Posted by rouj on 8/31/04 1:51pm
Msg #7064
All docs are incomplete
I have a signing scheduled for tonight and all of the docs are incomplete.. affidavit as to total payment -- no amount, affidavit of outstanding principle balance-- no amount, nor tax parcel ID 3 or address, finance affidavit --- no liber/folio infor or loan amount. The borrower has agreed to sign these incomplete docs and they want me to witness or notorize. The mortgager said they will fill in the docs later. This seems highly irregular. Has anyone else run across this situation?
| Reply by lynnboop on 8/31/04 1:55pm
Msg #7065
I am no expert but i beleive that is a no no. Something doesn't seem right. I would not do it.
| Reply by rouj on 8/31/04 2:22pm
Msg #7068
Seemed very strange to me too.
| Reply by Jon on 8/31/04 2:09pm
Msg #7067
Some docs are frequently incomplete, especially the ones dealing with current insurance, current loan amounts and account numbers. The only ones I would be concerned about are the ones that need notarizations. They must be complete or you can not complete the notarization. If the the borrowers want to sign other docs that are not complete, that is their choice, not yours.
This is based on the laws of CA and may or may not reflect the laws of any other state.
| Reply by rouj on 8/31/04 2:25pm
Msg #7070
Thanks. I'll follow that advice.
| Reply by Loretta Reed on 8/31/04 4:18pm
Msg #7073
I do this everyday. The refinance affadavit and payoff letters are done once the docs come back signed.
| Reply by BrendaTX on 8/31/04 7:09pm
Msg #7087
Not to be argumentative, but
How can a notary properly do the notary work on an incomplete affidavit?
One cannot swear to what one does not know.
| Reply by HisHughness on 8/31/04 8:39pm
Msg #7095
BrendaTXXX retorted:
***Not to be argumentative, but
How can a notary properly do the notary work on an incomplete affidavit?
One cannot swear to what one does not know. ***
Not to be argumentative? A Texas cowgirl? Hah!
I can envision circumstances in which one could swear to the contents of an affidavit with a blank, but that isn't really the point. It's the borrower's loan and his affidavit. If the law does not say it's wrong and the circumstances indicate there will be no harm, I'd notarize such an affidavit. Both lenders and title companies in Texas know there is no express prohibition, so Texas notaries are far more likely to encounter such documents than notaries in states such as California and Florida, where the profession is much more tightly regulated.
| Reply by HisHughness on 8/31/04 8:54pm
Msg #7096
Sometimes I post the sort of thing below just because I like to envision PAW Paul sucking in his breath and pursing his lips in stern disapproval. Adds a little ooomph to the daily routine.
| Reply by PAW Notary Services on 8/31/04 9:14pm
Msg #7098
Yes, I am shaking my head in disapproval, but do understand that lack of definition on the part of the Lone Star state doesn't make your job easier, only more oblique. I am glad that Florida has better direction and regulation for notarial acts. I just wish the profession was more regulated. There are too many unqualified notaries public! Unfortunately I see their work almost every day and cringe.
| Reply by BrendaTX on 8/31/04 10:25pm
Msg #7102
From Hugh's post: "I can envision circumstances in which one could swear to the contents of an affidavit with a blank, but that isn't really the point. It's the borrower's loan and his affidavit."
Reply: But that is not the point either. Notarization practice is the point.
I hope we hear from others within the NotRot group on this because I'd like to see what comes about on this. Again, not to be argumentative (momentary pause to strap on my six-shooter holster) but, I would truly like the answer to:
What specific example of an affidavit or document with a blank in it can a notary properly notarize? --then perhaps I might ease off of this hard and fast rule that I have on no blanks, period. My no-blanks, or no-notarizing reasoning is:
If the blank is there it is because it is to collect or provide certain information to complete the action or purpose of the document for which a notary is taking an acknowledgment for, or having a signer swear to.
