Posted by DianeCipa on 1/20/08 8:03am
Msg #231485
UCI comments
I sent an e-mail to the MBA this week. I've said before that I really like the UCI and expect that, if implemented, they'll create a better closing experience for most borrowers.
Comments:
Since I work in a tablefunded state and sometimes work with lenders who are used to escrow states, it would be nice if the UCI could identify which states are which. This way lenders who want to do business in Pennsylvania will recognize our status and work with the tablefunding system.
That said, tablefunding does require money and the UCI do a good job of tying the settlement agent to the lender's approval for disbursement but they don't speak to the need for the lender to actually have the money in the settlement agent's escrow account in time for closing. We do have some lenders who won't wire until they have received a fax from the table which defeats the entire tablefunding setup and angers the parties who sit at the table expecting a disbursement.
Lastly, I'd like to suggest that the UCI committee define carefully the word "employee" to clear the air and put everyone on the same page. Whether through training directives or in the UCI themselves, we do seem to need clarification. The meaning of the word employee has been hotly debated on notary forums.
All in all, it was a job well done and those who spent the many many hours it must have taken to create the UCI deserve our applause.
|
Reply by sue_pa on 1/21/08 12:20pm
Msg #231641
a situation of 'on paper' is great. In reality ...
Countrywide sent docs to borrower ahead of time. Isn't this one of the items pointed out supposedly to be in our benefit at the table? I show up and, of course they haven't looked at them because someone at Countrywide wrote in a big fat smelly marker "do not open unless in the presence of the notary" I did try to call to be sure they opened and reviewed the docs; however, I only had a work number so that didn't do me any good.
|
