Posted by DianeCipa on 12/10/07 8:14am
Msg #225261
Hey, I need your vote!
I hope this doesn't constitute advertising.
I wrote a post for Lenderama entitled "The consumer should pay the abstractor and/or notary signing agent when the transaction doesn't close." It was nominated for the Odysseus Medal on BloodhoundBlog. Please vote to support the cause.
http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/?p=2347
|
Reply by sue_pa on 12/10/07 8:31am
Msg #225263
while I agree in theory with you Diane, I think the broker/lender is the one who should be forced to pay, not the borrower at teh door. Last week was a prime example. Mrs. Borrower (who was VERY saavy) spoke with broker at 2:00. I show up at 6:30 with paperwork VERY different than her 2:00 discussion (I saw her meticulous notes). Of course the jacka** wasn't available but his supervisor got on the phone to explain how they should sign everything and it would all get worked out. I cannot give you enough examples of this kind of thing. Had an older lady a few years ago getting ready to retire. She wanted the lowest possible payment - that was the only criteria she had. LO gave her a huge cash out (naturally resulting in a higher payment - and oh my, a higher loan amount thus higher fee for him). She didn't want cash out, she didn't care about anything except her payment - she said she'd never live long enough to pay for the house no matter what. I could go on and on and on. People expect one thing and we show up with a different loan program - they shouldn't have to pay.
When I worked in a law office, we never even ordered the title work until we had a mortgage commitment in hand. What a different world that was. Borrowers knew their exact loan terms in writing and we still were able to close within 3 or 4 days. AND, the borrowers had someone to represent their interests (although I don't recall problems like I see now) rather than representing the lender/broker.
|
Reply by DianeCipa on 12/10/07 9:08am
Msg #225268
I hear you, Sue, and I don't disagree that in most cases, the deal that falls thru at the table is often the fault of the lender. I guess the bottom line is that someone should pay. I have taken two mortgage brokers to the magistrate who were lying to us and their mortgage applicants and then sticking me with abstract bills. I got $1000 out of one and $675 from another and of course, never did work for them again - my choice.
|
Reply by PAW on 12/10/07 12:49pm
Msg #225328
I agree with Sue in that the borrower should not be made to pay if the loan falls through, for whatever reason. But going back to simple contracts 101, the hiring agency should pay for services rendered. Period. The "Signing Agent" (or whatever term is finally agreed upon {see below}) typically has a contracted agreement with title. Title has a contracted agreement with the lender. So, the Signing Agent gets paid by title since that is the arrangement. Title gets paid by the lender, since that is the arrangement. Obviously, this would mean that the agreements would need to be written correctly from the get-go, so those who do work, irrespective of the loan funding, get paid for services rendered.
A 'title' that I have used in conjunction with two law offices, is "Document Signing Specialist". When performing a signing, be it a mortgage, purchase closing "cash deal", healthcare directives, etc., the first document presented to the signers is a disclosure of services. The disclosure outlines in very specific terms what my role is, and what I can and cannot do. The disclosure sets the playing field and avoids a lot of misunderstanding and frustration during the signing process.
|
Reply by Natalie Brown on 12/10/07 1:54pm
Msg #225346
Hi, I am new to this. I did my fist signing on Friday. After I returned I faxed them the papers they requested and with it I faxed them an 'invoice' with the closing info and my fees that are owed. After that I am lost. Will they just send me a check? Is there something else I should do? Thanks,
Natalie
|
Reply by PAW on 12/10/07 2:55pm
Msg #225364
Now, the waiting game has started
You did what they wanted and you sent them your invoice. (I'm assuming you also sent the docs back by return courier.)
So now, just sit back and relax and wait for the checks to start appearing in your mailbox! (At least this is what the NNA says will happen.) In reality, you may receive your check in the mail is a few days to a few months, or more, or never. In my opinion, if you don't have your check in 45 days, it's time to call and see what's happening. You can (and should) also come back here and read all about how to collect your fees.
|
Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/10/07 11:13pm
Msg #225421
Natalie, you're going to need Post 33325 very much.
Use the orange "Search" button and read the whole thread. Then go back to the very first Post on the Forum and read forward.
Good luck. You're going to need it.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 12/10/07 7:19pm
Msg #225397
I do not believe the borrower should have to pay if the loan falls through.
