Posted by John_NorCal on 3/20/07 9:06pm
Msg #180963
Can you believe this?
Got the following email from an ss in regards to a request from a title company. Mind you I haven't worked for this ss in over a year. The title co screwed up and now they want me to put my commission on the line for them. If they think I'll help them out then I guess I can sell them some swamp land in Needles, CA.
______________________________________________________________
Hope all is well! I was contacted by an escrow officer regarding a
file that you had assisted with. The county was doing audits of their files
and noticed that the legal description was not included with the recording.
Escrow needs to re-record the DOT with the legal description. Could you
create an acknowledgment for this doc and send to the EO below?
_______________________________________________________________
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 3/20/07 9:15pm
Msg #180966
Hahahahaha!
Email the SS back and let them know that this is one of the reasons the lenders & TCs include compliance agreements with their packages. Let the SS know that you will be more than happy to return to the borrowers to re-execute the DOT for a fee.
What are they thinking?
|
Reply by TitleGalCA on 3/20/07 10:53pm
Msg #180983
I seriously doubt that it was the "county" that was doing the audit - they could care less. More likely the lender, who in turn contacted the ss, who in turn ignorantly thought this was an easy fix for the original notary (not).
It's not a fatal flaw and as long as the address within the DOT was correct it will be posted to the correct property; also the lender has a policy of title insurance with the correct legal. They're making a mountain out of a molehill.
But John - it couldn't hurt to offer up that swamp land - who knows? You might make a sale!
|
Reply by John_NorCal on 3/20/07 11:13pm
Msg #180990
Well I responded to the ss and to the tc. Also pasted a copy of the notary handbook section on acknowledgements. Then I threw in the offer for the swamp land. Think they'll bite?? I believe the new notation for them is (_?_)
|
Reply by ReneeK_MI on 3/21/07 7:06am
Msg #181004
Question on re-record
Hey there =)
Not that we're buying the story they gave, BUT - if they did indeed have to do a re-record, couldn't they just attach the legal and submit for re-recording? Would they even need to dink around with having it signed/notarized over again?
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 3/21/07 7:40am
Msg #181012
Re: Question on re-record - and a great question it is..
Renee':
We would call it it a "correction deed." (Or, as I have learned from my course at the Prestegard Polysyllabic and Expanded Morpheme Usage Institute, a "rectification instrument."
In my experience as a legal asst. correction deeds need to be signed.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 3/21/07 7:50am
Msg #181015
OT - Lisa - regarding "rectification instrument"
Dear Professor Poly-Syl:
What do you think?
Can this dual polysyllable utterance be improved upon to render it accurate as to land transfer? I feel I fell short of the original intent. Please help.
Thank you,
Mono-Syl Scholar - a Work in Progress
|
Reply by Brad/AZ on 3/21/07 9:56am
Msg #181058
Re: Question on re-record
As long as the legal description is referenced on the DOT as an attachment (Exhibit A or something) then they should be able to just put add the page and send it back to the county for re-recording. That's all the mortgage company I work for does for this type of correction (hundreds of times, removing unnecessary riders or adding riders or attachments that were supposed to be recorded originally). Some counties are stricter than others, but this sounds like it is just and obvious omission that doesn't change the terms of the loan so it shouldn’t be a big deal.
|
Reply by SheilaSJCA on 3/21/07 9:04am
Msg #181048
Re: Can you believe this? Yes...
I Believe It! I had a very similar situation. The title company (located in Southern CA- I am in Northern CA , as is, the property) wanted me to just send them a new acknowledgement to go with the DOT (that they would attach with the now correct legal description) dated for the current day- (same as if saying these people appeared before me! ) then they would resubmit to the county for re-recording. Title did not want to bother the borrowers to re-sign (or admit to them that they made an error) Of course, I refused. I ended up going back several days later with a fresh DOT to get signed and notarized with current dates. The title company didn't want to pay me either, the SS that hired me shelled out the funds to send me back out, even though it was escrows mistake.
|
Reply by NCLisa on 3/21/07 11:45am
Msg #181088
Just re-record the original with a legal!
Then you don't need a new notary ack. All they are doing is correcting mistake in the DT, happens all the time. The lender should have the original.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 3/21/07 11:52am
Msg #181091
Re: Just re-record the original with a legal!
Greater minds are making me wonder if a re-record such as this will fly in Texas - or to wonder why we re-did as a correction deeds in the first place. My experience tapped into is from the past of 15 years ago. I will ask around and see what they say in the more current setting.
|
Reply by TitleGalCA on 3/21/07 12:25pm
Msg #181105
It's not that simple in some counties
Some County Recorders (mine included) require another signature AND another acknowledgement. Other counties can simply type on the original DOT "this document is being rerecorded to correct the legal description" and it's done. Sure the lender has the original, along with a policy of title insurance with the correct legal.
John could tell his SS to go back to the TC and see what is required in his area - but perhaps they already know that which is why the request was made in the first place.
Either way? It's not that big a deal.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 3/21/07 12:26pm
Msg #181108
Re: It's not that simple in some counties
Thanks Tittler...I think that's a pretty good explanation of why we have all the differing answers.
|
Reply by TitleGalCA on 3/21/07 12:30pm
Msg #181109
Yes'm - that does splain things..... =) n/m
|
