Posted by CJ on 11/13/07 11:01am
Msg #220983

Who's wrong? Them or me?

This is California. If you think I am wrong, please don't get sarcastic and huffy, just say I am wrong.

Okay: Father, mother, son, wife.

Father and mother are on the DOT
Father and son on Note.
Wife on nothing.

The wife said she was there because they told her she was going to have to sign "something". I figured it would be something like a interspousal transfer, but nothing had her name on it.

In the past, I have been told many times by various compaines, "ONLY have people sign where their name is typed".

If I start second guessing, and have people sign where their name is not typed, I could goof up the loan docs and they will have to redraw.

I did not call from the table, but I called the SS in the morning to say I thought they left out the interspousal. They said I was supposed to have the wife sign the spousals docs (DOT, TIL, RTC, Itemization), and I should KNOW that because that is the law in California. The spouse ALWAYS signs the spousal docs, even when their name is not on the DOT. I said I have signed pleanty of loans where one person owns it "sole and separate", and the spouse is not there. For me, second guessing who should sign when their name is not typed somehow is practicing law without a licence (giving advice, helping fill out forms). I have NO IDEA why they have the son on the loan but not on the DOT.

I don't want to lose this company, becuase they are the only people that have been calling me at all lately, so I don't want to upset them. I guess I am going to have to go back for free, becuase it is "my fault" for not knowing, but what I am really upset about is that they did not give me instructions. If they want me to have her sign something where her name is not typed, just tell me.

I did not call the SS from the table, so they have me there too.

So what do you think? Does the non-borrowing spouse "always" sign the spousal docs, even when the husband owns sole and separate, or in this case, not even on the DOT?

Grrrr.

But if I am wrong, and you all would not have made this mistake, just tell me. No point in being obnoxious about it.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 11/13/07 11:24am
Msg #220984

The only thing I think you were wrong about, is not calling from the table for clarification.
There are so many instances that could have been reasonable for why or why not the other
parties to the transaction should or should not sign.
The SS is also (IMO) partly to blame, if they knew about the situation and didn't give you a
heads up on the special circumstances.
Had you been working directly with the TC, I'd bet that would have been covered with you
when the docs were sent over.
<Sigh> Lack of communication is why I choose not to work with SS anymore.

Reply by janCA on 11/13/07 11:25am
Msg #220985

CJ, don't beat yourself up over this. I think the SS is wrong. The son isn't on the
DOT, why would his wife have to sign? And besides it is not your job to add names to the docs.

I just had one last week where only the wife was signing, she was not listed with sole and separate property and there were no transfer deeds. I have had this go both ways and if the name is not there, I don't have the spouse sign.

Reply by SoCal Signing Co. on 11/13/07 11:25am
Msg #220986

CJ,
California is not automatically a non borrowing spouse State. Lenders instructions should help determine what the lender needs. Often it will be listed on the lenders instructions but not actually typed on the signature line.

You do however always look at the vesting to determine who should sign the "legals". Sometimes lenders will not type the non borrowering persons name on the legal signature line and the signing agent needs to review the vesting to determine who signs. (this is for california)

barring the lenders instructions do not ask the wife to sign legals,
The only thing the signing services has you on is not calling them at the closing table.

Reply by CaliNotary on 11/13/07 11:35am
Msg #220987

"The only thing the signing services has you on is not calling them at the closing table."

Why on earth would you call the signing service from the closing table in this situation? If the spouse isn't on title, there's no reason to have her sign anything, nor is there a reason to double check.

It's not our job to guess how the docs are suppose to be when there's nothing obviously missing or wrong with them, it's our job to get signed whatever they send us to get signed.

CJ, if I were you I wouldn't just let this slide by going out and fixing it for free. You didn't do anything wrong, and they obviously need some education about what the laws in CA are. Otherwise you're going to be running into similar and unnecessary problems with this company in the future.

Reply by SoCal Signing Co. on 11/13/07 12:12pm
Msg #220991

I guess it depends on the confirmation of the SS. I have not seen it, some SS ask for calls during the signing, if there are any questions. There was a question.
CJ thought to call about this question after the signing, calling during might of been good.

I am not sure that fixing something for free is the issue.

CJ wants to keep her client happy, and figure out what if anything she did wrong.

Signing Agents are more than notary publics; we are trained to know the documents that are being signed. Learning what our state requires and reading the lenders instructions and the vesting will help.

Lenders make mistakes all the time on documents, when a signing agent can fix the problem before a delay ensues the signing agent is the hero. (thats the idea anyway). If in doubt make a call.

CJ I hope this is helping.

Reply by CaliNotary on 11/13/07 8:48pm
Msg #221065

"I am not sure that fixing something for free is the issue.

CJ wants to keep her client happy, and figure out what if anything she did wrong."

