Posted by GWest on 5/26/06 5:14pm
Msg #122557

Back dating non-notarized doc's

I handled a signing last night without the Escrow/Title paperwork. This was at the request of the Lender/SS, being that it was EOM and the loan documents had to be signed that day. I was told that the Escrow/Title paperwork, including the HUD, would be sent directly to the Borrower for their signature. I received a call today asking me to meet with the Borrower again to sign the escrow papers, but they must be backdated to yesterday's date. I refused to backdate and the SS response was that there was nothing that needed to be notarized, so this is not a problem. My policy is not to back date anything and refused the assignment. What would you do?

Reply by SueW/Tn on 5/26/06 6:31pm
Msg #122568

I haven't come up against this YET but I was told by a very experienced SA that "while we cannot and do not backdate it is completely up to the borrowers to use any date they wish".
I read the other day about Title companies doing this to move around the back dating situation with the SA's, I gotta admit if the borrowers want to do it and it doesn't require anything from me other than gathering up the docs and shipping them back...what's the problem?

Reply by GWest on 5/26/06 6:46pm
Msg #122573

My concern is that I received an email dated today, then take these papers to the Borrower, allowing him to backdate. There is proof that I received the email today, making me a party to the backdating. As a former Escrow Officer I never have asked anyone to backdate anything.

Reply by SueW/Tn on 5/26/06 6:51pm
Msg #122574

and my response to his e-mail would have been...

I will be more than happy to print the docs and return to the borrowers for a fee. However I will NOT instruct the borrowers on how to date or not date. I will be your printer and your courier but will not instruct, direct, aide or abet the borrowers...this one brother belongs to you.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/26/06 7:00pm
Msg #122577

Re: and my response to his e-mail would have been...

I'd say to just tell them what you want to happen and I'll mention that to the, as well. As long as I am not notarizing, it's pretty much their business.

Reply by Missy_Lulu on 5/26/06 9:29pm
Msg #122599

Re: and my response to his e-mail would have been...

As in any other crime, if you are a party to it, it is aiding and abetting. Maybe I'm being overly cautious but IMO, if you are a party to this backdating it might be considered that you are a party to fraud. Especially since you know it's wrong, if it were deemed you were a party to a fraudulent act, I'm sure the law would be tougher on you since you knew it was wrong. I could be way off base. Just a thought.

Reply by SueW/Tn on 5/26/06 9:37pm
Msg #122600

Re: and my response to his e-mail would have been...

I understand and give you a point ~smiles~ however, what if you're only picking up docs that do not require your seal? I have a client that I do courier work for and pick up alot of her prelim docs. She's not hiring me to check the accuracy of the date although to keep from making a return trip I do check sigs to be sure everything is signed. Just how much responsibility do we need to take on when we're not presenting the docs for sig? I know that as a notary it is illegal for me to backdate but I don't know what law prevents the borrower from doing it. Heck I've screwed up writing a check and put the wrong date on it and it still just sails through the system.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/26/06 9:41pm
Msg #122603

Re: and my response to his e-mail would have been...

Lulu, what crime would the notary be a party to? It would be the lender's decision and the borrower's decision, not the courier's decision. If neither the bwr or the lender are pressing it, where is the crime?

Reply by Missy_Lulu on 5/26/06 10:16pm
Msg #122610

Re: and my response to his e-mail would have been...

That's why I said I'm probably just being extra cautious (worry wort me). My thought was if you know they are backdating and you are there (as a worse case scenario) if something happened and it were investigated for fraud, would we be considered sort of an accomplice since we took the docs there, got them signed knowing they were putting the wrong date and we sent them back. Would that make us a part to the fraudulent act?

Brenda, You say if the lender and borrower make the decision-so if the security commission or whomever regulates lenders somehow find an inconsistency to which casts suspicion as to when these documents were actually signed and it comes out that the notary took them to the borrower and they backdated, would it be seen that we were a party to that? Then if it got worse from there, would we be penalized more severely than say, a courier, since we new it was wrong. Once again, this is the ultimate worse case scenario.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/26/06 10:45pm
Msg #122623

Lulu, thanks for your insight on this...I just think

sometimes we get too caught up in policing things...but that's just my opinion. We are to be honest and to do a good job of presenting the docs, we notarize properly. We facilitate loan closings so they may happen in the field.

We are not loan officers or loan police.

I do not promote dishonesty. I am not dishonest or coercive.

