Posted by firegirl on 9/28/07 4:39pm
Msg #213708

Not backdating exactly, but need opinions please...

I got a call from a co. that I did a signing for in March 2007. It seems they lost the acknowledgement for the Mortgage and want me to do another one. Of course they want it dated for 3/26/07 and they were able to give me a copy of the 'lost' acknowledgement. The borrower actually did personally appear to me on that date, so would it be legal to date the acknowledgement for 3/26/07 in this situation?

Reply by Todd/OH on 9/28/07 4:45pm
Msg #213710

Six months later??

If you've been paid for it, I would be inclined to tell them to figure it out for themselves.

Reply by firegirl on 9/28/07 4:49pm
Msg #213712

Re: Six months later??

Yes I've been paid. It's a good company and I would like to try to accomodate them if I can...

Reply by Becca_FL on 9/28/07 4:53pm
Msg #213715

Re: Six months later??

A "mistake" like this is covered with the document correction agreement signed at closing...the borrowers must re-sign the mortgage. Let the company know that you are terribly sorry that they misplaced the original ack and won't mind going back to the borrowers to have the mortgage re-signed for a fee of $$$ and remind them that sending a loose ack is a no-no.

Reply by Raimond on 9/28/07 4:58pm
Msg #213716

I had this happen to me, but not 6 months later. I used an Acknowledgment that had a section at the bottom to record in detail the form it was related to. This way, you can accommodate them and protect yourself as well.

Reply by docs1954CA on 9/28/07 5:04pm
Msg #213720

Lost? But a copy made before that happened?HMMMM n/m

Reply by firegirl on 9/28/07 5:07pm
Msg #213723

Re: Lost? But a copy made before that happened?HMMMM

Yes they say they need a new original ack. to record the mortgage...6 months later.

btw, VERY large, reputable title co.

Reply by WDMD on 9/28/07 5:39pm
Msg #213731

Re: Lost? But a copy made before that happened?HMMMM

"Yes they say they need a new original ack. to record the mortgage...6 months later."

How do you know they are not going to attach that ack to a DOT that may have forged signatures on it? It would be easy to do a completely different DOT (different loan amount, different property, etc) forge the sig's then attach your ack. Not saying it would happen, just saying it could. I wouldn't take the chance, to easy for something to go wrong. You need to CYA and do it right.

Reply by Becca_FL on 9/28/07 5:35pm
Msg #213730

That might fly in Caly, but would not fly here in Florida.

Reply by WDMD on 9/28/07 6:36pm
Msg #213750

"I had this happen to me, but not 6 months later. I used an Acknowledgment that had a section at the bottom to record in detail the form it was related to. This way, you can accommodate them and protect yourself as well."

With all the rules Cali has, I never would have guessed they would have allowed that.

Reply by davidK/CA on 9/28/07 10:59pm
Msg #213804

New Caifornia rules

According to my Notary renewal class instructor California no longer permits the Optional Information Section on either an Acknowledgement or a Jurat. I think it's a stupid interpretation of the substitution of the word "exactly" for "substantially" in the 2007 Notary Law revisions. I personally think it removes a valuable "anti-fraud" tool from the Ack and Jurat, but technically it could be considered an invalid Ack because it has the Optional Info section printed on it. Stupid legislature. Unintended Consequences. DUH.

Reply by Barb/MO on 9/29/07 10:02am
Msg #213827

David, Joan or Terri, or anyone else who can respond

I'm questioning the instruction David relates to having received.

Let me preface this by explaining that my specialty is regulatory compliance, which, in a nutshell, is the practical application of statutes, regulations, and rules to the task at hand. I'm just wired to question an interpretation that appears faulty to me when it leads to an unnecessary and/or inappropriate change in practice, especially in an instance such as this where it's being taught as gospel to students. I don't say this to establish my credentials as an expert, but simply to explain why I'm interested in this issue at all.

As to the statement, "California no longer permits the Optional Information Section on either an Acknowledgement or a Jurat," I have no problem with that statement, interpreting it literally as made. However, what I'm interpreting David to actually be saying is that California no longer permits the Optional Information Section TO APPEAR on THE LOOSE PAGE WHICH CONTAINS either an Acknowledgement or a Jurat. David, is that what you are saying?