Further Hugh states: "If the law does not say it's wrong and the circumstances indicate there will be no harm, I'd notarize such an affidavit. "
My reply: But a good Texas Cowgirl or Cowboy notarizing on the vast plains without benefit of a law degree would be making a quantum leap into UPL by determining what circumstances are important and what of said circumstances are not.
Just for good measure: I have two companies that give me completed docs except for the date. One of them even provides each date of notarization in the jurat or acknowledgement. So, it is possible.
No blanks is good business and leaves nothing to the imagination of the notary, the property owner or to the gum-smacking Mr. or Ms. Inept Busyfingers back at the ranch, after the docs are returned via Pony Express.
I call the title companies if the info is not provided and get answers before the appointment at the first minute available after the docs come to me.
If it is last minute eDocs (which I avoid like the plague), it's better to be a few minutes late (which I abhor) than to go in half-cocked and have the wiser borrower refuse to sign because of a multitude of blanks that have to be filled in at the table and make them feel that it was a sloppy job that might be tainted. Never had a title company refuse to work with me to get the info straight before going to the appointment. It has exasperated them to have to slow down and get their facts straight, but they keep calling me to do the work, so I suspect the folks whose jobs are on the line as far as title information goes do not mind too much.
Apparently, there is a problem in the industry that blanks are being notarized because I am recently getting assignments that now have an affidavit for the borrower to sign at the very end which says in summary: "None of the documents I signed had blanks in them."
So, then there is another situation predicated by the notarization of docs with blanks. Should one notarize such a statement if there are blanks in docs preceding that one with first hand knowledge that the statements they have just notarized is a lie? We'll see one of these days if the practice continues. Maybe we will even be stopped from being notary signing agents without additional education or certification --then, only lawyers or title companies will be allowed to sign loan documents for the purpose of closings.
It's just good notary business to leave no blanks and err on the side of caution, if in fact, it is an error to be cautious about blanks.
| Reply by HisHughness on 8/31/04 10:50pm
Msg #7104
Brenda/TXXX replied at length.....aw, to heck with reciting the post. Read it at #7102.
Spoken like a lawyer advising a client. That same lawyer would most probably do exactly what I suggested.
Affidavit where blank is irrelevant to the meaning of the affidavit:
"So I went to town last ____________, April 24, 2004, and bought myself a new pair of spurs, chaps, and a case of oil for the pickup. Danged pickup drinks more than a roofer on Saturday night."
| Reply by BrendaTX on 8/31/04 11:00pm
Msg #7105
Thanks for telling the whole world about the spurs and chaps, Hugh.
| Reply by Gerry on 9/1/04 11:30pm
Msg #7189
I'm not a lawyer, so there may be acceptable blanks that I'm not smart enough to know are acceptable. I would think the lawyers should know how to word documents to avoid blanks. The type of blanks that would not worry me, unless I was in a state that absolutely forbids blanks, are:
-Spaces for signatures and dates of signatures for parties to the contract that have not signed yet; after all, somebody has to go first.
-Spaces for book, page, and related information about how a document was recorded in the land records office, if the document referred to is part of the same document package I'm working on; after all, the book and page can't be known if it has not been recorded yet. However, I think the lawyers could avoid this with careful wording.
| Reply by Lori on 8/31/04 4:22pm
Msg #7074
All docs that are notorized MUST be filled out completly or you can not nortorize in the state of California. I would beware of a lender that sends out incomplete docs as well.
Off the law part, would you sign docs for a loan if you did not have the information? You could be spending your time driving and then have the borrower refuse (I would refuse). Beware, beware, beware. Lori
| Reply by Paul_IL on 8/31/04 4:39pm
Msg #7080
Depends which docs are incomplete. Would bet docs requiring notarization are complete. Payoff letters and related docs are often left blank till the funding day. Many title companies will call for new payoffs day of funding.
| Reply by rouj on 8/31/04 6:27pm
Msg #7084
Since I felt uncomfortable signing docs with incomplete info, the lender said they found another notary to do it. A number of the docs required a notary stamp, so I'm surprised that they were able to find a notary to do this. Anyway, I feel good about my decision. I'd rather not risk it.
| Reply by HisHughness on 8/31/04 6:59pm
Msg #7086
Texas laws regarding notaries are about as loose as a drunken well-digger's language. Notarizing a document with blanks is not prohibited, at least not expressly. Other states may take similar casual, cavalier approaches to the requirements of certification. The prudent course in any state would be to decline to notarize a document with blanks. The practical course is a state such as Texas would be to ascertain whether the to-be-provided material poses a substantial risk to the witness or affiant, and whether you risk losing a needed client. If it doesn't and if you do, certify.
