Posted by DianeCipa on 12/3/07 4:40pm
Msg #224039
mba meeting
I saw a few familiar names on the roster. Lots to digest.
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/3/07 4:45pm
Msg #224040
Re: A very interesting workshop... n/m
| Reply by CTS10866 on 12/4/07 6:58am
Msg #224129
Re: A very interesting workshop...
I agree. I just wish I could have adjusted the slideshow to a larger size in my browser. I was trying to get my husband to watch and listen with me but he didn't like the tiny screen (smile).
| Reply by Linda Juenger on 12/3/07 4:54pm
Msg #224041
Can you give us a brief (if that's possible) synopsis g/b/u n/m
| Reply by DianeCipa on 12/3/07 5:22pm
Msg #224048
Re: Can you give us a brief (if that's possible) synopsis g/
I think I need to sleep on it some before really writing about it, but here are a few items I made specific notes on:
The mortgage lenders want to reduce the control of the mortgage broker at the table.
No back-dating permitted, period.
Need federal or state issued - current photo ID - OR mortgage lender must approve any other form of ID before you close.
Will be back.
| Reply by Linda Juenger on 12/3/07 5:31pm
Msg #224052
Thanks n/m
| Reply by DianeCipa on 12/3/07 6:29pm
Msg #224057
thoughts?
BTW - They have a link to the presentation on the MBA site if you weren't able to hear it live.
What I think is most interesting is that title people have wanted this for so long. Every year at every meeting all eveyrbody did was complain about instructions and how they were so hard to understand and teach. Finally, the mortgage community has stepped up to the plate mainly - I think - to incorporate fraud prevention. That's where the "closing employee" comes in.
They clearly want the Settlement Agent to HIRE the Signing Agent, if one is being used, and they clearly want the Settlement Agent to be RESPONSIBLE for the actions of a Signing Agent.
We've read this in the instructions but they reiterated that the "closing employee" may be either an employee of the Settlement Agent or may be the Signing Agent.
Lenders will be sending their documents IN THE ORDER they want them presented to the borrower. This means the "closing employee" must conform to the lender's preferred closing structure. It is likely that the TIL will be the first document presented.
Before the closing starts, the "closing employee" must provide an explanation to the borrower of the closing process.
Lenders are to have their documents to the Settlement Agent 48 hours before closing.
The Settlement Agent is to have the HUD prepared and a document set to the borrower 24 hours in advance of closing. This should go a long way towards eliminating wasted trips.
It does appear, then that the documents would go to the Settlement Agent who would then transmit them to the "closing employee".
The big change is in the role of fraud prevention. The "closing employee" is expressly supposed to be the mortgage lender's eyes and ears at the closing table. There will be a fraud prevention contact in the instructions. There is a set of circumstances which if observed can cause the "closing employee" to stop the closing. They are expected to contact the fraud prevention person for instructions. There's a good chance that the contact may have to be in writing and the response may not be immediate.
Mortgage lenders are very clear that they wish to NOT CLOSE fraudulent transactions. They appear to believe that mortgage brokers are the source of much of the fraud and thus they really do not want the "closing employee" taking their order from a mortgage broker.
I raised the issue of payment to the "closing employee" in the case of a transaction not closing. It seems ludicrous to me to expect a human being to police the closing and stop is to protect the mortgage lender when doing so will eliminate their chance for remuneration. I personally think it's a conlfict of interest and that the MBA and ALTA need to work through a solution otherwise their fraud prevention won't be very effective. I'm not saying no one would stop a closing but if you really want eyes and ears working FOR you, you should pay them. Oh, well. Anyway...
The "closing employee" may NOT be the lender or its employee, the mortgage broker or its employee, the real estate broker, agent or their employee.
I am sorry but someone will have to tell me how signing services fit into this kind of scenario. I've said that before.
Also, as to whether or not these instructions will be used by all lenders. They won't be mandatory but since most large lenders will adopt them, they are likely to be popular.
Countrywide and Wells Fargo employees helped to draft the proposal. I understand CW already uses a version. Also, I heard that CW just stopped allowing mortgage broker owned title agencies to close their own wholesale transactions.
| Reply by Terri Garner on 12/3/07 6:56pm
Msg #224058
Re: thoughts?
Diane, I have to agree, where in this does the Signing Service fit? Seems that the title will either need to perform the closing in their office. If they can't, find their own Notary Signing Agent, list that agent on the HUD.
Yes, I agree that payment would need to be made, whether or not the closing takes place, for the exact reasons that you quoted.
Thank you for providing this information.
Terri
Lancaster, CA
| Reply by DianeCipa on 12/3/07 10:27pm
Msg #224106
Re: thoughts?