Is it really incumbent upon the unlicensed facilitator (outside of states which are mandated licensing states...MD for instance) to know every federal law?

I don't think so.

The documents say "date" but they do not say date of signature. Unless, the documents are being notarized, it's not my concern what the lender and borrower are agreeing to do with dates.

I understand your position, but really I feel we can read way more into our jobs than is needed. If there is an alternative opinion or point of law that motivates me to rethink this, I welcome it. Your insight is definitely welcomed on this, Lulu...I just think sometimes we have to realize we are not that powerful to insist on strict compliance in our sa jobs. If it bothers us, we should not take the appointment.

Assuming there is nothing set in stone on this, it's probably a very personal decision.

Reply by Missy_Lulu on 5/26/06 10:53pm
Msg #122628

Re: Lulu, thanks for your insight on this...I just think

You know so much of what we do seems to rely on a judgment call. If I were uncomfortable with the above situation, yes I would not feel the need to police it, I just wouldn't do it.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/26/06 11:02pm
Msg #122629

Re: Lulu, thanks for your insight on this...I just think

**You know so much of what we do seems to rely on a judgment call. If I were uncomfortable with the above situation, yes I would not feel the need to police it, I just wouldn't do it**



HUDs are supposed to arrive 24 hrs ahead of time for the bwr. When's that ever happened?

Haven't we all watched while a bwr signed off on a doc that said this was the case?

Some things bother me that will never bother you and vice versa. Too bad every NSA is not concerned enough with this question to really think it over. I am glad we are.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/26/06 11:05pm
Msg #122630

Stop posting Lulu...you are trying to get 1st place...

and it'll never happen. I will never eat, sleep or leave my house if I have to do that to keep you from beating me out for most posts on Notrot...I will NEVER give up my title.

JK! Goodnight ya'll.

Reply by Missy_Lulu on 5/26/06 11:13pm
Msg #122631

Re: Stop posting Lulu...you are trying to get 1st place...

LOL! What are you talking about? Is there such a thing or am I just gullible. LOL

I will say I've only really been active on this board since just before the end of year and I have 1008 views of my profile. Ya know something else is weird. I looked back in posts to see when I started coming on and posting and there was another lulu at some point, it sure isn't me.

Hoping all have a safe and happy Holiday Weekend.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/26/06 7:39pm
Msg #122582

What's the problem?

Hellooo... No notarization needed. Borrowers have docs. Sign & overnight back. No need for you whatsoever. SS/Title can't figure this out? What am I missing?

Reply by Premier Signing Services on 5/26/06 8:02pm
Msg #122587

Re: What's the problem?

Our policy is very clear. We do not back date anything and we do not ask athat anything be backdated. If the title company wants the documetns dated for another day, they do not have to be notarized, then we tell the title company, loan officer or whoever to print the docs themselves and send them to to borrower witht heir own instructions and a return envelope. This leaves us out of the whole thing and it is all on them instead of us. Besides, we sell it to the title company or loan officer as they would be saving money by not paying us for a second trip that way.

Reply by hcampersFL on 5/26/06 10:19pm
Msg #122612

Re: What's the problem?

Aren't we there as impartial witnesses? How can it be fraud if both party's are aware of what is happening? How is being defrauded?
I am going to make sure that my notarization are filled out properly but as far as the lender and the Br wanting to use a different date on doc's that I'm not notarizing it really isn't any of my business...period.

Reply by Missy_Lulu on 5/26/06 10:33pm
Msg #122621

Re: What's the problem?

Feels like things are getting a little tense. Maybe not.
So now I really go off the deep end. So if you deliver a gun to someone and see them rob a store with it and then you take the gun back and give it back to whomever you got it from, is all ok? You didn't do anything wrong correct?

Sorry. I'm being absurd. Ignore me.

Reply by lonestar_tx on 5/26/06 11:51pm
Msg #122638

Bang! Bang!

Lol, okay, I'm off to bed too....

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/27/06 12:07pm
Msg #122693

Lulu...

I don't think you are so off the deep end.

My line is drawn on two things.

1) I will not backdate a notarization or facilitate the backdating of a notarization (deliver a package to be signed, backdated and not notarized. Delivering and turning a blind eye IS helping... I don't care what anybody says. Andy's approach is the right one... if that is what they want, then they can overnight the package to the borrowers and give their own direction.)

and...