I find it distasteful to produce a document at the table that tells them if the loan falls through then they will pay the signing service or the notary...I think this way for several reasons.
I will not charge a good client for a fall-through at the table. Sometimes it has even been the SS or the TCs fault. Good clients are the ones who do not quibble about fees and they always call me first. If you do enough good deals for them at a good fee you can let a fee or two go.
There are all kinds of business philosphies on this. One I feel strongly about is not requiring the borrower pay me for services on a loan they do not want.
|
Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/10/07 11:16pm
Msg #225423
I'm with Brenda, et al. n/m
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 12/10/07 9:21am
Msg #225269
Re: I agree with Sue, borrower should not have to pay. n/m
|
Reply by Vince/KS on 12/10/07 9:39am
Msg #225279
Re: I agree with Sue, borrower should not have to pay.
Further, the loan process is like many other sales processes. The cost of goods includes all of the background work needed to make the finished product available to the prospective buyer. In high dollar sales, the borrower needs to be pre-qualified and pre-sold on what he is being presented as a finished product.
In each of these cases, the person or company offering the product have the most to gain if the sale goes through. They cannot simply tell the secretaries, the truck drivers, the delivery drivers and all that the payment of each invoice is contingent upon the sale. The sales person will not get a commission and the other employees may not get a profitability bonus - but the support workers will all get paid.
It is wrong to assume that a Notary is out to make the sale. If they were, they would certainly be paid more than the numbers we are seeing.
|
Reply by DianeCipa on 12/10/07 10:12am
Msg #225287
appraisers home inspectors???
So, does this mean you think the mortgage broker or mortgage lender should foot the bill for credit and appraisal? Do you think the Realtor should foot the bill for the home inspector??
|
Reply by Vince/KS on 12/10/07 1:43pm
Msg #225343
Re: appraisers home inspectors???
Not really. But, before a person buys a car any trade-in is checked out before an offer is made and the buyer's credit is checked to find out what the interest rate may be. The borrower does not pay direct charges for these. Some dealers want to charge you for the advertising of the car - have you been willing to pay it as a "line item"?
Part of the pre-qualification on the home refinance loan is what is it worth and what kind of shape is it in. The mortgage broker or lender finds out what kind of a prospect they have after these are accomplished.
Let me reverse your question, should the secretary that processes the documents being paid be dependent upon the closure, or the UPS driver, etc. etc. (direct expenses of the loan)?
|
Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/10/07 11:40am
Msg #225311
This is a tough nut to crack ...
* Can't hold a consumer liable for something they don't contract for
* Can't hold a consumer liable for not consumating a signing for a loan they don't want or agree with
IF you do hold the consumer liable - it places just that much more leverage in the hands of the L.O., which is I suspect is a factor behind the provisions of the RTC.
IF you hold the settlement agent liable, there is no motivation for the L.O. to better educate & disclose to his borrower prior to close - which will be addressed with the UCI, when used.
When the UCI is in place on a deal, the whole issue will fade into being a moot point - as the predisclosure of the entire loan pkg will have at least some effect.
IF you hold the Lender liable, again the L.O. isn't provided any motivation as above, and the Lender now has to find some way around Reg Z/RTC? Sounds like fun.
Like Sue - I agree in theory, but don't see any easy practical applications. I don't think abstractors and signing agents are apples-to-apples; the abstractor provides a processing service necessary for a final underwriting determination - the signing agent doesn't even enter the picture until the closing process.
And again I do think the vast majority of SA pymt issues are business management issues and need to be approached from that end. I submit that a solid & effective management practice prevents the issues to begin with. I really don't think very many small businesses can boast the pymt rate that so many of us enjoy - although I would ABSOLUTELY love to see someone do a valid, objective & scientific survey to find out how right/wrong I am.
|
Reply by Gary_CA on 12/10/07 9:25am
Msg #225272
I understand how hard it is for the broker to pay...
When a loan falls through...
And I'm a nice and reasonable fella...
So I'll tell ya what...
Get the appraiser to refund HALF his fee and I'll split it with ya.
(I haven't used that yet, but I'm tempted.)
|
Reply by jba/fl on 12/10/07 9:29am
Msg #225274
Re: I understand how hard it is for the broker to pay...
"Get the appraiser to refund HALF his fee and I'll split it with ya."