That's not the advice a lawyer would give, but it sure is the advice that a signing agent from a laissez faire state like Texas would hand out.
| Reply by BrendaTX on 8/31/04 7:14pm
Msg #7088
You did the right thing.
| Reply by Bob-Chicago on 9/1/04 12:33am
Msg #7108
Example of "harmless" Blank
Subject of course to your state's laws. I have seen affidavits of title which state something to the effect of " I Joe Blow acquired title to the "PIQ" by deed recorded _______,____. _____
and recoded as document #______________with the Jones County, Illinois recorder. I have not conveyed or caused or suffered a lien since that date;
Borrower has no clue of that info unless he can dig out his deed. The title company has the info,(and probbly should have filled in blanks, but didn't) If the borrower is willing to sign, I don't see a great deal of potenitial harm to the bwr.
I also do not have a problem with no "Exhibit "A" on the Mortgage, so long as the propery is adequately described by address and tax ID #. What is the potential fraud, If a wrong Exhibit "A" is attached , the title co/or lender are only hurting themselves as their lien will be NG as to the PIQ. If the "exhibit 'A" had been attached at signing, the bwr would probably have no idea if it were right or wrong anyway. The bwr's clear intent is to cause a lien to be recorded as against the property that is the subject of the loan
I would think that the fear of blanks is that info detrimental the the signe would be filled in later by someone trying to defraud the signer. . If the blanks are only as to ministerial matters, there is no potential fraud.
| Reply by PAW Notary Services on 9/1/04 9:05am
Msg #7126
Re: Example of "harmless" Blank
Bob remarked, "What is the potential fraud, If a wrong Exhibit "A" is attached , the title co/or lender are only hurting themselves as their lien will be NG as to the PIQ. If the "exhibit 'A" had been attached at signing, the bwr would probably have no idea if it were right or wrong anyway."
Recently, here in Florida, there was a situation where the mortgage had the wrong "Exhibit A" attached. When the mortgage was filed, a lien was placed on the property as described. The borrowers defaulted on the loan. It took almost 8 months in court to get it straightened out that the property that the lender was trying to foreclose on was not the property that was supposed to have had the lien. The owners of the "other" property were in tears since they thought their property was "free and clear", until all this happened.
As for the borrowers not knowing their legal description, all they have to do is look at their survey. The legal is printed on the survey and should be checked against the deed and/or mortgage. And typically, in a loan package, there is reference to the survey and a Survey Affidavit. When I call to confirm an appointment, I always ask the borrowers to have a copy of their survey available, as well as their hazard insurance statement (among the other documents necessary for the signing). They always seem to be stumped when asking for the information from these documents.
Paul/FL
| Reply by BrendaTX on 9/1/04 10:33am
Msg #7131
Re: Example of "harmless" Blank
This points in this discussion are good reading for notaries,
including me, who do not have years of experience to speak from,
unlike
Brad-Pitt-OR-Walter-Matthau-look-alike, Bob/Chicago,
AND
my BrazoriaCo/TX Co-Native, Paul/FL,
of course.
Brenda
| Reply by BrendaTX on 9/1/04 10:35am
Msg #7132
Re: Example of "harmless" Blank-slight correction post
It should read
>>The<< points in this discussion are good reading for notaries,
including me, who do not have years of experience to speak from,
unlike
Brad-Pitt-OR-Walter-Matthau-look-alike, Bob/Chicago,
AND
my BrazoriaCo/TX Co-Native, Paul/FL,
of course.
