Posted by Bob_Chicago on 8/26/07 11:23pm
Msg #207793

Had a signing the other day with a NBM (non borrowing mom)

she was on title to property which was the home of the borrower (her son)
Her name was only on the junk dox , mortgage and TIL.
When I noticed that she was not on RTC, I at first questioned it to myself.
On further reflection, I realized that since PIQ was not her residence , she did
not have a right to cancel. I checked with TC anyway, and they concurred.
Hope that everyone finishes the month strong. Remember that Monday, Sept 3
is Labor Day.

Reply by JK/TX on 8/26/07 11:52pm
Msg #207799

That's interesting..... she would still have to sign the RTC in Tx. Isn't it strange how things can be so different from state to state..... some lenders want the NB-PERSON to sign the Compliance/Error/omission doc and some don't..... I've never understood why they would not want them to sign this doc, they have after all signed "some" of the docs so why not have them affirm that they will sign again if the doc contained errors/doc missing, etc....

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/27/07 6:02am
Msg #207814

Yep, JK, I have had one just like that where Mom did have to sign...son was single, Mom owned the house, but if there had been a wife or a significant other, that person would have had to sign off too. (Such instructions came from title.)

I agree on the Compliance/EO. Don't understand that one.

Reply by PAW on 8/27/07 8:25am
Msg #207819

Re: Had a signing the other day with a NBM (non borrowing mo

She would have to sign theRTC (and other property related docs) in FL too. Anyone with an "interest in the property", and being on title makes her a property owner, needs to be made aware of a lien on the property, e.g. the Mortgage. And, according to Reg Z, anyone with an interest in the property, must be provided certain disclosures as well as being afforded the right to rescind, even if the property is not their residence.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/27/07 9:15am
Msg #207828

Reg Z/TILA is confusing in that ...

...it states first that a RTC is deemed for "principle dwelling" - but it THEN continues and states "each consumer whose ownership interest is or will be subject to the security interest shall have the right to rescind the transaction". It would (IMHO) be a 'flow chart' that starts with "Is this a borrower's principle dwelling?" If NO, carry on. If YES - then all those with title interest have the RTC.

I think people get stuck at the first part and don't continue on ...

Anyway - this would be Federal and applicable regardless of state, and everything I said is just conversational - the entire Act is there to read for everyone's pleasure. =)

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/27/07 9:16am
Msg #207830

oops - responding to Bob/all - not specific to you, PAW! n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/27/07 9:16am
Msg #207831

Re: Renee posts faster than I do..<G> n/m

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/27/07 9:18am
Msg #207832

all the practice on those IBM Selectrics paid off! n/m

Reply by PAW on 8/27/07 1:22pm
Msg #207924

Re: Reg Z/TILA is confusing in that ...

Ah, but "principal dwelling" is not confined to "THE" principal dwelling of the person with an interest in the property. It means that the property is the primary residence of at least one property owner then the right of recsission applies to all property owners.

[quote Reg Z]
(a) Consumer's right to rescind. (1) In a credit transaction in which a security interest is or will be retained or acquired in a consumer's principal dwelling, each consumer whose ownership interest is or will be subject to the security interest shall have the right to rescind the transaction, except for transactions described in paragraph (f) of this section.
[end quote]

Notice that the wording simply states "in a consumer's principal dwelling" and if followed then by "each consumer whose ownership interest is or will be subject...". It doesn't state that the dwelling must be the principal dwelling of "each" consumer, only that it is the principal dwelling of "a" consumer.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/27/07 9:15am
Msg #207829

Isn't the signing of the RTC federally regulated as opposed to state-specific?

Reply by Pat/IL on 8/27/07 10:16am
Msg #207850

Federally regulated, yes, but each state has its own rules as to who has an interest subject to the right to cancel. And I do believe that enforcement is generally left to the states. Each state would apply the statute according to its own laws.

I can't think of any state in which a title holder would not have an interest subject to RTC the case that Bob describes. Bob, I hope the title company gave you their instruction in writing.

Caution: This is just another opinion and may be oversimplified or just plain wrong.

Reply by Todd/OH on 8/27/07 10:55am
Msg #207860

Re: Had a signing the other day with a NBM (non borrowing mo

I had one in which non borrowing mom was in title with single son. She was widowed. It was so strange when I called to confirm. They both signed everything.