Gary - that is POC normally, so bor. would want and be entitled to that $$$ were that to happen. Not such an effective line after all
|
Reply by Charm_AL on 12/10/07 10:04am
Msg #225286
being the funster he is...
I think Gary was joking.
I never did believe that the borrower should pay. After all, they already paid once for our services which went into the bottom line on closing costs. I would rather be added to the HUD as Notary fee and be paid separately.
But..... then you've got a few  that wont be able to make more $$$ than you by padding (oh, did I just say that?)
Ever been asked by an eyebrow raising borrower "You get paid this much??"
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 12/10/07 10:21am
Msg #225288
Re: being the funster he is...
Charm
I believe Diane was referring to loans that don't close. So, there would be no closing costs to the borrower.
But, as the borrower did not hire the SA, then they should not have to pay when the loan falls through. The entity that hired the SA is responsible.
|
Reply by Charm_AL on 12/10/07 10:27am
Msg #225290
Sylvia...
I stand corrected, trying to multi-task isn't working for me this morning.
|
Reply by Gary_CA on 12/10/07 10:57am
Msg #225296
Yes, I was being sarcastic...
and yep, I know that 9 times out of 10 the appraiser is paid POC, with a check from the borrower when he visits, by the way... although there's many a "patient" appraiser that will do the inspection without a check... but you have to run the check down to them before you get the report.
I don't think the borrower should have to pay either... but better the borrower than the notary.
That was the point of my irony. The appraiser gets somewhere around $400 and he gets paid johnny on the spot.
No ticky no laundry.
Why should the notary eat her <> $100 fee????
|
Reply by sue_pa on 12/10/07 11:11am
Msg #225301
Re: being the funster he is...
...But, as the borrower did not hire the SA, then they should not have to pay when the loan falls through. The entity that hired the SA is responsible....
I've seen people that are shopping for loans and wait until closing to make their decision. Those borrowers should have to pay. If the loan is explained in full up front and we show up with no surprises but they've just changed their mind - for whatever reason - (has happened on many occasions to me) they should have to pay. When one loan is offered and accepted and we show up with deviations, that's when I think the noninformer (how's that for a polite term) should pay.
|
Reply by Gary_CA on 12/10/07 12:04pm
Msg #225318
Well by golly SOMEBODY should pay n/m
|
Reply by Tess on 12/10/07 3:44pm
Msg #225373
Re: I agree! If the LO or broker had to pay from his pocket
you would see a lot less non disclosures.
|
Reply by Lee/AR on 12/10/07 10:24am
Msg #225289
Not the borrower. Deep pocket theory: Lender should pay. Just look at the TIL to see how much (ultimately) they have to play with. Side effect of this: Lender will get on LO's back & 'honesty' will prevail.
|
Reply by DianeCipa on 12/10/07 10:50am
Msg #225293
Well, I say whoever is paying, someone should and getting this type of conversation out in forums where mortgage brokers and lenders are reading is a good thing. Even is you disagree, duke it out with those that you think SHOULD be paying. Chit Chatting amongst your own won't cause change to happen. Even if you search out forums with topics like this and post anonymously, at least go to battle. Free and open exchange can sometimes move mountains.
|
Reply by Lisa Bittner on 12/10/07 11:22am
Msg #225306
Select Signings includes this in there order confirmations, and there client also has a copy with the loan docs, as they approve it.
my signing agents have never had borrowers ever decline to sign it when we work with Select signings.
Select Signings
SIGNING SERVICE FEE RESPONSIBILITY
Select Signings Order #____________________________
Escrow #_____________________________________
Property Address: ______________________________
_______________________________
All outside notaries provided by Select Signings are an accommodation for the borrower.
The fees for these services are the responsibility of the (Seller/Buyer/Borrower) whether the
notary was scheduled through the lender, title or escrow and not directly by the
(Seller/Buyer/Borrower).
The notary fees are due at the close of escrow and will be paid to Select Signings at that time
by the escrow or title company, when the loan funds.
However, in the event that the file cancels for any reason including lender or broker error and
an outside notary from Select Signings was provided, the (Seller/Buyer/Borrower) will be
responsible to pay the signing fee incurred directly payable to:
Select Signings
1720 E. Garry Ave., Suite 236
Santa Ana, CA 92705
I/We, the undersigned (Seller/Buyer/Borrower) hereby release and indemnify escrow or title
for any responsibility of payment for Select Signing Services’ notary fee should this file
cancel or not close for any reason.