That's exactly my point. CJ didn't do anything wrong, but the client thinks she did because they're wrong about CA law when it comes to spouses signing docs. CJ needs to make sure they learn the correct law in CA so this issue doesn't arise again in the future. If having the spouse sign is their own policy that's one thing, but if they're doing it because they think it's required in CA, they need to be set straight.

Reply by Kelly_WA on 11/13/07 11:42am
Msg #220988

Good morning CJ, I just wanted to share with you some of my experience. I am no authourity on CA closings; however, in WA anytime an individual is married their spouse must sign the security docs. Unless there is a quit claim deed releasing their interest in the property. Now the son being on the loan but not on title sounds like a title problem. Nevertheless, if this is indeed a client that you would like to remain in good standings with I would recommend keeping them happy. Upon receiving the docs I like to take a quick look over to see if any thing appears out of the ordinary or to see if anything is missing from the file. I have received files without riders and disclousers that are typically standard to a loan file. Sometimes stuff just happens. The title company is counting on you to be knowledgable in your field so often times they won't explain because they expect you to know the basic rules of closing their loan. Unless pointed out to them that there is a question concerning vesting, they will not micromanage as most signing companies do. Being that this was contracted through a SS they may have been ignorant to the rules or unaware of the details of that particular loan. Just a little rule of thumb that I use, it is always better to ask before and be write than to ask after and be wrong.

I hope this helps you and good luck in the future. Please do not misinterperet any part of this message as sarcasim as that was not my intent.

Reply by Ralph Wedertz on 11/13/07 2:29pm
Msg #221015

I am an ex-California notary now working in New Mexico for the past 6 years. I am not sure calling the signing company would have taken care of anything. The loan officer or escrow officer should be available to answer the question, but oft times they are not. I think that the title company and the lender are sort of screwed up - this is a very weird loan.

If you get the docs in advance (e-docs or via overnight) you get a chance to review the docs and make a call. I have learned that's the best thing to do, every time. Where docs go to borrower, you have to be a quick study, review docs quickly and determine if something is goofy. There certainly was in this instance. I guess my question is what reason does the son have to sign the loan if he isn't on the DOT? I see about five issues that need to be answered before you complete the signing.

I have had many companies send me docs (NM is a spousal state/community property) and they just say have the wife sign the spousal docs. No signature, nothing. A long time ago I kept a list in my briefcase of what needed to be signed. Now it's just memorized. Making the call would have been your best bet, but as I say, the signing company will usually have no idea what you are even talking about. Many of them are staffed with people who just make phone calls, while some others are actually run by signing agents.

Don't beat yourself up over this one, but let the signing company know you feel badly, and you hope that this does not affect your future relationship. Good Luck.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/14/07 12:59am
Msg #221089

I think the DOT vesting is the issue...

[This is kind of a mish-mash response to several of the posts above.]

"Father and mother are on the DOT"

This is where I think the problem lies -- unless I misunderstand your post. (You also said the wife was on nothing...) IF both of them were listed on the vesting on page 1, then I would have expected to see the wife's signature on the DOT and the legals. If not, I think this definitely indicates a call to someone. Depending on who my client was, I would either call the ss (if I felt there was someone there who would actually know) or most likely try to directly contact the eo, if it was during business hours. Whenever possible I try to look at the vesting before I leave for an appointment because I've seen so many problems in this area before. More times than I can count, I've been able to prevent a problem at the table this way.

However, if the vesting was only in the husband's name as "sole and separate", I wouldn't give it another thought and wouldn't even consider having the wife sign (unless I've been specifically instructed to do so, which has happened). This is a very common occurence in my experience, and the particulars are none of my business. Occasionally, a package with this vesting will have included a Quit Claim or Interspousal Deed, (as you clearly know) but for all we know, they also could have been previously recorded. It's when these details don't line up that a phone call is in order, imo.

As for the son, I'm not aware of any reason why he couldn't be on the Note and not on the DOT. Two separate issues -- and none of my business!! Naturally, I'm only talking about California here...

CJ, if I were you, I'd probably suck this one up and keep the client, even though I don't exactly agree with their statement. The reason is that you assumed that there was an interspousal - or should be - even though you said the wife was on the DOT. (Or not??) It could just as easily have been an error in how the vesting was shown or, as it apparently turned out to be in this case (??), that they just left her name off the signature lines. BUT as I said above, if the vesting was sole and separate, I probably would have done the same as you. It still might be worth it to you to eat this one in the interest of keeping a good client, but try to set them straight about CA law.

Or am I missing something here?

Reply by CaliNotary on 11/14/07 3:20am
Msg #221097

Re: I think the DOT vesting is the issue...

"Or am I missing something here?"

Yes, there are 4 people, not 3. Father, mother, son, son's wife.