You're welcome, Terri.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 12/3/07 7:03pm
Msg #224059
Re: thoughts?
The "closing employee" may NOT be the lender or its employee, the mortgage broker or its employee, the real estate broker, agent or their employee. I am sorry but someone will have to tell me how signing services fit into this kind of scenario. I've said that before.
==========
Diane, what part of the process makes you believe that signing companies are in the employee of mortgage brokers? If one of them doesn't pay me, I'm going to the title company to complain. The tc is generally the next one up the ladder for me...however, that having been said, I have heard of lenders "calling" for certain SSs.
Maybe if you could be clear on what you believe an SS does, or how this thing works we might learn something and we might have something to offer you.
Right now, all I know about your perspective is that you don't think SSs should be in this chain anywhere.
Do not get me wrong. I am not a SS owner, sponsor, promoter, handler, fondler or anything else. I like to get my work directly from TCs but I don't understand why you see the SS as worse than the SA.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 12/3/07 10:18pm
Msg #224102
Re: thoughts?
Hi, Brenda:
That post contained separate thoughts. I was tired and just getting some thoughts out there. You've lumped two together that are not related.
The statement on signing services was general and not related to the previous and separate statement about lenders, etc.
Feel free to correct me but I do not think signing services act as settlement agents. I also do not think they hire NSAs as employees.
If I am reading the definition of a "closing employee" correctly:
“Closing Employee” means the individual employed by Signing Agent or Settlement Agent who is directly responsible for supervising the Signing of the Loan Documents and who is present at the Signing for the purpose of procuring Borrower’s signature on Loan Documents.
the person at the table "procuring signatures" is an either the settlement agent or signing agent or an employee of either. So, the signing agent can be an individual who is an independent contractor but they must be hired by the settlement agent and the line of communication is direct - not through a third party.
Am I reading this right, folks?
| Reply by BrendaTx on 12/4/07 6:01am
Msg #224128
Re: thoughts?
**That post contained separate thoughts. I was tired and just getting some thoughts out there. You've lumped two together that are not related.**
I shortened the quoted part of the post by removing the paragraph break. It was not done to misquote you or to lump anything together which was unrelated as I thought that was the context of your thoughts.
That's why I asked the question.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 12/4/07 6:16pm
Msg #224297
Re: thoughts?
Oh, ok. Thanks. No problem. For some reason I was brain dead yesterday. Today I feel ready to write!
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/3/07 7:43pm
Msg #224062
Re: thoughts?
<< They clearly want the Settlement Agent to HIRE the Signing Agent, if one is being used, and they clearly want the Settlement Agent to be RESPONSIBLE for the actions of a Signing Agent.>>
That may eliminate the use of signing services, which would not be a bad thing (although I'm sure there's a way to finagle around those requirements, as stated). It would probably be more effective if they just outright prohibited the use of a broker to hire a Signing Agent; that definitely throws the problem back into the lap of the settlement agent, and it's not like they can't do exactly what the SS are doing now - find us on NotRot or similar sites, build a database, etc. Lord knows if that will ever happen, but we can dream....
<<Lenders will be sending their documents IN THE ORDER they want them presented to the borrower. This means the "closing employee" must conform to the lender's preferred closing structure. It is likely that the TIL will be the first document presented.>>
I have my own preferred order of document presentation, but what's suggested is much better than the hodge-podge we normally get (and no, I don't put the documents back in the order I received them, unless specifically instructed to do so). TIL first? That's debatable - I would prefer to start with the HUD1, because if there's going to be a problem, that's where it will surface 99.9% of the time. For me, it's HUD1, TIL, RTC, Note, and Mortgage - they have it in a nutshell at that point, and after that it's whatever has to be notarized, and then everything else.
<<Lenders are to have their documents to the Settlement Agent 48 hours before closing.
The Settlement Agent is to have the HUD prepared and a document set to the borrower 24 hours in advance of closing. This should go a long way towards eliminating wasted trips.>>
As the saying goes - from your mouth to God's ears... No more email docs 15 minutes after the scheduled appointment - what a concept!
<<The big change is in the role of fraud prevention. The "closing employee" is expressly supposed to be the mortgage lender's eyes and ears at the closing table. There will be a fraud prevention contact in the instructions. There is a set of circumstances which if observed can cause the "closing employee" to stop the closing.>>
Will we be allowed to bring a police escort? Seriously, people who will attempt mortgage fraud are, by definition, not nice people. The potential for a violent confrontation in a situation like this is very real, and to put an SA in the position of having to stop a closing at a private location on suspicion of fraud is just stupid. It makes mores sense to have the SA report the problem AFTER the signing completes and they are out of harm's way, and let the lender deal with it then.