Signed this ___________day of __________________________, ______________.
Day Month Year
_____________________________ ___________________________
Seller/Buyer/ Borrower Signature Seller/Buyer/ Borrower Signature
_______________________________________ ____________________________________
Seller/Buyer/ Borrower Printed Name Seller/Buyer/ Borrower Printed Name
** A fax copy of this agreement does NOT invalidate its enforceability. **
|
Reply by Lee/AR on 12/10/07 11:28am
Msg #225307
IM(non-legal, just my understanding)O... The B did NOT hire you, there is no stated fee...and this 'weasel-doc' does NOT constitute a contract for work or payment of same.
|
Reply by Lee/AR on 12/10/07 11:29am
Msg #225308
Re: Correction of above post
Correction: B did not hire you or SS.
|
Reply by Lisa Bittner on 12/10/07 12:28pm
Msg #225323
they have been doing this for over a year, the borrower seems to not mind.
This is one way a company has helped itself get paid for non signings, or non closed files.
however the client, whom is Alliance Title passed it as agreeable to their standards
so you can call it "weasel-doc" but it works for them. It is a valuable took for one company.
it certainly is not illegal,
and it IS a contract for payment
by at least my diffenition of contract
con·tract
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.
Lee if you feel its wrong that is fair, but it seems to work for them. I personally I have implimented it for other reasons. But it is one idea
|
Reply by Lisa Bittner on 12/10/07 12:34pm
Msg #225325
sorry for the 2 mispelled words
|
Reply by DianeCipa on 12/10/07 1:25pm
Msg #225338
LOVE THIS FORM - full of truth and right on! n/m
|
Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/10/07 11:42am
Msg #225312
And then, on the OTHER hand ... I need more hands ...
When I consider the effects the UCI may have, and the effects they even imply - being beholding to the settlement agent carries some level of 'loyalty'. Loyalty does not equate to complete impartiality, no matter how much integrity you have - it MUST have some effect on the brain cells.
|
Reply by DianeCipa on 12/10/07 1:27pm
Msg #225339
independence
That's why I'm starting to group appraisers, abstractor and closing officers in my mind as state certified - fully independent positions.
|
Reply by Glenn Strickler on 12/10/07 11:59am
Msg #225316
This topic has been covered extensively in the forums over the past few years. It kind of makes me wonder where you have been. I myself was trying to lead a charge to get something done here in California, but the powers above are stronger right now. And after putting some thought into the matter, do we really need another government regulation? In my quest, I came to some conclusions:
A majority of the loans that I was involved in, they were re-fi's where the borrower was refinancing because they needed the money. Good luck trying to collect even if you get a small claims judgment. Then, in many cases, the lender was advertising that they pay all fees. All Fees. When the lender advertises that, you can't even sue the borrower in small claims even if you have them sign a form at the table stating that they are responsible for your payment. Been there, done that.
I was successful in collecting from a couple of tc's and lenders in collecting because I had it in the terms of my contract with them. Truth of the matter is, out of a couple thousand signings, I have only failed to collect on four. And only one of them was a rescind. I got out of the mindset that big brother needs to pass a law to make sure that I get paid and took care of it myself through the contracts and confirmations. Yes, with some I now aggree to 1/2 fee if the loan rescinds, but they send me a lot of business. You sometimes have to give to get.
The main problem I see in my area is that it is saturated with just graduated notaries who have a get rich quick without any hard work mindset and will accept low pay and any terms to build their business. And they call me to mentor them to boot. There are notaries accepting $75 for a piggyback edoc loan in this area right now. I have been called a couple of times to clean up the mess.
When you post on the forums, you are preaching to the choir. When you post anonymously, no one takes you seriously. When you are looking to solve a problem that will take legislation to fix, you have to time your battle. The timing is wrong right now. The time is the mid-terms. And I am no longer convinced that this is the correct approach any longer .... Making sure of the terms of your contract with the lender, title company or signing service before you take the job is the best way to ensure payment--from whomever you think should pay .
|
Reply by Lisa Bittner on 12/10/07 12:11pm
Msg #225320
Glen nicely put, I agree with your post!
|
Reply by Marlene/USNA on 12/10/07 1:12pm
Msg #225333
yep, yep, yep
If you think something needs regulated, you can bet it won't be regulated the way you think it needs to be.
