Posted by Ali/IL on 7/14/06 1:17pm
Msg #133216

Need advice

I did a signing. The signing service called me today and said that the borrower didn't sign top portion of 1003.They want me to get it signed today or, loan will not fund.
I called borrower hoping I could fax the page to her and have her fax it back meanwhile send original by ups.
When I called borrower she told me that she is at a amusement park can't see me today.
I am now concerned that if this doesn't fund I could be sued?
Has anyone had that problem?

Reply by PL on 7/14/06 1:23pm
Msg #133220

One signature missing on the top of the application is going to stop funding on a loan? Wow now that's some company. By the way is the borrower a single borrower? If so the verbage on top of the 1003 applies to those who are applying for joint credit. If she is a single borrower you might want to call back the SS and tell them that she is not applying for joint credit. Good luck.

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/14/06 1:26pm
Msg #133222

**I am now concerned that if this doesn't fund I could be sued?**

I am not a lawyer, but I hate a bully worse than anything.

I'd think someone would have to prove willful negliegence or intent to commit fraud. Courts don't have time for this garbage in suing a notary. I'd tell them to "bring it." Get it done tomorrow. It's the best you can do.

Reply by Ali/IL on 7/14/06 1:34pm
Msg #133224

There is no coborrower involved. I brought this up to the signing service.They said it won't fund and I won't get paid.

I will deal with this Monday.I am not going to worry about it.

Thanks for your answers

Reply by LilyMD on 7/14/06 2:50pm
Msg #133255

There's nothing worse than an uninformed SS that tries to play bully. I'm with Brenda, I detest bullies. If there is not a co-borrower than there's not a thing wrong with the 1003 if the borrower didn't sign the top. I had a similar situation when the new 1003s started being used. I got so aggrivated (after spending 3 hours in phone calls) with the SS, I finally just called the TC myself. (You know, they're always a "if-you-need-any-help-with-these-docs" name/number). I no longer work with that SS but I have gotten calls directly from the TC. It wasn't my original plan but....

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 7/14/06 3:11pm
Msg #133263

This issue has been debated to death. I am not.....

going into it again other that to state that IMO having
a single bwr sign top of page 1 of 1003 is like giving chicken
soup to a dead guy. "It couldn't hurt."
Absent specific instructions, you have an miniscule chance
of a second trip if you have a sngl bwr sign and it was not reqd,
but an exccellent chance of a 2nd trip if it was reqd in the lender's
view and was not signed.
If not reqd , it will probably only be looked at as an unnecessary
signature on a doc by one who is signing it anyway.
Again, we have covered this issue .
Do whatever floats your boat.
It is the lender's interpretation of the 1003 language in question
that matters, not ours nor that of the SS.

Reply by PL on 7/14/06 3:41pm
Msg #133271

Re: This issue has been debated to death. I am not.....

Bob, I agree with you on getting the signature no matter everytime, but the sentence reads
"If this is an application for joint credit, borrower and co-borrower each agree that we intend to apply for joint credit (sign below):". It doesn't take a law degree from Harvard or from night school to assume that a single borrower need not sign. Also to say that the loan will fold, because of this seems a bit foolish. All one has to think of is the untold lost interest the company will lose over 30 years all because one person reads into something that's not there.
Personally if I was the borrower and I got the call to sign this one line now or your loan will fall apart, I would work with them, but I doubt they would get my business in the future.

Reply by Joan_OH on 7/14/06 9:00pm
Msg #133303

I AGREE!!!!

I have not had a lender yet that didn't require single and joint borrower sign. I had a broker at the table today question me about having a single borrower sign it. I told him it would get bounced if not. I know this because when this particular lender sends me the file directly, they put big arrows at the signature line with a 100 font note telling me that the borrower is to sign.

This is what the verbage on the 1003 says" "IF this is an application for joint credit, Borrower and CoBorrower each agree that we intend to apply for joint credit"

It is not saying it "IS" joint credit, just that "IF" it is, the parties agree.

This is just the way I'm reading it and since pretty much every lender is asking that it be signed by joint AND single borrowers, maybe I'm reading it right.

To put it simply, there is a signature line. Underneath it says "Borrower". I think we can safely assume, in our capacity as signing agent, that the borrower is to sign it if for nothing else so we don't have to make that extra trip. I'm not going to make the decision whether to have a borrower omit their signature when it clearly says "borrower"

JMHO

Joan-OH

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/15/06 1:14am
Msg #133315

No it hasn't.