Just my thoughts on what you posted...
| Reply by BrendaTx on 12/3/07 7:56pm
Msg #224065
Re: thoughts?
**Seriously, people who will attempt mortgage fraud are, by definition, not nice people. The potential for a violent confrontation in a situation like this is very real, and to put an SA in the position of having to stop a closing at a private location on suspicion of fraud is just stupid. It makes mores sense to have the SA report the problem AFTER the signing completes and they are out of harm's way, and let the lender deal with it then.**
I totally agree with this. We are not police, but we are able to report a problem. I've said exactly what Mike has said before...people who will attempt to swindle thousands of dollars are not nice people. Who knows what will set them off. Have the SA report it, not stop it and raise ire among the criminals.
| Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/3/07 9:19pm
Msg #224092
Mike
Closing employee and signing agent are not the same thing. I would assume that we report fraud to the settlement agent.
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/3/07 10:10pm
Msg #224101
Re: Mike
<<Closing employee and signing agent are not the same thing. I would assume that we report fraud to the settlement agent.>>
Actually, as illogical as it seems, "closing employee" and "signing agent" can be the same person under this scenario. I'm still waiting for an explanation about how an "employee" can be an independent contractor, but we may have to wait for the IRS to weigh in on that one...
| Reply by DianeCipa on 12/3/07 10:22pm
Msg #224103
Re: Mike
Under these instructions, Mike, the "closing employee" is whoever is "procuring signatures" and if that person is YOU, the "closing employee" is also the signing agent.
The instructions require that the "closing employee" - YOU - report the fraud to the "fraud contact" identified in the SPECIFIC closing instructions.
| Reply by jba/fl on 12/3/07 11:26pm
Msg #224115
report the fraud to the "fraud contact"
I think I read that that had to be in writing? So not necessarily stop the closing, but continue, and then the fraud contact will deal with suspected issue? Which brings back to payment, because if I suspect fraudulent ID, circumstances, statements that lead me to believe there are significant untruths, etc., and the deal goes sour, yet I have performed my duty(ies), then I expect to be paid.
| Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/4/07 12:08pm
Msg #224203
Re: Mike
Yet they contradict themselves in qq from earlier in the definitions
qq. “Signing Agent” means any Person, other than an employee of Settlement Agent, who is designated by Settlement Agent to supervise the Signing of the Loan Documents.
The IRS is clear about what constitutes an independent contractor or self employed person. They need to clarify this point and not treat the SA as an employee at all or start sending out the w2's...a night mare in itself
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/4/07 1:25pm
Msg #224225
Re: Mike
I think they just need to find a phrase other than "closing employee", because "employee" has legal ramifications. If the function of this individual is to collect signatures, why not "signature collector" - at least that DESCRIBES the function...
| Reply by DianeCipa on 12/4/07 6:18pm
Msg #224298
Re: Mike
That's a very good point we should include as we all comment. Non-members can comment. I hope everyone who is concerned does.
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/3/07 8:32pm
Msg #224073
Re: thoughts?...mine and how I took it
The "Closing Employee" is the person at the table that the borrower sees - the person in charge of signing the loan - the Signing Agent...The Settlement Agent is responsible for the actions of the Closing Employee (us) .... I think this could be the beginning of the end of SS's as we've known them. I don't see Signing Services fitting into this at all...since the Settlement Agent is directly responsible for all actions of the Signing Agent, I'd imagine they're not going to risk a middleman - too many hands in the soup spoil the broth, so to speak. JMHO
(and a quick aside - I hope they ditch that Closing Employee designation...IMO if the Settlement Agent hires us, we could be called "Settlement Representatives" - but I personally don't want to be an employee)...
Also gone will be the days of late docs and surprises at the table - mandatory that lenders get the docs to Settlement Agent 48 hours in advance...mandatory that Borrowers have docs and HUD 24 hours in advance for review...if you have a signing scheduled and the borrower has not seen the docs, no signing. Also, as to all those preliminary disclosures tha we have to get signed at the table with a very old date on them...no more - NO backdating, even on the prelim disclosures signed at the table....if they come in with a pre-printed old date, the borrowers sign with the current date - period.
Diane, they sure did dance around your question about payment...TWICE!! Both on the phone AND the one you posted on the website...
The best thing I came away with is the validation of the Signing Agent in the equation - and no hint of limiting OUR role in the process...that was encouraging.
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/3/07 8:59pm
Msg #224082
Re: One more thing came to mind...
"Countrywide and Wells Fargo employees helped to draft the proposal. I understand CW already uses a version. Also, I heard that CW just stopped allowing mortgage broker owned title agencies to close their own wholesale transactions. "
Funny - Countrywide in danger of sinking, Bank of America has bailed them out a bit, and no BofA input or rep participating...
| Reply by JK/TX on 12/3/07 9:21pm
Msg #224094
Re: One more thing came to mind...
