Posted by pat/WA on 7/9/10 12:59pm
Msg #344339

settlor

I have never had anyone sign as settlor before. Anyone know what the wording should be?

Reply by MW/VA on 7/9/10 1:37pm
Msg #344353

Call the party that hired you.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 7/9/10 2:06pm
Msg #344358

"In law a settlor is a person who settles property on express trust for the benefit of beneficiaries. In some legal systems, a settlor is also referred to as a trustor, or occasionally, a grantor or donor.[1] "

Wikopedia

Reply by pat/WA on 7/9/10 2:55pm
Msg #344364

I looked this up oon the internet.
What I would like to know is if they sign as settlor of the family living trust.
I did call the company that hired me and they have not returned my call.
Frustrated

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/9/10 3:05pm
Msg #344365

I agree it's best to ask your client, but if you can't reach them, I would just have them sign their same signature, without anything following it.

Most of the time, the settlors of a trust are the same parties as the trustees and the trustors. Usually you have a couple who create a trust for their own benefit, maintaining control over any decisions regarding the trust. That's what those different titles refer to.

Because of California's onerous probate laws, I see tons of properties in trusts, but there seems to be nearly as many different ways of handling it when the borrowers don't want to take the property out of the trust to refinance - and I certainly don't blame them! There are some title companies that will not take responsibility for helping to get the property back into the trust! Oh well... I just deal with what I have in the package!

Reply by pat/WA on 7/9/10 3:09pm
Msg #344366

These borrowers have to sign as individuals, as trustees and as settelors. I am just concerned about the wording following their signatures. Do they sign as John Doe, John Doe Trustee of the family trust and John Doe Settlor of the family trust.
Thanks for your help.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/9/10 9:42pm
Msg #344405

I wrote this reply earlier, then got busy printings docs and never hit "Post". Just in case it's not too late, thought I'd post this anyway...

The answer I'm getting most frequently these days - and I suppose there could be differences from state to state - is to have them sign just "John Doe" on each of the three lines. On a rare occasion, I'll be told to have them sign "John Doe, Trustee" on the one where it says "trustee" under the line, but I don't seem to get that very often anymore. This seems to vary by lender, also, BTW. However, I don't recall ever being told to have then sign more than their name (i.e. just "John Doe") above the "settlor" line.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 7/9/10 3:27pm
Msg #344370

***I would just have them sign their same signature, without anything following it.***

I'd have to disagree with that. If someone is signing in a representative capacity, that needs to be clearly indicated. Without explicit instructions, I would make it simply John Doe, individually; John Doe, trustee; and John Doe, settlor (or trustor).

And hope that no one is exercising a power of attorney, in which case you should bring your lunch to the closing.

Reply by pat/WA on 7/9/10 3:30pm
Msg #344371

Thanks - Do I have them sign John Doe Settlor for the Doe Family trust or just John Doe, Settlor

Reply by Linda Juenger on 7/9/10 3:40pm
Msg #344372

Pat, When is this signing? Its only 1:30 your time. You should be able to reach someone at whoever hired you. Keep trying. Are there any other numbers on the confirmation? Email them back to the same confirmation email you recieved and mark it urgent. This could be very touchy and without exact instructions, most of us wouldn't know how they wanted it either.

Reply by MW/VA on 7/9/10 3:51pm
Msg #344375

Best advice! n/m

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/9/10 4:33pm
Msg #344384

Pat, please listen to Linda's advice here

No matter how many people think they know, including the former attorney, we can not answer this for you. I have personally seen lender's/title companies require it both ways. Some say borrower signs ONLY their name, not trustee, or settlor, or any other capacity. Others want the wording. Only your hiring party can tell you what they require.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 7/9/10 5:59pm
Msg #344390

Pat, the advice of some poster's is worthless

***No matter how many people think they know, including the former attorney, we can not answer this for you.***

And Pat, if you have a signing, and if you can't get in touch with your hiring party before the signing, this former attorney would STILL recommend that you indicate solely the representative capacity of the signers without anything further. i.e., "individually," "trustee," and "settlor." The alternative is to cancel the signing until you can get the input of the hiring party. I personally have never run across a case, in either my signing agent career or my career as an attorney, where indicating the representavtive capacity was deemed incorrect. On the other hand, I have more than once seen signings challenged where a party was acting in a representative capacity, and did not so indicate.

It is of little help when in your original post you state you are unable to reach the hiring party, and a subsequent poster tells you not to do anything till you talk to the hiring party. That's much like offering a drowning man a glass of water to quench his thirst.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 7/9/10 10:36pm
Msg #344410

Hear hear! n/m

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/10/10 3:04am
Msg #344418

I've emailed you the proof Hugh

"I personally have never run across a case, in either my signing agent career or my career as an attorney, where indicating the representative capacity was deemed incorrect."

For your education, I've emailed you a copy of the instructions from an itty bitty lender called Bank of America on how a borrower is required to sign when there is a trust or a settlor. I guess you've never dealt with them in your career as a former attorney or as a signing agent. I understand, they're just a tiny little outfit. But their instructions are crystal clear, borrower signs their name only, NEVER capacity. I look forward to you sharing your analysis of those instructions to the rest of the class.

