Posted by snoopdogMs on 11/4/09 6:32am
Msg #309722

Could someone enlighten me here

I have a borrower who called last evening and said that she will not sign the documents today unless they read John M. Doe or Jane M. Doe. She is a co-borrower. She will not sign if the documents have the word (and) between the names. She said that she worked in the loan business for a number of years and the use of (and or or) according to her is critical. Of course I have called the powers that be to inform them of her stand. She said that she had told someone that she would only sign that way but the docs came in last evening with (and) in between. What are the ramifications of the use of either conjunction? Any light shed here is for my curiosity only, not to be discussed with her. Over 3 years never had a borrower be concerned with that wording.

Reply by Julie/MI on 11/4/09 6:48am
Msg #309724

Ego

Sound like you have a case of super "I worked in the loans business" borrower! One of those that knows nothing but thinks they do. Thinks the way they do things is the way the everyone should do things. Egoitus Syndrome....

I think on savings/checking accounts and/or used to mean something in case one of the parties died or so both didn't need to sign the check, kinda like a survivorship clause on a deed.

YOu didn't really think for a minute that the lender was going to redraw the docs to please this person did you? Without a doubt, you refer the borrower to their loan officer and tell the party that hired you.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/4/09 7:02am
Msg #309725

She needs someone to explain to her that the words "and" and "or" may be critical in some cases, such as Janet's example of checking account, also automotive ownership ("and" ownership would require both owners to sign off on sale...."or" only needs one to transfer ownership - also applies in the case of death of one owner - one would require some court proceeding to transfer to survivor, where the other, ownership would automatically revert to single owner)...

In the case of real estate, that type of distinction is made in the title vesting when the property was purchased (and any subsequent changes that may have been made) and those words have no bearing - but you can't explain that to her - title (or her attorney) needs to convince her that the way she holds title to the property (tenants in common, survivorship, whatever your state outlines) is what controls this...

And I agree - there's a big ego here at work - and obviously not a lot of trust in her co-owner (you don't say if it's husband or not)...

Good Luck.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/4/09 7:02am
Msg #309726

Woops..that would be Julie, not Janet...COFFEE!!...:) n/m

Reply by snoopdogMs on 11/4/09 7:10am
Msg #309728

Linda, my thinking also about the spouse

as I tried to imagine what it is that she wants to accomplish with the wording.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/4/09 7:16am
Msg #309731

Re: Linda, my thinking also about the spouse

Don't know, and my best guess is SHE wouldn't be able to explain it to you either if you pinned her down for an explanation. Unless there's some provisions in MS law for this - and for that you'd have to speak to a real estate/real property attorney or a title company.

Reply by snoopdogMs on 11/4/09 9:06am
Msg #309746

Borrower just called and said she would have to sign

as the docs are printed. Then she said thats OK as she has POA if needed. Hmmm....

Reply by PAW on 11/4/09 9:10am
Msg #309747

For a loan, it is and probably always will be "and" on the documents as both parties are responsible for the repayment. In the 30+ years that I've worked in the mortgage business, I've don't remember ever seening a loan that didn't specify "and" as the conjunctive between borrowers.

Property ownership (title) is altogether different. And, to avoid the "and/or" situation, the law clearly defines the relationship in the way the title is vested. In Florida, for example, to show one spouse is clearly vested in the property, but there exists another person (a spouse in many cases) who **may** become the owner due to some later event, you may see vesting with a "joinder" statement: "John Doe, joined by his spouse, Jane Doe". (This is often used with investment property where the property is held by one person. Florida is not a community property state, so joinders are common ways for spouses to mitigate probate.)

Reply by snoopdogMs on 11/4/09 11:32am
Msg #309779

Interesting closing after all

Wife did not want me to say anything about how much money she was getting out ($16K)! or to discuss the paperwork. She said she was the bookkeeper and just follow her lead and don't say anything. She said to just pass the papers and she would pass them to him and tell him to sign. If she thought he might read, she distracted him with talk about work for the day outside! This was an older couple.

Reply by Pat/IL on 11/4/09 12:49pm
Msg #309793

Re: Interesting closing after all

Snoop, I don't think I would have lent my services to a transaction knowing that one borrower is clearly, and intentionally, keeping the other in the dark as to the details. I think I would have excused myself to put in a call to the hiring party.

Reply by snoopdogMs on 11/4/09 1:20pm
Msg #309797

It is not my call as to how a household is run

He had the opportunity to read if he chose to as he signed. Some spouses leave all the business to the other spouse. If he trusts her then that is none of my business. I also left a copy that he SAW for his reading also if he so chooses. If his mental status was questionable then a call might have been in order, but this was not the case.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/4/09 1:08pm
Msg #309794

Re: Interesting closing after all

I would have been wondering exactly what she's trying to hide....

"This was an older couple"....ugh...

All may work out fine but I agree with Pat....I don't like the smell in here..

Reply by PAW on 11/4/09 1:30pm
Msg #309801

Re: Interesting closing after all

I've had a few like that. At least similar to it. I've had a couple where one spouse freely admitted that they have nothing to do with the family finances and whatever the other spouse says to do, is what gets done. Whatever works for them, works for me. However, I wouldn't go as far as to intentionally hide any information, that I wouldn't normally say during the course of the signing. In your case I probably would have 'explained' everything to her while looking her in the eye, pointing out the information on the paper, giving her the perception that I was ignoring her husband. I don't normally say how much they are getting as cash out, but point to it on the HUD stating that's how much they're getting by check or wire, which will be discussed a bit later.

Reply by Jessc098 on 11/4/09 2:00pm
Msg #309803

Re: Interesting closing after all

Jumping in here--wow that's some closing. I'd have been uncomfortable too, though I can understand if you went through with it--after all, they were both reading the docs, and if it's a refi they've got that three days to change their mind.

It might be just me, but unless the signer has company or a complete and total lack of privacy (a signing conducted in a library or something like that) I READ ALOUD and point to those sorts of items on the HUD (wanting to avoid a situation where one party may be getting duped by another).

My reasoning is that if ever one of these closings is called into question or disputed, I'd rather it not be for something as simple as the borrowers not knowing the details on their transaction--I'd really not want to be looking back on a closing a year from now and being asked to say if a person was competent to sign, or if they truly signed on their own free will.

I don't interpert--I just point and read aloud (the purpose being that some people just can't focus on numbers written on the paper).

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/5/09 4:35am
Msg #309913

Doesn't pass the whiff test for me!

Red flags: cash-out, elderly, she has a POA 'if needed', deliberately trying to hide info from husband who IS a title-holder/borrower, and you colluded with her?!

Is the husband fully aware of what he was signing (a-hem)
Is the POA in existance because he might NOT be too aware of a lot of things?

I once was presented with this same situation - client even had borrower call me CRYING to beg me to collude with her, to keep the Hud info from her co-borrowing spouse because he didn't know she had a little spending problem that was being cleaned up.

None for me, thanks. Under-handed of them to have the woman call me direct (after I'd said no) - all she got from me was a speech about the benefits of honesty & coming clean with one's spouse.