Would not the optional information section be considered text outside of the certificate, therefore, not affected by "the substitution of the word 'exactly' for 'substantially'"? In other words, your loose acknowledgement or jurat page contains both (1) the certificate (that begins with the jurisdiction/venue at the top and ends with the signature/seal at the bottom) and (2) the optional information section. The optional information section isn't incorporated within the certificate itself, right? It just appears on the same page where the certificate appears.

I'm assuming that the change from "substantially" to "exactly" that you speak of is as to the text within the certificate itself. Is that incorrect? Or is there a statute governing the entire text of the loose page itself? If the latter is the case, then, in the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind." :-)

Seriously, if my reasoning is faulty, I'd really appreciate an explanation as to what actually is the case here.

Reply by JAM/CA on 9/29/07 11:46am
Msg #213845

Raimond, what you did is totally illegal in California n/m

Reply by Marlene/USNA on 10/1/07 10:29am
Msg #214007

A little late in the reply, but for the record. . .

. . .they'll just snip that bottom part off and use the top portion as they please. . .

Reply by Margaret_FL on 9/28/07 5:12pm
Msg #213725

I had this happen on a loan closing after 3 months. They did not copy before sending to be recorded. Courthouse had their copy but they did not have their copy. They could not send me a copy and I declined. This company was always asking me to do things like this, it is not my fault they did not have competent employees. My thought was they were being audited and did not have these documents.

Reply by docs1954CA on 9/28/07 6:07pm
Msg #213736

Enron was reputable at one time too

It really doesn't make any difference how reputable you think they are....when it comes to fraud, it seems as though reputation goes right out the window.Do you want yours to go with it? Think about it, it will be YOU that will take the rap if somethings amiss....

Reply by Raimond on 9/28/07 6:28pm
Msg #213749

In my situation, I insisted they fax me the request on letterhead explaining what they needed and why. I have it filed away just in case.

Again, a well know title company that is still in business!

Reply by sue_pa on 9/28/07 7:42pm
Msg #213760

that is EXACTLY what backdating is

I cannot imagine any state allows 'reacknowledging' a document. I certainly could be wrong and I'm certainly not researching any state other than mine but in PA that is absolutely, positively, not allowed.

Reply by Michael Phelps on 9/28/07 8:00pm
Msg #213763

Re: that is EXACTLY what backdating is

I had this happen with a quit claim deed. I had attached an acknowledgement form because there was no statement on the deed. The SS said it was ok. 6 months later the added the acknowledgement to the form and wanted me to notarize on the form and backdate. I checked with Maryland SOS and they said no, no, no. Must have borrower resign on the doc and use current date for notarization.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 9/28/07 11:10pm
Msg #213806

It's backdating, no matter how you try to rationalize it...

In the first place, sending in a loose ack is just asking for trouble - you have no idea what it's going to be attached to.

Second, even if your journal says they signed a mortgage on 3/26/07 - and you're provided with a copy of the "lost acknowledgment" - how can you possibly know whether it's the same mortgage??

Your only option is to either get the original signed document and have the signers appear before you to acknowledge their signatures again, or get a new copy and have them sign in front of you - and your notarial block must show the date THAT happened, not the date they originally signed it.

If that doesn't sit well with the hiring company, tough. No customer is so important that you should be willing to toss ethics aside (as well as risk your commission and possible legal problems).

Reply by Teresa/FL on 9/29/07 8:50am
Msg #213823

I have done a few re-acknowledgements of mortgages

In cases where the original mortgage was lost or misplaced and did not get recorded.

I have the borrower(s) initial and sign, then fill in my acknowledgment with the current date. When the TC receives the re-acknowledged mortgage, they type a statement on it. Something like "This mortgage replaces the mortgage originally acknowledge on (date) but lost or destroyed prior to recording." That's not the exact statement but you get the idea.

This has been acceptable in Orange County, Florida. I don't know if this would be acceptable in other counties/states.