Posted by ME/NJ on 4/24/09 12:51pm
Msg #286188

Legal question -NJ RTC

In NJ the non-borrowing spouse on a primary home needs to sign (TIL, RTC, Tiltle docs, Mortg)

Here is my question had a refi, when I called the wife answered the phone ( Noticed her name was not on any of the docs) I asked the TC about it and they said there is some loop hole about if the home was bought before 1982 they don't need to sign it)

Is this true? I saw something about it on the law books online but did not understand it.

I did what the TC wanted, but the BOs pat refis the spouse had to sign (TIL, RTC etc)

This is the first time in 8 years I had this hapen. Can anyone shed some light if they know.

Reply by MW/VA on 4/24/09 12:59pm
Msg #286192

NBS applies when they are on title, but not on the loan. Was she on title?

Reply by PAW on 4/24/09 1:13pm
Msg #286196

Being on title or not ...

... depending on state laws, a spouse may have certain rights to their principal residence. Many states call this "homestead rights". NJ does not have "homestead rights" so there are other statutes in play to protect the individual's rights to their principal residence.

Reply by PAW on 4/24/09 1:16pm
Msg #286197

Re: Being on title or not ...

Should read, "NJ does not have "homestead laws" so there are other statutes in play ...

Reply by PAW on 4/24/09 1:08pm
Msg #286194

The following is an excerpt from the Stewart Underwriting manual:

Dower and curtsey were abolished in New Jersey on May 28, 1980 for all property acquired after that date. NJSA 3B:28-2. In lieu thereof, a spouse has a 'right of joint possession' in the principal matrimonial residence. NJSA 3B:28-3. In addition, a spouse has a claim of equitable distribution in all marital assets. NJSA 2A:34-23. Although the statutes appear to permit a non-titled spouse to release any and all rights in the other spouse's real property (NJSA 2A:34-23), the case law appears to favor the non-titled spouse when a dispute arises. Arnold v. Anvil Realty, 233 N.J. Super. 481 and Wamco v, Farrell, 301 N.J. Super. 73. The non-titled spouse's 'right of joint possession' has priority over all other liens except purchase money mortgages. NJSA 3B:28-3.1. Accordingly, as a general underwriting guideline the company requires a non-titled spouse to join in a deed or mortgage by the title spouse, unless otherwise approved by state counsel.

So, if the property was purchased prior to 5/28/1980, then the spouse would not have to sign. Otherwise, the non-titled spouse would have a statutory right of joint possession.

Reply by ME/NJ on 4/24/09 1:17pm
Msg #286198

ok so she should of signed the docs. he was born in 1970 and that would put him @ 10 years old in 1980. lol

Not my call what the TC wants. Just puts her in a bad spot if if anything happens to the husband or if the husband sells the home without her knowledge or consent.

Reply by PAW on 4/24/09 1:27pm
Msg #286200

Certainly not your call. As for the husband attempting to sell the house out from under her, could result in a legal battle, in which case, the lawyers would have to make the determination of what rights she had and what rights, if any, were violated. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Of course, this whole discussion is academic amongst us as we would never offer legal advice or strategy to our clients.

Reply by sue_pa on 4/25/09 8:56am
Msg #286288

This is one of the many reasons

signing agents passing about legal advice on this board are soooooo wrong. We do not know anyone's circumstances nor do we know every nuance of the law. We may know a lot but this is a perfect example of what we don't know ... and we don't interpret what we know or think we may know. Mike did the right thing ... he checked with his client rather than 'signing agents' and his client made the decision.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/26/09 3:32am
Msg #286361

Speaking of RTCs...

I had one the other day with a couple refinancing their primary residence, but there was no RTC. It wasn't just that the docs weren't there. Their loan summary actually stated that they did not have an RTC for that loan. (It might have been an FHA, but then the last couple of days are just a blur at this point. ) I wasn't about to get into it with the borrowers, but I was wondering why that might be. Anyone have any ideas?

Reply by PAW on 4/26/09 6:47am
Msg #286367

Re: Speaking of RTCs...

One of the most common reasons that there may not be an RTC on a primary residence refi, is that there is no new money on the loan. A simple refi to reduce the interest rate, with no additional cash out (i.e. no increase in principal). As stated in 12CFR226.15(a)(1)(i) the right to rescind is required when "... a security interest when added or increased to secure an existing plan; and the increase when a credit limit on the plan is increased."