Didn't BOA get out of the wholesale lending?
| Reply by sue_pa on 12/4/07 8:23am
Msg #224146
Re: thoughts?
How does this truly e/affect us in the field? The majority of this concerns those above us in the chain.
Docs ahead of time - one lender I work for has implemented a new system where the HUD is sent to the borrower 24 hours ahead of time and borrowers must sign a form indicating they've received/reviewed (forget how they word it) 24 hours in advance. Borrower is pulling in driveway when I am coming back from Staples where his HUD sat for 24 hours - he was too busy to run over the day before; borrower can't open e-mail sent to her; borrower didn't have paper so the fax came through on paper that already had printing on it (completely unreadable) - and this is within the past month or so since they implemented this new procedure. I reported this each and every time when I called in my confirmation and NO ONE CARED - nor did borrowers who signed the form and who LOVE this lender (as do I). What about now - docs to borrowers - while I don't do a lot of these, I specifically tell them they MUST open and look at their set prior to my arrival. 1/2 of them fail to do so because they've been 'busy'.
What is different other than Diane's implication that signing services will go by the wayside?(won't happen because they'll find a loop hole).
I like the id part - I think each and every one of us in the field now would each and every time like to see unexpired, government issued photo id at the table. However, these instructions give the lender the ability to accept something else - they do already - how many times have we seen a list of acceptable id and a utility bill or library card is included as one of the support forms? Other than the few remaining states that allow a notary total leeway in their id requirements, that's just ridiculous.
Fraud? Of course it happens. But how often do we spot it at the table? Never in all my years and my thousands and thousands of closings. Quite often when it's one of those big fraud schemes, everyone involved is a crook - the builder, broker, appraiser, title company, etc. In our little piece of the pie, we don't continue forward now with a closing if we suspect someone is under duress, doesn't have id to prove who they are, incapacity to sign, etc. Maybe I'm naive and don't understand what we're to be spotting at the table when all we have in front of us are a set of loan docs and a set of borrowers with (hopefully) valid id.
No backdating? Those requests aren't initiated at our level but by someone up the ladder. I do note that several years ago one of my largest lenders - nationally known and well respected - was my biggest back dater requester. Their instructions even contained a boxed paragraph stating that loan fraud won't be tolerated. Perhaps the corporate big wigs didn't tolerate loan fraud but those on the street level did - because they were producing docs with the previous day's date on them. Backdating will never, ever stop.
| Reply by janCA on 12/3/07 7:24pm
Msg #224061
Re: Can you give us a brief (if that's possible) synopsis g/
Interesting note about the ID. This may possibly eliminate the CW's when it concerns loan docs. I like that. And maybe the lender will require a copy of the ID at the beginning of the loan process instead of at the end. This would certainly eliminate ID issues at the table. Name on the docs will coincide with name on ID. Geez, what a novel (sp) idea.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 12/3/07 9:04pm
Msg #224087
Small but significant point on names
Name on docs corresponds with ID. Unfortunately, the name on the docs has to correspond with 'how they took title', which may or may not be the same as their ID. i.e, took title as John Jacob Smith. ID says John J. Smith. Or--oh the horror--man (& wife) bought house as John Jacob Smith and then they had a son--named him John Jacob Smith, Jr. Mr. Proud Papa at some point must get new DL and now is John Jacob Smith, Sr... uh-oh.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 12/3/07 10:26pm
Msg #224105
Re: Small but significant point on names
Well, you can be sure we'll be talking about the ID issue with everyone from the day we get the title order AND we'll be giving training sessions to our lenders so THEY know what we're dealing with here.
| Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/3/07 8:16pm
Msg #224070
Hooray! Progress! (But I need to hear more.) n/m
| Reply by Lora/FL on 12/4/07 1:14pm
Msg #224217
Re: mba meeting-keep the fires lit
It's speak now or forever hold your peace. I would challenge each of you that take stock in the future of your career to speak up and send your comments to the powers that be. It's not a matter of "if" this is going to happen but more like a matter of "when"-how long will it take? Who knows exactly but it is moving forward for 2008. If you feel strongly about making a difference, send in a comment. If ID is your biggest thorn, or maybe backdating, or stressing the importance of getting the docs to the borrower's within the required time frame, send in those comments or suggestions! You don't have to necessarily come up w/ a new gripe/suggestion, but if you feel something they have already outlined is very important, show your support OR if you disagree w/ something, voice that as well. If you feel you should be compensated whether the loan funds or not ( like the appraiser ) then TELL THEM SO! Now is your time to be heard.
|
|