Brenda
| Reply by Loretta Reed on 9/1/04 10:48am
Msg #7133
Re: Example of "harmless" Blank-slight correction post
You must be an english teacher.
| Reply by BrendaTX on 9/1/04 2:02pm
Msg #7144
Re: Example of "harmless" Blank-slight correction post
Loretta flattered me with: "You must be an english teacher."
My reply: No, ma'am. But, now that you mention it, I think I would like to play one on television.
| Reply by HisHughness on 9/1/04 3:20pm
Msg #7150
Re: Example of "harmless" Blank-slight correction post
Loretta complimented BrendaTXXX with:
***"You must be an english teacher."***
Brenda is several leagues beyond an English teacher, Loretta. She not only knows the parts of speech, she knows how to assemble the parts into one flowing, flowering whole. I made my living by writing for many years. People who do not have that background and yet exhibit Brenda's facility with the language add much to the richness of our environment.
| Reply by Bob-Chicago on 9/1/04 4:07pm
Msg #7157
I Disagree
While I greatly admire your knowlege, I have to differ on this one.
I believe that your example proved my point. The damage was not to your borrower, but to the title co, lender and innocent third party.
Verifying the accuracy of a legal description against a survey, in my opinion, goes way beyond our duties and assumed responsibility and may even be considered to be UPL. If a NSA assumes the obligation to verify a legal and is wrong, serious liability questions as to tha NSA may arise. The title co is being paid way more than we are to assume that obligation.
I have also heard of NSAs trying to fill in the tax info form from the borrowers tax bill. BAD IDEA. There may be unpaid taxes or a second parcel that they are unaware of. That is why they call it title INSURANCE. If you go beyond your job , you are subjecting yourself to unnecessary risk, and spending more time than is necessary.
| Reply by Bob-CHicago on 9/1/04 4:09pm
Msg #7158
responds to PAW post of 9-1 at 9:05 am
| Reply by PAW Notary Services on 9/1/04 8:58pm
Msg #7175
Re: I Disagree
I certainly agree that it is not in the NSA purview. However, I do ask the borrowers, "Is this the correct legal description?" If they say yes, all well and good, if they say they don't know, I ask THEM to compare what is written in exhibit A or within the mortgage, with that on their copy of the survey. The NSA doesn't know, doesn't need to know, and certainly shouldn't assume they know.
I feel that part of my responsibility is to the borrower more than the title company as we may be the only face they see and often do not have a clue about the documents or the process. Many people will say we are a notary first and a signing agent second. I disagree. We wear two hats, never at the same time. When explaining the purpose of the documents and showing them where to sign, we are signing agents. When we take the acknowledgment or give an oath, we are notaries.
I find it very easy to explain documents, the loan process, and show the borrowers what they need to check without getting into details of "why this" or "why that", aka UPL. I consistently get excellent reviews from the borrowers on my closings, which is one reason why my two local title companies always call me back for their overflow. Granted, when performing with the title company as their closer, I truly am closing the deal and I have more latitude in my direction and presentation because I have access to some of the numbers and process. But, when it comes to lender stuff, it's the same as when I'm doing an in-home refi.... call the lender, LO or broker.
Finally, I fully support your statements about the NSA filling in the tax bill. This is filled in by the title company after closing. Neither the NSA nor the borrower needs to worry about it. Heck, the borrower doesn't even sign it!! And, the NSA should NOT FILL IN ANYTHING, except their certificate as a notary, and other items at the direction of the borrower, title company or lender as the signing agent.
| Reply by Paul_IL on 9/2/04 12:15pm
Msg #7203
Re: I Disagree
Paul,
Things must be different in FL.
The vast majority of people do not know what their legal description is and chances are they did not have a full survey when the bought the place unless it had acreage. The majority of subdivisions are fully platted so unless there is a major question regarding the property line as survey is normally not done as this is an additional expense most buyers do not want to pay the cost of the survey. The Exhibit A can be added to the mortgage up to the day of recording. Most title companies will fax the completed Exhibit A with the HUD & junk docs, the one included with the lender docs is almost always blank as the lender processor would almost never fill in that information.
