OR on 6/6/08 4:49pm
Msg #250302

Well THIS isn't much fun. Signing is in three hours,

and the e-docs the SS sent have two different Uniform Residential Loan Apps. The two are for the same people and property, but they are two different formats. The problem is that one of them was sent so small and blurry that I can barely make out the print.

I left messages on two different lines plus an e-mail and the SS has not returned my calls.

Best I can think of is to take the whole set of docs over and have them sign and initial and pray the Title Co doesn't have a hissy fit over the shrunken blurred docs. Maybe they will be happy with the URLA that is clean. I've never received two different ones before, so I'm not sure what to make of this.

I've tried to manipulate the print settings to try to fix it, but it just got big and blurry instead of small and blurry.

Reply by Nomad/OR on 6/6/08 5:37pm
Msg #250314

Heck with it! I replaced the bad ones with copies of the

good ones in the other format. If they don't call back, I'm going with it.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 6/6/08 6:03pm
Msg #250319

Re: Heck with it! I replaced the bad ones with copies of the

I often have 2 1003's in pkgs. That is not unusual for me. Sometimes also one is distorted in some way. I do call to see what they want me to do and almost always, they say its ok, just have it signed.

I wouldn't replace the bad ones with good ones without being instructed to do that. Its not up to us which docs to use, even if it is distorted.

Reply by claudine osborne on 6/6/08 10:11pm
Msg #250328

Re: Heck with it! I replaced the bad ones with copies of the

I often get 2 1003s in different formats as well. I just have them sign, it is not up to me to try and decipher what lender wants..if it's in the docs, they want it there!

Reply by MistarellaFL on 6/7/08 9:58am
Msg #250365

Re: Heck with it! I replaced the bad ones with copies of the

And with more than one 1003, they are often not identical 1003's.
that can be a problem.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 6/6/08 10:30pm
Msg #250331

No, no, NO!

We _NEVER_ decide to replace anything! Ever!

Print what you were sent.

You did The Right Thing by trying to reach somebody. Now stop and take what you were given.

PERIOD.

Reply by LKT/CA on 6/6/08 10:48pm
Msg #250333

Ernest CT...5 Star Post! n/m

Reply by Nomad/OR on 6/6/08 10:51pm
Msg #250334

The LO called, he was fine with it, same form

just different format, the SS never did call back. Couldn't even reach them after the signing.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 6/7/08 8:57am
Msg #250358

Ernest is dead-on =)

Two things here - ONE, we should never (and yes, never IS a big word) remove or replace ANY document, no matter how much you might think it's "the exact same".

In this instance, the reason for the difference is obvious - one 1003 is the Lender's, and the other one is from the Broker (the badly-scanned one). Broker's docs are often barely readable - usually faxed a couple times & the results scanned to you. You can't 'fix' them, other than making them a little darker/higher contrast. A scan is essentially a photograph - not "text" (as far as the computer goes).

Though the L.O. advised you to leave out the bad copy - I'm betting someone else's money that this L.O. doesn't realize why there were two, and whose they were. A lot of Lenders require a wet-signature on the broker's 1003, as well as their own 1003.

Reply by Nomad/OR on 6/7/08 9:06am
Msg #250359

You're probably right,

A lot of you folks are more seasoned than I, so I will have to see if it goes through now. LO is satisfied at least.

Reply by Becca_FL on 6/7/08 9:41am
Msg #250361

I just don't understand the people facilitating closings out there that don't know the difference between lender docs, broker docs and TC docs. It is obvious to me that the shrunk 1003 is for the broker and if it has different numbers then the final 1003, well that's ok. Many NSAs seem to be nothing more than glorified couriers with no clue about the title, escrow and lending business. Very sad, IMO.

Reply by jba/fl on 6/7/08 10:19am
Msg #250370

Many NSAs seem to be nothing more than glorified couriers with no clue about the title, escrow and lending business.

Beg to differ: even couriers know enough to just carry to docs, pkg, etc, and the whole thing needs to be courier-ed (a word?) or there is no complete transaction.

Reply by Nomad/OR on 6/7/08 11:32am
Msg #250373

To clarify, this doc was nothing more than a big smudge

The only thing that really identified it was the signature lines at top and bottom.

The patterning of the smear was the same as the clean doc. None of the info was legible, the name looked to be the same pattern as the borrowers name and was barely legible.

If I'm going to go back, I'll go back. LO said it is okay, so I did it.

Take the doc and shrink it down to 4X6 and see if you can make it out.

Reply by Becca_FL on 6/7/08 12:38pm
Msg #250382

Re: To clarify, this doc was nothing more than a big smudge

I've had those too. I had a 1003 that had been faxed four times and was shrunk down to a 1/4 of an 8x10 page...about 4x6. As long as there is another, legible 1003 in the package for the lender, you are fine. If the broker can't get it together to send a legible 1003, it's not on you. If the broker latter decides they want a legible 1003, they can send one out the borrowers themselves. Some brokers send the original 1003, that usually differs from the final 1003 to be signed at closing as well as the final 1003. Your job is to get the doc pkg executed correctly and not to speculate on what you believe a pkg should look like.

Reply by BrendaTx on 6/7/08 1:01pm
Msg #250384

Re: To clarify, this doc was nothing more than a big smudge

I hate when they send repeatedly duplicated documents. I wouldn't sign those on a bet if it were me...but many do.

Reply by MW/VA on 6/7/08 12:24pm
Msg #250379

It is after the fact now. Earnest was right on! I regularly get a 1003 that is shrunken
(because it is the broker's and has been faxed). It is also common for there to be two in the package (one from lender, one from broker). Don't get into those decisions. It is not your decision or the LO's to replace it. It would be the decision of the TC, upon receiving it, to have the borrower re-sign it if necessary. I hope this is a lesson learned for you. Even though the LO told you what to do, if challenged, would probably deny it & let you take the fall. I don't ever take instruction from anyone except the party who contracted with me (either the ss or tc).

Reply by Becca_FL on 6/7/08 12:44pm
Msg #250383

>>>Don't get into those decisions. It is not your decision or the LO's to replace it. It would be the decision of the TC, upon receiving it, to have the borrower re-sign it if necessary.<<<

Not necessarily, MW. The title company is not concerned with broker disclosures. Broker disclosures are usually executed as a "courtesy" to the broker since it is the brokers responsibility have their file in order and not the TCs.