Posted by Linda_in_MI on 8/23/12 7:08am
Msg #431615

I did the right thing calling title, borrower doesn't agree

Signing last night and halfway through came to the Employment Verification document. This is one the borrower signs confirming that their employment hasn't changed since they started the process, that they are still working for the same employer. Borrower signs no problem, then states "Oh wait. I started a new job Monday. I guess I'll call my contact tomorrow morning and talk with them." WHAT? I got on the phone and called the title company. After title posed a couple of questions to the borrower (same company?-no different; same field?-yes; same job title?- yes) I was told to stop the signing because they would need to verify employment. OK, I get it. I think the borrower understood too, but at the same time didn't.

So now will there need to be an extension on the rate lock which is no biggie I'm told. But the real frustration for the borrower is she has to contact her financial institution to see if the mortgage payment due this Friday that she cancelled-per title because the paperwork was being signed-can be reversed and the payment made. And she feels that there will be more "hoops to jump through". All because the borrower got a job that is closer to home making about $1.50 more an hour. And apparently the job is a "transfer" type of situation between divisions and she had the opportunity to wait until after paperwork signed to transfer but didn't because she wanted the extra pay and shorter commute.

Oh well, I don't think in the end the borrower saw it quite the same way but I know I did the right thing by contacting title.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/23/12 7:14am
Msg #431616

Not sure why title couldn't verify employment during the 3-day RTC and save the rate for the borrowrs.

Also - "So now will there need to be an extension on the rate lock which is no biggie I'm told" - maybe not - but could be a HUGE deal if this extension is going to cost the borrowers points (which IME I've seen extensions charged at a flat rate and have also seen them charged a percentage of a point). Depends on how badly the borrowers want this particular loan with this particular lender.

I think you were right in contacting title - think title could have handled it differently.

JMO

Reply by lindetteh_PA on 8/23/12 8:43am
Msg #431625

I disagree

We do not work for TC or the lender we are there to make sure docs are executed correctly, not to confirm the truthfulness of docs. I think you highly over stepped and I would be pissed if I were the borrower especially since she already signed it. I think some NSA's think too far into the process just like they don't want us explaining terms and docs it is not our place to do their job for them. Also aggree with Linda, if the doc is in the packge to sign one could assume the lender should be checking during RTC.

Reply by MW/VA on 8/23/12 8:59am
Msg #431629

I think I would have completed the signing & told them

to call the LO (not title) about it asap. I agree that there was probably time to verify employment during the 3 day RTC. Income verification is such a HUGE part of the process these days. We're all paying for those "no document" loans that were common during the mortgage meltdown.
I appreciate that you were doing your job, but we are not licensed mortgage professionals, and IMO should not get involved in decisions regarding the outcome of the loan.

Reply by ValleyGrl/VA on 8/23/12 9:02am
Msg #431632

Re: I disagree

I would have skipped signing that particular document - put a note on it back to Title saying "borrower's employment has changed" (I would also have sent an email relaying the information)... but I would have continued to sign the documents. I believe details like that can be addressed during the recission period without jeopardizing the borrower's loan/rate (especially in this case where she is making more money!) Say the new employment information was a deal breaker for the lender and the loan is cancelled - the notary should still be paid for the appointment and title/lender go back to the drawing board. On the other hand, say the new employment information was NOT a deal breaker and employment was verified immediately the next day... wow - now docs have to be redrawn, borrower is out their next loan payment, borrower may lose their rate, someone has to pay for 2nd signing trip - lots of ramifications that could be costly.

JMO, Melissa

Reply by Buddy Young on 8/23/12 9:50am
Msg #431643

Re: I disagree

I believe you oversteped your bounds also.

I would have completed the signing. It's not your business to be the TC police unless you suspect fraud.

Same comamy, better pay, closer to home, I would have let it go.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/23/12 9:50am
Msg #431644

BORROWER blew this - I agree with you, Linda A.

Once she opened her mouth, she sealed her fate - unfortunate as it may be, and it may well cause a waiting period on the new job, or at the least some further documentation.

IMO, we can not un-know something we're told. Title's take on it is exactly the same - and though they (themselves) have nothing to do with verifying employment, they are acting on behalf of the lender - we are acting on behalf of title, and lender by extension.

It's very unfortunate - and if her L/O did NOT know about this, or failed to advise her (as is standard) to not switch jobs or make major purchases until after her loan is funded, then there is some more blame to lay. If the L/O DID know, then this is what happens when you try to 'un-know' something you know, it bites you back.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/23/12 9:55am
Msg #431648

I agree with you, too, Linda H! lol n/m

Reply by HisHughness on 8/23/12 10:19am
Msg #431653

You absolutely had to report to the title company

You were handling that transaction as a signing agent, not just a notary. The signer conveyed to you that one of the documents she was executing was incorrect. At that point, it was NOT your decision to make to determine whether the disclosure was significant; that was somebody else's decision.

In the unlikely event litigation ever arose over that question, you would be hard-pressed to make the case that you had no responsibility to report that to the responsible party. Put it in another context: What if the signer had told you she had just been fired, and did not have the means to meet her monthly loan payments? Would you then feel you had an obligation to report?

Reply by Linda_in_MI on 8/23/12 1:27pm
Msg #431690

Thank you! BO had signed saying form was accurate-it wasn't

Thank you Hugh. And while I realize that we are not the mortgage police, your statement " Put it in another context: What if the signer had told you she had just been fired, and did not have the means to meet her monthly loan payments? Would you then feel you had an obligation to report?" puts this in perspective for me. And as selfish as it may sound, I would rather be known as the notary who asked about the form and employment instead of the notary who didn't report information she knew to be false.

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 8/24/12 5:54am
Msg #431789

I agree with Hugh and how Linda handled the situation. n/m

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 8/23/12 12:57pm
Msg #431685

As usual, Rene, perfect explanation!! n/m

Reply by MW/VA on 8/23/12 10:41am
Msg #431660

Speaking of employment verification, I'm due to sign my

refi this afternoon & got a call this morning that they need a verbal vertification TODAY that I'm working. Not so easy for self-employed, since I don't use a CPA. Fortunately, one of my best clients was willing to do it for me. Thanks, Kris! :-)

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 8/23/12 12:56pm
Msg #431684

Kris who?? lol n/m

Reply by Barb25 on 8/23/12 2:17pm
Msg #431699

That's interesting. n/m

Reply by PegiT_MN on 8/23/12 12:59pm
Msg #431686

I don't think you did do the right thing.

It's not our place to play mortgage police. We are there to execute the signing of the documents. You don't know what is going on behind the scenes at the lender. The title company doesn't even know what is going on behind the scenes at the lender. An underwriter, processor, loan officer, may be taking care of everything post closing and you just messed up the entire process by what you thought was the right thing to do. If you felt such a strong desire to let someone know, then you should have put a little sticky note on it that "the borrower had changed jobs". The lender would have been able to do a VOE for the borrower and got it into the file for their final process. You may have meant well, but it definitely wasn't your place. JMO

Reply by Barb25 on 8/23/12 2:24pm
Msg #431700

What ever happened to just sending back a note/email to

Signing Co/Title Co. with the conversation that took place and all of this information and let them all decide what to do about this. They can/should/would or NOT pass it to the lender and let them all decide what to do about it. You then have done your due diligence.... Even if there was any repercussions, court or otherwise...you have done your part.

You know, we are signing agents.. Okay, when Chase instructs me to call their borrowers they tell me to say, I am the Notary that will be meeting with them. Get my point? Anyone?