Posted by BrendaTx on 12/21/05 10:19am
Msg #83844

1st for me: 2nd Ack Requested on AQ Loan - Input pls.

Hawaiin signer here for holidays.

She is non-ob signer. Her name in Mortgage (not DOT) was Jane Doe Smith. Therefore, I had her sign Jane Doe Smith. There was nothing noted under signature lines.

Some docs including HUD were to be signed as Jane Doe Smith, except for RTC, TIL which were Doe Smith.

SS just called me because the lender wants an ack Fedexed to them with the way I stated who appeared before me stated differently. They want

Doe Smith

or failing that, they want

Jane Doe Smith aka Doe smith.

I have refused the request...but why do you think they want this? Is this a Hawaiin thing?

BTW her DL had Jane Doe Smith.

Reply by B__CA on 12/21/05 11:12am
Msg #83860

You could of told them, if they send a Signature/Name Affidavit, you would be glad to comply, but it would be an additional fee.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/21/05 12:28pm
Msg #83887

Good idea, but interestingly enough, I asked the signer if that was something she went by before we did the Signature / Name affidavit. She said she never went by the name Doe Smith--she had no idea where they got that.

Reply by Blueink_CA on 12/21/05 12:03pm
Msg #83880

Check your fax machine for my reply to anyone requesting a loose certificate. It is in regards to CA law although it seems pretty generic. As for why the lender would need this, I don't know. I do know that AQ is picky, picky, picky! Maybe Titlegal or Renee could answer?

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/21/05 12:27pm
Msg #83886

Just got it. Thanks!

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/21/05 12:29pm
Msg #83888

Re: 1st for me: TitleGal - any insight? n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/21/05 12:56pm
Msg #83895

Re: 1st for me: BlueInk -

I am so glad you sent this fax. I have forwarded it to the SS who told me that it was totally okay in CA to send on the ack. I did not want to go to the trouble to show them I thought that was incorrect, but you made it easy for me. Thank you!

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/21/05 12:39pm
Msg #83891

One more thing to note - I am covered on this one.

This is a company that requires around 15 pages of fax backs. The notary page and the sig page of the Mortgage is also one of them. I negotiated not sending my fax backs but when I got back to my office I had several hours before drop time so I sent them in. No response. Finally, I called the SS and said - well? Then, all I was told was just get them in the final drop today.

Ok - but I want you to look at them before they go.

I never heard back so I dropped them to go out on Saturday.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/21/05 4:21pm
Msg #83933

Re: 1st for me: 2nd Ack - Received Answer from SS

I sent them the info from BlueInk - In response I received:

"Brenda I got it all sorted out, I spoke to the processor and she had it wrong. The Mortgage was fine. She thought that she had to be acknowledged somehwere else as her middle and last name because of how it appeared on the Right to cancel. Which you did on the signature name affidavit. So everything is ok. I don't think we should have any problems since you did acknowledge the borrower as she appears in the Mortgage."

But, I asked her if she went by this name in order to put it on the SIG/NAME AFFI as stated in my previous post. I did NOT acknowledge her (or Jurat her) on the Signature and Name Affidavit as Doe Smith...as he states above which is all very interesting.

Reply by Blueink_CA on 12/21/05 5:39pm
Msg #83948

Re: 1st for me: 2nd Ack - Received Answer from SS

It's amazing how we're asked for a loose certificate as if they're asking for something as routine as a business card. I received a pkg last week that had a blank ack buried within the pages. I've seen this before and I've always just ignored it, however this was a new title company for me so I called to make sure. This is how the conversation went:

Me: There is a blank ack in the package, which doc does it go with?

TC: It just needs to be completed and included in the pkg.

Me: I am acknowledging a signature on a doc, which one?

TC: You're acknowledging that the borrower signed the pkg.

Me: I can't just randomly send a completed ack.

TC: Then you'll just get it back and have to complete it.

I gave up, ignored the ack and sent the pkg back. So we'll see.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/22/05 3:25am
Msg #84041

That was quite a trick, having just the RTC and TIL printing "Doe Smith"! The only thing not clear to me was how she actually signed those two docs, though it's all water under the bridge now. My stab-in-the-dark guess is she signed consistant w/ rest of docs? RTC & TIL being part of "collateral docs" or what are sometimes called "legal docs", I'd have had them all done consistantly, and would have had her initial at printed name, and add "Jane" on RTC & TIL. That's just what I would have done.

The only thing I would have suggested is this - it's often easier, faster, and more successful to call the respective orginator of the doc in question, if the question appropriately goes to them. RTC & TIL being lender docs, lender contact usually found on closing instructions - quick call to them. The horse's mouth, so to speak.

SS would not WANT you to call lender, of course, but if you understand WHY, then you'll understand when/when not to call, what /what not to ask, etc. SS would obviously prefer to 'screen' question calls, to avoid any that might be ... entertaining. But if you know your stuff, and there's a legit question - go to the source, save yourself time, get correct answer (and correct answer = whatever lender/title wants, save for anything not compliant w/ state statutes).