Posted by BarbaraL_CA on 1/3/05 2:50pm
Msg #15316

New Real Estate Laws - California

The following was in our Sunday paper yesterday, San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 2, 2005. Found it interesting.

"Electronic property records. The amount of red tape necessary to transfer property titles will be reduced. Generally, a transfer of ownership of California property is recorded by having someone from a title or escrow company deliver documents to the county recorder's office. New legislation will allow the electronic recording of documents to save time and money. "It will move the transaction along much quicker," said Susan Tinsky, vice president of government affairs for the San Diego Association of Realtors."

Reply by Nicole_NCali on 1/3/05 2:52pm
Msg #15318

What do you think the implications will be?

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 1/3/05 2:55pm
Msg #15319

Not really sure... probably not much initially. It could be the beginning of "e-notarization" being more previlient in CA.

Reply by Nicole_NCali on 1/3/05 3:12pm
Msg #15323

hmmmmm, I need to google this article.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 1/3/05 3:41pm
Msg #15324

Here is the link to the article. There is other information in the article, but this popped out at me.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050102/news_1h2tenant.html

Reply by Loretta Reed on 1/3/05 9:02pm
Msg #15352

Re: New Real Estate Laws - California...Maryland will too

Within the next 12-18 month, Maryland will be using e-filing for mortgages and other recordable documents. The title company will email the docs to the county clerk's office with an electronic transfer for the money owed to the county. They county clerk will check the document, make sure everything is signed/stamped and make sure it is correct and in order. If anything is wrong with the document, they will email the title company and let them know what the problems are and how much money the document needs to be recorded.

I like the idea. I am an abstractor and recordings are my least favorite thing to do in the title business. 75% of the recordings I do are rejected for some reason. I have implemented a $25 fee each time the recording is rejected so the title company will get it right the first time.

Reply by BrendaTX on 1/4/05 8:14am
Msg #15382

Loretta...do tell

Loretta:


***75% of the recordings I do are rejected for some reason. I have implemented a $25 fee each time the recording is rejected so the title company will get it right the first time. ***

As an old legal secretary, I filed hundreds of documents and never had a problem.

Seems like it was a matter of getting the filing fee check written correctly in the old days before I sent the runner to the courthouse.

What kind of errors are they making?

This is VERY interesting to me. I hate not being current.

Reply by Nicole_NCali on 1/4/05 11:36am
Msg #15401

Re: Loretta...do tell

This sounds good. I do lien releases and it seems as if these releases are never recorded and I get requests when the person re-fi or something else. This is a $50 charge that everytime the release is requested. I just figured that the last titlle company dropped the ball.

Reply by Loretta Reed on 1/4/05 1:35pm
Msg #15408

Re: Loretta...do tell

I think that it is uneducated people working at the title company. They either do not know the counties fees for recordins. Some counties are $6.66 per thousand dollars and some are different figures. They assume that all the fees are the same for the whole state.
They may not have attached the refinance affadavit and the courthouse rejects it because the money is not correct. All they had to do was attach the refi aff to the deed of trust and it would have been recorded. Or, they forget the sign the certificate of preparation, which is required in Maryland, and it gets rejected for that. I have seen all kinds of dumb mistakes made by the title company.
I am recording the doc not babysitting it. It should be checked and re-checked and triple checked before being mailed to me.

Reply by BrendaTX on 1/4/05 1:44pm
Msg #15409

Re: Loretta...do tell

Thanks, Loretta. I agree.
Brenda