Posted by davidK on 1/28/06 1:03pm
Msg #92062

2nd loan - a HELOC - 103 pages

Let's keep on killing more trees! I just did a signing for Greepoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., San Diego, CA that was 103 e-doc pages (times two). What a bunch of BS. A HELOC that's 103 pages is IMHO totally unreasonable and unnecessary. No, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but I have seen lots and lots of California HELOCs that run way under 25 pages.

Of course I also had to make the extra copies of the RTC because the lender doesn't produce the required borrower's copies. Do you think they don't know about that rule, or is it just that they don't care? (Hint- they don't care!)

And to top it off, I had to manually create one Acknowledgement and seven Jurats because this lender doesn't care to change their forms to match California Law. For those of you not in California, the Jurat language was changed on January 1, 2005 and the Acknowledgement was changed on January 1, 2006. But of course the lender doesn't care, it's the Notary's responsibility to fix it and make it legally recordable.

And congratulations to Fidelity National Title Company, San Diego for being so up on the law that they can't or won't advise their clients as to the correct language required by California Notarial Laws.

Reply by Mike_AZ on 1/28/06 1:06pm
Msg #92065

Pretty common

Get a grip. Comes with the territory.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 1/28/06 1:46pm
Msg #92082

Re: Pretty common

In the last year at least half of the certs I have done have had the wrong language on them. And yes by law it is the notaries responsibility to use wording that complies with the states laws. Does that bother me, nope not at all. That's a term of my commision.

Reply by FlaMac on 1/28/06 7:04pm
Msg #92129

Scary! Makes ya wonder how legit they are...n/m

Reply by CaliNotary on 1/28/06 8:17pm
Msg #92139

" the Jurat language was changed on January 1, 2005 and the Acknowledgement was changed on January 1, 2006."

Wrong

"And congratulations to Fidelity National Title Company, San Diego for being so up on the law that they can't or won't advise their clients as to the correct language required by California Notarial Laws."

You really think it's the Title Companies' responsibility to inform the lenders of this? Why?

Everything you're complaining about just goes with the territory of this job. If a company wants to use 103 pages to issue a loan of a few hundred thousand dollars, that's their prerogative. If you know what you're doing, it shouldn't take you that much longer to do 100 pages than it does to do 50 pages.

Reply by davidK on 1/29/06 1:41am
Msg #92176

Perhaps you should review your handbook.

As of January 1, 2005 the California Jurat was changed to include how the Notary has identified the signor (personal knowledge or identifying documents). As of January 1, 2006 the law now specifies the exact language that must be used on the California All-Purpose Acknowledgement, and requires that the Notary's name followed by the words "Notary Public" be used in lieu of the words "the undersigned, Notary Public".

As to the Title Company's responsibilities, they get paid a fee to process the paperwork and see that the documents that must be recorded are in fact recorded. It seems to me that a California Title Company should be aware of changes in the laws covering the language of an All-Purpose Acknowledgement or California Jurat, and knowing such changes are mandatory, they should be responsible enough to have their customers (the Lender) present documents that conform to the law.

To require the Notary to make things legally correct by attaching the proper form of Acknowledgement and Jurat is just plain irresponsible on the part of the Lender and/or Title Company. What it come down to is the Lender doesn't want to spend the money to update their document preparation software. The 1033 was updated ilast july, yet how many lenders are using the new format?

100 pages of documents cannot be properly signed in the same time (or as you so cleverly stated "that much longer") as 50 pages, even if you use the "just sign here" procedure. My point was related to the fact that a typical SS may say (as they did in this case) that "the package is just a simple HELOC" when in fact it's really the equivalent to a full 1st loan. As a SA amongst other things we are selling our time and printing costs, and what actually happened is clearly misrepresentation of the extent of the loan package so as to lower the agreed Notary SA fee. Had I known the truth about how many pages there were in this simple HELOC I would have negotiated a higher fee.

Reply by SanDiegoCA on 1/28/06 8:18pm
Msg #92140

So, if you don't mind my asking, what is it about you doing your job you don't mind if this is too much for you?

I can hear them responding to your post .......... "just get the package signed, Slappy, it's your job".

You can't be saying you've never seen any of this before ............

Reply by davidK on 1/29/06 1:53am
Msg #92177

SanDiegoCA,

Attaching Acknowledgements or Jurats because the Lender didn't use the current and legally required language should be an infrequent event, not on every one in the package. And no matter how little time one Ack or Jurat may take to complete when you have to do it eight times in a single signing it becomes way, way to many for my taste.

This is the worst case I've ever seen, and I hope it's the last.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 1/28/06 9:45pm
Msg #92158

Re: 2nd loan - a HELOC..what is your point????

Killing more trees is your issue?

***I aslo had to make the extra copies of the RTC because the lender doesn't produce the required borrower's copies***

This is new?

***And to top it off, I had to manually create one Acknowledgement and seven Jurats.....***

This is new?

***And congratulations to Fidelity blah blah....*** Title companies are just as much in the throes of dealing with certificate language changes as anyone. I can name 5 title companies off the top of my head that heed any certificate changes by law. It's the lenders that are so in a hurry...that language changes are slow.

Is stating the obvious a point?