Posted by jnew on 1/25/10 9:49am
Msg #319423

finitititle contract

I have recently received a solicitation from finiti. I know they are signing up new notaries this month. Before you sign the contract, please make sure you read provision 19 of the contract. You are responsible for the payment of any intervening matters, if a security instrument is misplaced. It does not say that you have to get a subordination, but rather pay it off. My response to this is quoted:

"I can not accept provision no. 19 which relates to the consequences of misplaced documents. I have never misplaced a security instrument, but have seen it happen at my previous employer ( a title company). The lender in question placed the blame for the non-recording of a mortgage with the title company, when, in fact, the recorder did not accept the document for recording and failed to return the document to the title company for correction. The recorder sent the document to the lender ( using the return address on the document). The lender then claimed that it never received the document and required the title company to obtain a subordination of a second mortgage, which was recorded and upset the priority of the missing mortgage. I have witnessed this scenario several times in my past employment. Accepting the provisions of number 19 would create an unacceptable financial risk for me. My errors and omissions policy would probably deny coverage because of negligence and I would not have the resources to pay off any intervening matters of record."

Reply by Cari on 1/25/10 10:10am
Msg #319426

interesting...2 reasons...first that FT seems to be inching

away from using signing services (probably because they realize they can and will find a cheap notary to do their bidding at $85 or less), and second, that they're actually asking nsa's to sign a contract with provisions which I believe are geared or directed directly towards SS and not NSA's....they're probably using the same contract...someone (well you did already) should tell them to change this paragraph and make it applicable/scope of an nsa.

You def did your homework...good for you for not signing...clearly with this provision its too much of a risk.

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 1/25/10 10:24am
Msg #319427

Kudos to you for reading their contract with a business head on your shoulders! I think your wording to the company was spot on. Be sure to post their response. Great Job!

Reply by TRG_wy on 1/25/10 10:30am
Msg #319428

Kudos to you for being thouough.

Remember too that you always have the option to line through, initial/date any corrections or objections you might have to any contract.

I fear too many just blindly sign away and return.

Reply by JandB on 1/25/10 1:42pm
Msg #319446

I can't remember the details but there were at least 4 objectionable clauses in that contract not to mention the low ball fees. Tear it up...throw it away...move on the a good company. There are plenty out there.

Reply by Daniel Woodman on 3/24/10 11:20pm
Msg #328850

I just tried to reply to "Shea Osborne" and immediately got an e-mail back saying "Message Undeliverable."

?!?!