So I'll say it again, it's not our call. And if I didn't have instructions in the file and couldn't reach anyone, I would most certainly walk away. Signing agents shouldn't play lawyer, and that includes ex-lawyers.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/10/10 4:40am
Msg #344419

Re: I've emailed you the proof Hugh

Al, I completely agree about BofA, but I wouldn't walk away if I couldn't reach anyone (which is all too common for us here out west with the time difference). There is pretty much a 50/50 chance of getting it right. The preferred solution (which I think someone else here stated) is to make an extra copy and have them sign both ways. I prefer to contact them the next day to find out which one they prefer, then shred the other one myself, whenever possible. That way the signing gets completed on schedule. If you walk away, you have a 100% chance of not completing the signing, naturally.

I have to say, though, that one of the biggest frustrations I find is dealing with all the different ways lenders deal with documents when a property is left in a trust - and then trying to find someone who can give an informed answer about precisely how they want the documents signed. This is one area where those overly detailed instructions is appropriate - and appreciated!

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/10/10 5:02am
Msg #344420

Re: I've emailed you the proof Hugh

I have no problem if someone wanted to handle it that way. That's certainly outstanding customer service to sit there and possibly sign two entire loan packages, one each way.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 7/10/10 10:10am
Msg #344425

IMO, these lenders or TC's need to preprint what they

want under each line. This would save EVERYONE a headache and everyone would be on the same page and know exactly what is wanted and needed.

Reply by jba/fl on 7/10/10 10:55am
Msg #344428

Re: IMO, these lenders or TC's need to preprint what they

That is not always helpful either, Linda. I had one that had all the printing, but they only wanted the signature saying on their comprehensive instruction page that it was to be signature only, and that if the Trustee (etc) were to be signed, then the doc would have to be redone as it is unacceptable.

Calling for precise instructions in writing eliminates the problem altogether. That is my recommendation to anyone with this question.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 7/10/10 11:21am
Msg #344437

Makes no sense. Why did they preprint it then if they

didn't want it signed that way? Ridiculous IMO, but what do I know? lol

Reply by jba/fl on 7/10/10 11:37am
Msg #344441

Re: Makes no sense. Why did they preprint it then if they

I don't know - I get my orders from headquarters (long time since I thought of that phrase)and do my best to follow them correctly.

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/10/10 11:52am
Msg #344446

Re: Makes no sense. Why did they preprint it then if they

That is exactly what the Bank of America instructions are like. The wording under the signature line will say "John Doe, trustee," but their instructions state that borrower is to sign "John Doe." What about the ones where the signature line has the full wording like "John Doe, trustee of the John Doe revocable estate dated June 3rd, 2007 for the benefit of John Doe." Eek. Then do you have the borrower sign all of that or just trustee? I remember one closing many years ago where the lender wanted just that. Talk about ridiculous.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 7/10/10 2:02pm
Msg #344468

I think they do this to us on purpose and make us look like

WE ARE the ones who don't know what we are doing. Just ridiculous. Thanks though.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/10/10 4:31pm
Msg #344486

Re: I think they do this to us on purpose and make us look like

I visualize it happening something like this: the verbiage comes down from some company attorney to someone in doc prep (who isn't the one who actually has to have them signed) then it goes to another person who actually types the verbiage in because their computer system isn't set up to handle the multiple capacities w/ name of trust, etc. (again, I'm just speculating wildly here...) We're talking a bit of that old game of "telephone" here. And each person is picturing it a little bit differently.

I saw one not too long ago where the extra verbiage (name of trust, etc.) was all typed above the signature lines, so not only was it not clear how much they wanted the borrower to sign, it wasn't clear WHERE they wanted them to sign. (There was more, but I'll leave it at that.) I did the multiple choice thing and never heard back, so I'm hoping that means it was accepted and recorded without any issues.

BTW, as for resigning the whole package, usually we're just talking about the Note, DOT and the extra riders that are included when a trust is involved. At least in my experience.

Finally, I do think this is very likely another one of those things that could vary somewhat from state to state, as the laws governing trusts are likely to vary considerably, too. However, like Al, I've found that in the last year or so, BofA does seem to want the borrower to sign their signature only in all the multiple places they need to sign on the documents mentioned above.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 7/11/10 1:08pm
Msg #344548

Sorry to be so late responding...

...but I have been involved in some personal matters.

*** I look forward to you sharing your analysis of those instructions to the rest of the class.***

You have confused legal sufficiency with lender preference. A signature with capacity included should be legally sufficient in virtually every jurisdiction. A signature without capacity included, where the signer is not signing individually, will often be legally insufficient, ***expecially if a signature typed beneath the signature line also does not indicate capacity.*** In the instant case, there wasn't even a signature line, much less any indication of capacity. A lender may prefer that its typed signature line carry the burden of indication of capacity, but that is lender preference. Indicating capacity in the signature itself should never invalidate a signature, whereas failure to indicate capacity can.