Stay away from more regulation whenever you can.
|
Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/10/07 1:46pm
Msg #225344
Re: yep, yep, yep
The biggest single problem confronting the signing agent field today is the flood of utterly unqualified SAs entering the business. The most effective way to shut down, or at least slow down, that flood is to establish threshold qualifications. As has repeatedly been shown, there is no agency capable of imposing effective eligibility requirements on a profession outside of government; that is one of its functions.
Every profession with any potential for negatively impacting the commonweal, even the clergy, must meet some sort of governmentally mandated minimum qualifications test, from doctors to pilots to EMC technicians to surveyors to truck drivers to appraisers to law enforcement officers to brokers of every sort to architects to attorneys to exterminators to paralegals to plumbers to locksmiths to -- yes, them too -- notaries. Why would a signing agent, who has the potential to expose a person's biggest personal investment to some risk, be exempt from such requirements? It makes no sense.
If we wish to see this work truly professionalized, those of us who regard ourselves as professionals should be actively seeking minimum qualifications. And, like it or not, the only reasonable route to that goal is governmental regulation. Otherwise, signing agentry is going to become characterized primarily by the incompetent and the dangerous, which will inevitably lead to governmentally imposed standards anyway.
Better to leash the lion while it is still sleeping than to wait till it is awake and hungry.
|
Reply by DianeCipa on 12/10/07 3:16pm
Msg #225367
and people wonder why I like Hugh so much LOL n/m
|
Reply by Vince/KS on 12/10/07 3:24pm
Msg #225369
birds of a feather...? n/m
|
Reply by Marlene/USNA on 12/11/07 4:45pm
Msg #225532
wrong about that
>Every profession with any potential for negatively impacting the commonweal, even the clergy, must meet some sort of governmentally mandated minimum qualifications test, from doctors to pilots to EMC technicians to surveyors to truck drivers to appraisers to law enforcement officers to brokers of every sort to architects to attorneys to exterminators to paralegals to plumbers to locksmiths to -- yes, them too -- notaries.<
No, not notaries. Minimum qualifications to become a notary in most states are a stated minimum age and no criminal history, and even that is not checked in most of those states. Very few states have mandatory education, testing or other sort of screening process in the notary application process. North Dakota? Age and residency requirements only. Oklahoma? Add a citizenship requirement. Connecticut? Get one character reference. Pennsylvania? Three hours of education for new notaries - no test - and make sure the check you pay your application fee with doesn't bounce.
If the government takes the responsibilities of a notary so lightly that it doesn't require training or testing or screening, why would it regard notary signing agents - any differently?
The lion is stuffed, Hugh.
|
Reply by DianeCipa on 12/10/07 1:29pm
Msg #225340
I have been a title agent and until a year ago not really
reading notary forums........
So, now we have an opportunity. Status quo is going down the drain and a new business model will replace it. How would you like that model to run?
|
Reply by Marlene/USNA on 12/12/07 12:17pm
Msg #225641
no further regulation, and I'm not saying please. . .
We've seen how well it doesn't work with notaries in the various states, and other licensees as well. Adding a layer of signing agent regulation to minimally regulated notaries doesn't make sense.
I'm leaning more and more toward the networks - prove your qualifications to your peers to earn your way in, keep your place by acting like the professional you purport to be. Act like a jerk and you're out.
|
Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/12/07 12:30pm
Msg #225644
Re: no further regulation, and I'm not saying please. . .
How do you feel about flying with an "unregulated" pilot, Marlene? Or having an "unregulated" surgeon work on your brain? Or an "unregulated" attorney handling your personal injury case? Or an "unregulated" (or under-regulated) loan officer selling your elderly mother an ARM refi?
I think the latter exemplifies what happens when the free market runs amok, which is what is happening now with the deteroriation in professionalism from unqualified neophyte signing agents.
|
Reply by Marlene/USNA on 12/12/07 2:25pm
Msg #225664
Re: no further regulation, and I'm not saying please. . .
Notary signing agents do not have the responsibilities of a pilot or a surgeon or an attorney, or even a lending officer.
You are trying to put regulations on people who don't need them to control the people who do. Perhaps you should be regulating the training the neophyte signing agents are getting instead of waiting until the lion is out of its cage (to use your previous analogy).