2) I will not facilitate or sit there and watch as borrowers and lenders violate the Code of Federal Regulations. (Regulation Z and the Truth in Lending Act)

If a TC/Lender wants me to get a few extra papers signed that don't violate these two things, I do it. Otherwise... sorry but NO.

*** I must say that some time back while talking to people that were maybe 'more lenient', I started to get into the mindset of 'well as long as I am not notarizing then I guess it is OK right?'. But then I slapped myself around and said, 'Hey wait a second Angie, are you really going to convince yourself of that? I don't think so. I draw a line in the sand, and I don't cross it.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/27/06 2:25pm
Msg #122708

Re: Lulu...Angelina - this is good stuff...

I truly meant it about the earlier comment I made about the statement I see in packages (even my own finance package years ago) wherein the bwr has to say they got the HUD 24 hours in advance.

No one commented on this....is it also reg Z or another federal rule...do you know?

I agree with your moral direction, just not sure it can always be applied to the facilitation of loan signings 100% whether I am the signer, or it is done in a title co.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/27/06 3:52pm
Msg #122721

Brenda...

I have it on my list to look up the stuff on the HUD. I have seen something similar but I think, to the best of my recollection, that I have only seen it in closing instructions as a Lender Requirement (the lender wants it prior or 24 hours in advance).

Another thought that came to me while typing is that maybe the borrower must have the HUD 24 hours to the actual "Settlement Date"... not the actual signing date????

I don't know but if you find it, I'd be interested to look at it.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/27/06 5:34pm
Msg #122743

Re: Brenda...I'll see if I can locate one of those little

rascals...and thanks for having the guts to discuss this. I appreciate you going right in my face on it.

I am not always right...this is why there is not a book written on the absolute do's and don'ts of signing agent procedures.

So much of this is based on the person's perception of their job outside of their notary work.

However, Mr. & Ms. Newbie - your notary rules are critical and you need to know them ahead of time.

As you can see, this discussion between me and Angelina is not notarial...it's loan documents.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/27/06 7:24pm
Msg #122764

Re: Brenda...I'll see if I can locate one of those little

FYI - Whether you are lenient or not, you were not one of the 'more lenient' ones that I was referring to.

I have always seen the line we walk to be similar. We both like to know who, what, where, when and why... how much... who did it... who said it... who had the gun... who farted in the lunchroom... of course you are much nicer than me but I won't hold a grudge.

As far as what others think of my point of view, I'm certainly not a tight-ass on a soapbox, but I won't hedge around and twist words until laws are to my liking. It's not that I am soooo moral... I just don't do it. There is only so much in the world that I have control over... and all I can do is take responsibility for my part.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/27/06 7:55pm
Msg #122767

Re: Brenda...I'll see if I can - all I can say to this...

" I have always seen the line we walk to be similar. "

is:

Because you're mine, I walk the line.

====
It was the best I could do on short notice.

Seriously, these kinds of discussions are very good food for thought. Confidence makes a person feel right, no matter if they are wrong or right. However, wisdom makes us both know we can always learn.

I could be this very thread that makes me not get the house cleaned for company on Monday. Gonna buy some beer and wine, do some grillin, scratch my crotch and spit. That's what grillin' wimmen do.

Reply by Renee Kovacs on 5/27/06 3:20pm
Msg #122714

Re: Angelina - that's an excellent summary! n/m

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/27/06 12:45am
Msg #122650

Rose-colored glasses anybody???

To Gwest, it depends on if you signed all the main docs including the RTC, TIL, DOT... etc. and there is nothing left to notarize. A wire transfer agreement and closing instructions... no big deal.

BUT... to those of you that will allow an entire package to be backdated and you innocently deliver it without notarization as long as you did not have to say anything or do anything... come on! You darn well know exactly what they are going to do to it!

We are not the police, however...

In 1992 the Attorney General stated in a letter that "Backdating the notice of right to cancel is a clear violation of both state and federal law and will subject the seller to possible cancellation by the buyer until such time as a new cancellation notice is provided."

also... many people do not know this but if the borrower is NOT provided the required disclosures the 3-day RTC extends to 3 years.

"In the event a bank does not comply with the Act’s disclosure requirements, the three-day right to rescind becomes a three-year right to rescind, which expires three years “after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first.” Id. § 1635(f)."

Violation of the Code of Federal Regulations is considered a crime. It is white collar but it is a crime. And I guess it comes down to whether or not you are willing to look the other way. You are a paid representative of the TC/Lender (remember, we wear two hats) and if you are aware of a crime taking place and you willingly facilitate it.... well??? Did the kid driving the getaway car in a robbery commit a crime? He never sped or ran any red lights but he knew they just stole money... is he guilty of anything?