Your point is in direct opposition to the statement on the 1003, in spite of the fact that you, Bob, are literal about it, you would not have a single borrower sign it. Others can and WILL challenge because the language is clear. To say...."It couldn't hurt" is to ignore the language. Choosing to have a single borrower sign is to say that "it's okay...I'd rather get paid" instead of "I'll do what is correct, and what is in the instructions".

Why have you taken this so personally?

Jeez...I'll not contemplate what someone wants by an arbitrary message in lender instructions - IMO lenders need to know that we as SA's or Closers are only as good as the instructions we get. I just won't prop them in stupidity or inconsistency, either.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/15/06 6:59am
Msg #133320

Agree with every word, Bob!

As you've said, it's not up for our debate - it's the lender's doc, his choice, Reg B is for HIS atty to decipher. The whole reason for the debate is because the verbiage and the formatting on the 1003 is NOT clear. The top paragraph includes items that a lender might want a borrower's signature below (like 'yes, I acknowledge I'm supposed to fill this out myself with my lender's help), and the separation of the IF/joint credit sentence (to it's own paragraph) casts a shadow (hence debate) on the intent of the verbiage as a whole. The signature is not made clearly specific to the last sentence (the If/joint credit).

Not my call. You want it signed? You got it. Like the others, I find the large majority of lenders want it signed REGARDLESS of joint intent, and unless they specify otherwise - that's my default. That "IF" is definitely key - if there is no co-borrower, there is no INFO completed for co-borrower, no signature of a co-borrower, and THAT would be a pretty good indicator that there is no INTENT to apply for joint credit. Again, "IF this is an application for joint credit" - "IF" is key.

As for the "bully" part - I don't see this as bullying. Sometimes, what seems logical or reasonable can become less logical or reasonable with more information - and this might be one of them:

The 1003 is one of those Gotta Have It docs, for the lenders, it's not a light-weight doc.
The lender's own decision on compliance may demand that page 1 be signed, period.
Borrowers are notorious for NOT expeditiously signing/returning 'follow-up' docs - you would THINK that they would, but I assure you they are NOT! They are the WORST.
It IS entirely feasible that the lender will not fund w/o this - it's a judgement call, and it's their's to make. Again, the 1003 is not a 'junk doc'. (Once they know you're taking care of it as best you can, they will PROBABLY go ahead and fund 'on faith')
Quickest, most reliable way to get this signed ASAP, correctly, and expedited back ASAP, is to hold your toes to the fire - same fire they're in, on their end. Stuff rolls downhill.

Hence my default to having it signed unless otherwise instructed.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 7/14/06 3:52pm
Msg #133275

why would YOU need to go back?? It's not a ....

document that needs notarized. They can just fax it (or even overnight it) to the signer to sign. But, IMO, it doesn't need signed because it is not for joint credit!

Reply by Ali/IL on 7/14/06 4:20pm
Msg #133278

Re: why would YOU need to go back?? It's not a ....

And that is what I said to them why they couldn't just mail it to borrower.

This isn't something that should affect funding.

Reply by LilyMD on 7/14/06 4:39pm
Msg #133279

Re: Only a trip fee would get me to go back.

There's no need to involve a notary. 1. The form was handled correctly. 2. The form has no notorial wording. 3. Can be overnighted straight to the borrower for a lot cheaper than a second trip fee. If you can't appeal to their intelligence, appeal to their wallet.

Reply by FlaMac on 7/15/06 8:14am
Msg #133329

It's not up to you how the 1003 is processed..

it's up to the TC and Lender. Your comments should come with a disclaimer.

Reply by KBLedgard_CA on 7/15/06 9:01am
Msg #133335

Re: It's not up to you how the 1003 is processed..

"Your comments should come with a disclaimer."

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black...ALL FL notaries and most notaries in general, who actually KNOW their state notary laws, would agree that it is your comments that should come with a disclaimer.

Reply by LilyMD on 7/15/06 9:10am
Msg #133338

Re: It's not up to you how the 1003 is processed..Disclaimer

My Disclaimer: FlaMac knows *&^% about it.

Reply by R R Crawford on 7/15/06 8:02am
Msg #133323

Well, contrary to what some people are saying here and elsewhere, absent instructions, I have it signed by single as well as joint borrowers. I read it like this: Borrower signs here. IF you are applying for joint credit, BOTH borrowers sign here. The way I see it, the designer figures the borrowers don't need that first sentence. <This doesn't mean I am right; just cognizant of government inconsistancy.>

Rick

Reply by SoCal Signing Co. on 7/15/06 11:48am
Msg #133344

That if how we read it too, RR Crawford.