Just my 2cents based on my experience.
| Reply by PAW Notary Services on 9/2/04 2:54pm
Msg #7216
Re: I Disagree
>>>Things must be different in FL.<<<
Oh yes, things are very much different in FL.
>>>The vast majority of people do not know what their legal description is and chances are they did not have a full survey when the bought the place unless it had acreage.<<<
Any time property in conveyed, a survey must be completed or waived by the buyer and seller. New property, even platted subdivisions, must show the owners property on the survey. The survey must be sealed with 6 originals, two for the title company and four for the buyer. The cost of the survey can be absorbed by the seller, paid for by the buyer (usually) or split between them. A survey must have the legal description printed on it for the property in question. Even if the property is a townhouse!
>>>The Exhibit A can be added to the mortgage up to the day of recording.<<<
This is true.
>>>Most title companies will fax the completed Exhibit A with the HUD & junk docs<<<
I wish this were true. If it were, then I wouldn't have to call them all the time to send me the legal description.
This is what I put on my completion report back to the title company:
Please be advised that pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 117.107(10), mortgages cannot be notarized without the legal description (Exhibit "A") being attached. Without all attachments and riders, the mortgage is considered incomplete.
| Reply by Gerry in VT on 9/2/04 6:01pm
Msg #7229
Re: I Disagree
>>>The Exhibit A can be added to the mortgage up to the day of recording.<<<
This is true.
>>Most title companies will fax the completed Exhibit A with the HUD & junk docs
>I wish this were true. If it were, then I wouldn't have to call them all the time to send me
>the legal description.
>>This is what I put on my completion report back to the title company:
>Please be advised that pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 117.107(10), mortgages cannot
> be notarized without the legal description (Exhibit "A") being attached. Without all
>attachments and riders, the mortgage is considered incomplete.
It seems that Paul in IL and Paul in FL are saying different things.
At least in NY and VT, it may be several days or even weeks between
the time the documents are signed and notarized, and the time they
are brought or sent to the land records office (county clerk in NY, town clerk
in VT) to be recorded. Paul in IL says the Exhibit A can be added up until
the recording, which might be weeks after the documents are notarized.
Yet Paul in FL says Exhibit A must be there when the document is notarized,
which is usually the same day it is signed.
| Reply by PAW Notary Services on 9/2/04 7:10pm
Msg #7231
Re: I Disagree
Paul_IL is only saying, if I'm reading it right, that he doesn't worry about the elusive Exhibit "A". What I'm saying is that we cannot notarize an incomplete document and when a document makes reference to an attachment that is "attached and made a part hereto", then without the attachment the document is incomplete which is in violation of Florida statutes. IL statutes may not make that same claim.
Title companies must attach the legal description to the mortgage/DOT prior to recording or it won't record. And, yes, it may be weeks, even months, before the document is sent to the clerk and recorded. However, the legal description is known and prepared before loan approval. That's what the title commitment is for, so there's no excuse for not including it in the documents for signing.
| Reply by Paul_IL on 9/3/04 1:45am
Msg #7275
Re: I Disagree Clarification
What I am saying is that the lender usually has an "Exhibit A" included in the file that is often times missing the legal description. Usually this means simply the the title company failed to swap it for the completed exhibit or that there was actually a very short legal and the "see Exhibit A" was just not removed from the legal description area. I will notarize the mortgage and call the settlement agent and ask that they email the Exhibit A to me on the rare occassion that I encounter this issue.
PAW, your experience is different from mine in that 99% of the title companies I work with always fax me an Exhibit A in the junk docs. Also better not cast stones regarding no excuses in not including required docs cause everyone makes mistakes once in awhile. If it becomes a pattern from a particular company or settlement officer then you should address it with a supervisor so that he or she can correct the problem.
FYI: The "Title Commitment" has nothing to do with the Exhibit A or preparing the legal as the legal is not prepared it is simply verified to have a clear chain of title and that there are no undisclosed liens or clouds on the title.
|
|