Backdating is a pre-meditated plan to defraud a lending institution backed by the Federal Reserve. Allowing it to happen either willingly or with your head turned the other way isn't right... and you know it.

Reply by hcampersFL on 5/27/06 4:39pm
Msg #122728

Re: Rose-colored glasses anybody???

I would never go to a closing and not notarize anything and then ship back the doc's so someone else could notarize it.
I was replying directly to the first post. If I had already done the signing and the escrow doc's were not done that night and they needed me to go back and have the br sign them the next day I would not have a problem with that. If some of these needed to be notarized then I would do that with the PROPER date. I would not send them back for someone else to notarize and if I was asked to do that, that would be a horse of a different color.

Reply by SueW/Tn on 5/27/06 8:29pm
Msg #122775

Perhaps I'm confused...as usual

At first reading of the original post I thought she was saying everything had been signed that needed to be notarized etc. I "assumed" she was including the RTC. For further clarification, did the docs they wanted just "signed" include the RTC or had that been signed previously on your first visit? Did they just want to get the junk docs signed? The escrow docs, to my understanding, usually need your seal. Geez, am I making sense?

Reply by GWest on 5/27/06 9:07pm
Msg #122784

Re: Perhaps I'm confused...as usual

The loan documents including the RTC & TIL were signed on 5/25 as they should have been. The documents that were to be receive by email on 5/26 which the lender wanted backdated were the Escrow Papers including the HUD. These papers should not be date sensitive, but they were date sensitive to the lender. If it is that important that the lender feels they must be backdated, should we be involved. If they don't need to be notarized, why are we involved, go to the Borrower directly. If we need to meet the Borrower again are we more than just notaries? My feeling is that we should backdate anything, but looking to see what all of you on the board felt with regard to backdating non-notarized doc's.

Reply by GWest on 5/27/06 9:09pm
Msg #122785

Re: Perhaps I'm confused...as usual

"My feeling is that we should backdate anything, but looking to see what all of you on the board felt with regard to backdating non-notarized doc's."

Sorry, I meant to say "My feeling is that we should NOT backdate anything"

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/27/06 10:58pm
Msg #122803

Re: Perhaps I'm confused...as usual

In my experience the HUDs I have signed aren't even dated. BUT, there are usually many other Escrow docs that ARE notarized like the owner's aff, survey aff, and sometimes another name aff. I even have wire agreements that are notarized for some TC's. You may run into more problems than you think with this one.

But the answer to your question is this.

In my understanding, it is not illegal to backdate a document 'in general'. If all the loan papers were signed including the RTC, TIL and all notarized stuff on the correct date... then to me... it would not be a big deal to backdate the non-notarized escrow docs. But that's just me. I'm not telling you to do or not do anything. I'm just saying that to the best of my knowledge, it is not in any violation of law.

Backdating the RTC, TIL and notarizations is against the law and therein lies the difference.

Reply by RickinVA on 5/28/06 10:28am
Msg #122841

Re: I think I am!


"In my experience the HUDs I have signed aren't even dated. BUT, there are usually many other Escrow docs that ARE notarized like the owner's aff, survey aff, and sometimes another name aff. I even have wire agreements that are notarized for some TC's."

Angelina, why do YOU sign the HUD? The one I see has verbiage above the line where "Closing Agent" or the like is printed which says something similar to: "This HUD, which I have prepared...". I don't think we, as Notaries, sign this. At least, I don't.

Rick

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/28/06 1:52pm
Msg #122868

LOL...

I meant get signed. It is just how I say it. If I say I have signed 450 loans that doesn't mean I have re-fied 450 times. Sorry for the confusion.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/28/06 3:20pm
Msg #122878

The rest got cut off....

I meant get signed. It is just how I say it. If I say I have signed 450 loans that doesn't mean I have re-fied 450 times. Sorry for the confusion. And no, on the loans I do, I don't sign the HUD or anything else as the Closing or Settlement Agent.

Occasionally there are some forms that say 'Settlement Agent' that the Lender will specifically request me to sign. In that case, I cross out Settlement Agent and write Signing Agent.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/27/06 11:16pm
Msg #122813

Sue...

To my knowledge the original poster said that the main lender docs were done and that all notarizations were done.

My response was partially triggered by your post at the beginning, and comments by others down the thread.