The signing agent in this case was confronted with a case in which he had no instructions and could not reach the lender. In such an instance, prudence dictates that he present the lender with a ***legally sufficient*** executed document. If the lender then elects to reject it based on an ***uncommunnicated*** preference, then the signing agent has done his job and is entitled to full payment.

Class dismissed, Al.

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/11/10 1:50pm
Msg #344549

Re: Sorry to be so late responding...

That's some very impressive pontificating. But all I really heard was legal sufficiency this, legal prudence that. It's very simple to understand for the rest of us, signing agents are not attorneys (and as much as you like to still play attorney, neither are you). The point isn't to determine what should be legally sufficient and what a jurisdiction should accept. We'll let the lender's attorney worry about that. Our job is to satisfy the lender's requirements.

Fortunately, Pat took some good advice from others and had the borrower sign the docs in question multiple ways. A simple, reasonable, non-legalese solution.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 7/11/10 3:18pm
Msg #344550

Re: Sorry to be so late responding...

***Our job is to satisfy the lender's requirements.***

Is English a second language for you, Al, or do you just prefer to be obtuse? What is it about "I couldn't contact the lender" that you don't understand? The poster could not determine what the lender's requirements were, because he could not contact the lender.

Having a borrower sign multiple documents is one solution. It is not one I would use, since there are any number of permutations possible for a signature indicating a representative capacity. That's particularly onerous in Texas, where signings can routinely require the execution of more than 20 notarial certifications alone, not to mention documents that don't require a certification. I would not want to subject a borrower to that because of a lender's failure to provide adequate instructions. I would provide the lender a set of documents that are legally viable, and leave the decision to the lender as to whether to accept them. If they don't, then it is the lender inconveniencing a borrower, not me. And, as noted earlier, I have earned my fee for the first signing.

And, though I'm fortunate to have a background in law, that's not something that it takes an attorney to ascertain. The legal validity of signatures is something that signing agents deal with every day; that's part of what a notary public/signing agent does.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/9/10 3:45pm
Msg #344373

Usually, I am told to have them sign their name as it is printed on the document. So, if it says John Doe, Settlor under the sig line, that's usually the way they want it.

Reply by Les_CO on 7/9/10 3:50pm
Msg #344374

Especially if the guy’s last name is Settlor

Reply by Grammyzoom on 7/9/10 3:56pm
Msg #344377

Whoa! This is a case where you must talk to the lender or title company. Things have changed a lot this year. For years we needed to have people sign their name followed by their capacity on a trust. Ex: Nancy Smith, Trustee or Nancy Smith, Settlor

The lenders now seem to have different criteria. It seems that if under the signature line they have the wording which indicates that the signer is signing both as an individual and as a trustee of the trust then just the signature of the person is sufficient. However, we have had a couple of cases where the lender was still, even with this verbage, required the signer to add the words trustee, or settlor to their signature.

So, save yourself sometime and try to get an answer. If you can't perhaps you can print the documents twice and have the borrower sign both ways, with and without the additional verbage. Just my 2 cents!

Reply by Ilene C. Seidel on 7/9/10 4:10pm
Msg #344379

I agree with Grammyzoom but I would just have the "legals" signed not all the docs. Of course if the docs are typed otherwise. R there instructions in the docs?

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/9/10 4:36pm
Msg #344385

"The lenders now seem to have different criteria. It seems that if under the signature line they have the wording which indicates that the signer is signing both as an individual and as a trustee of the trust then just the signature of the person is sufficient."

Yep, that's what I'm starting to see as well. As you said, not 100% of the time, but more and more that seems to be the direction.

Reply by pat/WA on 7/9/10 5:05pm
Msg #344388

There is no signature line. My instructions are to draw a line and have them sign as individuals, trustees and as settlors.
I am goin to keep trying to reach someone at title for more complete instructions.

Reply by ikando on 7/9/10 6:40pm
Msg #344400

Just curious which company is sending docs with no line for signature.

Reply by James Dawson on 7/9/10 4:29pm
Msg #344383

Now that's funny because it is possible. That's being alert Les!

Reply by Les_CO on 7/9/10 6:44pm
Msg #344402

was not trying to be a smart a$$!
Talk about UPL! It is NOT our job to determine if someone is the: Testatrix, Conservator, Settler, etc. How would you know if someone is the Testatrix, without having seen the Will? Is it your business? Is it your Job? Is it your call? Are you going to “advise/tell” someone how to sign a (maybe important) document? Come on guys….This is very basic. The Lender has legal counsel; the Title Company (or underwriter) has legal counsel. If they don’t do their job, or if they make mistakes, it is NOT up to us to correct it for them. We are there to ID the signer, witness the signature, and follow instructions. If Title wants the signature to read a certain way, they can type it in that way. Otherwise you have them sign their names on the documents exactly as they are typed. And if the ID’s concur, you notarize.
No names, no signature lines? If it were me I’d give this job back. It is NOT OUR JOB to draft legal documents. Someone someplace is just not doing their job. Is this a $500 signing assignment? When the lender get’s the docs back 9 out of 10 they will reject them, and have to get them re-done/re-signed. Another example of how the “notary” screwed up. I’d pass on this one. I see liability everywhere, and an almost certain re-draft/re-sign of the documents. JMO