Not to point fingers (OK, I will), it's the trainers letting the lions out of the cage.
Marlene/USNA
|
Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/12/07 2:45pm
Msg #225668
Re: no further regulation, and I'm not saying please. . .
Marlene, who do you think is going to mandate adquate training for neophyte signing agents? The NNA? The only logical source of such requirements is some sort of government oversight.
|
Reply by Marlene/USNA on 12/12/07 3:51pm
Msg #225678
Re: no further regulation, and I'm not saying please. . .
That's what I meant, the government can regulate the training all they deem necessary and it will be [adequate?] [good?] [great?] [depends] training the neophytes get then, and it may or may not make a difference. No matter how much regulation you envision on either the training or the trainee, you will still see lots of stupid.
But don't expect regulation to solve the problem, because I go back to my earlier premise: What you think should be regulated is not the thing that will end up being regulated because at some point, it's out of your hands. If you seek mandatory training for signing agent wannabees, then you have to have everything that goes along with it - a way to track it, a way to police it, a way to pay for it all.
In PA, everyone interested lobbied for mandatory education for years before a bill was finally passed. The wording of the new law was so poor that a single lawsuit managed to wipe out the requirement for an entire class of notaries: Anyone who was already a notary on the date the law went into effect - great, good, adequate, bad notaries alike were instantly exempt from all training requirements. So now it's back to the drawing board for many more years to get another bill into the hopper and out the other end, but there doesn't seem to be anyone in the legislature interested in sponsoring it.
I have come to the conclusion that it's better to police yourselves and educate yourselves and create networks so you know who you are. It's harder than paying a fee to the government and taking a class, but it's more effective.
|
Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/12/07 4:07pm
Msg #225684
Re: no further regulation, and I'm not saying please. . .
Marlene, I'm not going to argue with someone whose entire philosophy on an issue is dictated by one anecdotal incident. There are 50 states in this country, God knows how many regions, counties, cities, ZIP codes, ad infinitum. Self-imposed regulation doesn't work under the best circumstances; want to go back to barbers being surgeons? And to even contemplate regulating a profession by local networks, considering the infinite number of permutations of such networks and the even greater number of ways they could screw things up, is a King Kong sized headache.
You need to take a reality check.
|
Reply by Marlene/USNA on 12/14/07 8:00am
Msg #226015
Re: no further regulation, and I'm not saying please. . .
This is only a discussion, not an argument. If you don't want to continue, then you don't have to.
Notary signing agents are not barbers or surgeons. If they're doing their jobs properly, they are nowhere near slicing anything of importance out of their customers' lives. And the key issue is "doing their jobs properly," a concept largely unrecognized in state government when it comes to legislation and regulation. You can bet that for any regulation set upon notary signing agents, the big notary association will be there to fulfill the requirements of it.
The last word is yours, Hugh, in any form you care to leave it.
|
Reply by Richard Ingram on 12/10/07 1:09pm
Msg #225332
If the loan docs are not as agreed I don't feel the borrower should pay. In most cases you are dealing with a reputable broker/lender. However, many times you are dealing with high pressure low life brokers. They want to make all they can, they will lie, cheat, steal, and do almost anything to get their fee. If the buyer cancels at the table or during the RTC time I don't have a problem with them paying. If the loan is misrepresented the broker/lender should have to pay the full fee to the abstractor and signing agent. All they really need to do is get the final HUD and term of loan info to the borrower 24 hous before signing. This would avoid most signing issues.
|
Reply by jba/fl on 12/10/07 1:37pm
Msg #225341
Hey, I need your vote!
"All they really need to do is get the final HUD and term of loan info to the borrower 24 hours before signing. This would avoid most signing issues."
If the bor. have HUD and terms 24 hrs. in advance of signing, many of these so called issues will evaporate. They (bor) will then know if the LO is pulling a fast one or has been faithful to their interests as stated all along in their (LO) sales spiel.
No matter how you cut it, the LO/broker is a saleperson, looking out for his/her interest: commission.
JMO
|
Reply by DianeCipa on 12/10/07 1:59pm
Msg #225349
what about purchase transactions?
If the UCI create opportunities for independent closers - especially due to the prohibition against lender/mortgage broker/real estate sales NSAs, to do purchase transactions, there are all kinds of other reasons for cancellations. I just think it's good to think this stuff through and think about options and alternatives.
|