You said that you had not come across it yet but that some very experienced SA's told you that...

**** "while we cannot and do not backdate it is completely up to the borrowers to use any date they wish".I read the other day about Title companies doing this to move around the back dating situation with the SA's, I gotta admit if the borrowers want to do it and it doesn't require anything from me other than gathering up the docs and shipping them back...what's the problem? ****

I did not respond directly to you because you said you had never encountered the situation yourself and I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular. I have encountered these requests. And I know of people that think it is NO BIG DEAL to take a package to a borrower and let them backdate the whole thing and then send it back without notarizatons knowing the TC will just 'fix it right up'. Sometimes I think that we SA's sit back on our notary haunches when it is convenient to look the other way. I wanted to bring up the issue of the documents like the RTC and TIL into the picture because backdating these... (even though they are not notarized) is against the law. Am I going to facilitate it? No way, Jose!

We need to be very very careful... the backdating thing is becoming more and more slippery every day. Just as you stated, they are trying to 'find ways to get around us'.

Reply by Anonymous on 5/28/06 2:40am
Msg #122822

Re: Sue...

Very good back peddling Angelina...LOL

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/28/06 5:35am
Msg #122827

Gutless would you please learn to read...

I have said the same thing over and over throughout this thread. I never changed my tune... not once. I stated my point and backed it with FACTS. Some people seemed to take my post as a personal attack and I addressed which parts, if any, were personally directed.

If I were back-peddling I would have said... "Gee Sue I wasn't talking to you... smoochy smoochy", but I didn't. I told her straight up which parts in her post that I was addressing and why I didn't post directly to her. DUH!

And please... Get some guts anon. I'm sure if you dig beneath the Snickers wrappers buried under your couch cushions... you'll find your self-esteem. Until then, happy posting...

Reply by SueW/Tn on 5/28/06 10:13am
Msg #122839

Angelina, I am happy to respond

Your "rose colored glasses" post was, in my opinion, uncalled for as all the particulars weren't presented. I didn't recall where in the original post the RTC was mentioned and I was assuming it was included in the loan docs. You attacked many of us regarding our integrity in a very round about way and that bothered me. My additional post was to get clarification about the exact docs TO BE signed. I would never back date my certificates nor would I stand still for knowing that someone else does it, often. My post was made because I have read and heard from my peers that some TC's are doing exactly what the post described, getting all necessary recordables signed first and then sending out junk docs later on and letting the BO's sign with any date (yep, always a previous one). I studied that situation all night, referred to as many websites as I could find, ya know what? No where does it say that CAN'T be done. I thought it was a pretty ingenius way for Title to have their cake and eat it too! (I have also "heard" that they always do it this way, get the docs notarized within the correct time frame and then send out the junk docs usually directly to the BO). You were the one that assumed the RTC was going to be included in the junk docs that the original poster wrote about. I merely asked the question and now it's clear to me that those of us wearing rose colored glasses SOMETIMES are right. Thank you very much for posting, I appreciate and respect your opinion.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/28/06 2:52pm
Msg #122873

Sue... I am happy to respond as well.

I never said anything in a round about way... I directly addressed the issues that I felt strongly about. I never thought that the RTC was included in the original poster's inquiry, it seemed to me that the entire thread seemed to stray quickly away from the original post and get into a more 'general backdating' area. If you say that you were talking only to the original poster then just ignore me completely because my post didn't apply to you.

I do however, hate being misunderstood and sometimes it is hard to convey points through posts. So if I misunderstood you and then attacked your credibility in a direct or round about way (and in reading over my posts, I see that is what I did) then I happily apologize. I would not like to be misunderstood and then have my credibility questioned either... directly or indirectly.

FYI - I have never debated the issue of the non-notarized junk docs... I've never thought this was a big deal. I couldn't care less what date they want them dated.

So to clarify... my post is ONLY addressed to those SA's who are willing to do the following:

1) Backdate notarizations

2) Allow the backdating of documents that would violate the Code of Federal Regulations (RTC & TIL).

The ONLY thing I ever intended to attack was the 'lenient' attitude of 'if I don't have to notarize then it's OK'. There are MANY situations where it is not OK (and some, like non-notarized junk docs, where it is).

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/28/06 3:08pm
Msg #122875

Bev...

I guess I need the reading comprehension course too! Sorry Bev. It seemed to me that the thread strayed from the original post, I guess I was the one who strayed.

I stand by my point, but it obviously didn't apply here!