Posted by Carolyn Nee on 8/3/11 7:41am
Msg #392441

Date on Documents

I am doing a signing today where the documents are dated for the 4th but the title company is asking for the buyers to sign and return today; sellers are in another state. Can I change dates on docs? Don't ask so but double-checking. Ask title to redo? Or is everything okay as long as buyers date today the 3rd and I acknowledge the 3rd as well.

Reply by CJ on 8/3/11 10:56am
Msg #392469

My understanding is that docs cannot be signed BEFORE the dates on the docs, but bottom line, it is not our call. If you sign, you must use the date you sign them.

Reply by Pam/TN on 8/3/11 11:04am
Msg #392470

My understanding the date on the documents notarized are to be current date, docs can't be post-dated or back dated. I'd call TC maybe they just got mixed up with dates.

Reply by Les_CO on 8/3/11 11:08am
Msg #392471

I would not alter the dates on the docs (except the RTC). Notarize the date the person(s) actually sign the documents. JMO

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 8/3/11 11:35am
Msg #392476

My 2 cents in all this is:

1. Do what your hiring agency says.
2. Do NOT change any dates on the docs (or anything else for that matter) except RTCs, of course, unless you get hiring agency OK.
My experience is that no doc can be signed before its time. The signing must occur after or on the date of the docs. But maybe that's CA, because I know notaries in other states have no problem with this. But the instant I notify my hiring agency that docs are dated in the future, the signing is postponed.

Most important, of course, is that they date the day they sign and you date the day they appear before you.

Reply by kathy/ca on 8/3/11 11:46am
Msg #392478

Probably a Wells Fargo and okay to sign, always making

sure to put date of signing on notary certificate.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/3/11 11:52am
Msg #392480

In all my days as a legal assistant I have never seen an attorney troubled by a "document's date" vs. the document's signing date.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/3/11 2:49pm
Msg #392503

I don't know where people get the idea that it's illegal or inappropriate to sign a document prior to the date on the document itself, but it's obviously a common belief - even among employees at title companies. If anyone can show me where it says anything close to that in any CA (or federal) law, I'd very much like to see it!

As some here have said, our only concern about dates as a notary *should be* that we accurately date our acknowledgements. As signing agents, how we should have the borrowers date is a whole other issue, that like most things isn't always, always one way. (Different subject, though.)

There are some lenders out there (Wells Fargo being one of them, as kathy/ca said) who routinely date the documents with a future date. These packages are often sent directly to borrowers with instructions for them to sign "on or before" the date on the documents. They have their reasons. Sometimes it appears that they want the document date to reflect the closing date. I don't know and it's not up to us to presume that they did that incorrectly. However, it's probably a good idea to check, since you never know when someone in the process (like an over-worked escrow assistant?) will get it into their head that it's not acceptable and they will kick it back for correction or re-do. I think a lot of it is that people just assume because it seems to make sense to them.

But again, if anyone feels that way, please show us some kind of documentation. I suspect that all you will find is hearsay.

Reply by Carolyn Nee on 8/3/11 2:54pm
Msg #392505

Thank all of you for taking the time to reply to my post. Buyers did sign the document, dated and acknowledged all today.

Reply by Art_PA on 8/3/11 12:30pm
Msg #392490

Get confirmation of what you should do in writing (email which you save) from the lender or title company. Do not rely on a signing company's directions.

You don't want to do this twice if the docs are incorrect, or if they must be signed on the 4th.

Reply by jnew on 8/3/11 12:45pm
Msg #392492

One point about acknowledgments. The date of the document is immaterial. The date it was signed does not matter either. When an acknowledgment is given the document could have already been signed. The signer is acknowledging that he or she indeed signed the document willingly with knowledge of its purpose. The notarization represents that you determined this do be true on the date the acknowledgment was made by the signer. In effect, that is the only date you must be concerned with. If the lender or TC asks for a printed date to be changed , make sure it is a directive in writing and that the signer initials the change. If the signer is to insert a different date than the closing date, make sure you have a written directive as well. You might be on the hook without it.

Reply by sealed/CA on 8/3/11 3:02pm
Msg #392507

This is a question that I posed directly to PAW as he was such a wealth of information and always had the right answer.
He said that we are not to be concerned about the date on any document. We are to have them sign and notarize the date that the clients appear before us. The document date is the effective date.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/3/11 8:04pm
Msg #392564

From experience, the two times I completed signings where the docs were dated for the future <they were not split signings>, I brought it up to the mortgage broker's attention - in whose office I was handling the signings and he was there for both signings. I was given the green light to go ahead with the signings. Both times the docs were kicked back (I was told the investors had issues with post dated docs) and both times the docs were redrawn with the current day of the signing. I got full fees for both original signings and the re-signs.

Post dated docs just may matter to *someone* so I'd at least bring the issue to the TCs attention. Follow whatever their call is.

Reply by Carolyn Nee on 8/3/11 8:49pm
Msg #392575

My gut was not to change anything but before proceeding I did call title - didn't change anything and we all signed everything for the 3rd even though documents stated the 4th. I do appreciate everyone's comments and expertise here. But I believe it was Janet who said, show me where it says this is unlawful or shouldn't be done ------ so far, I haven't found that either. So, if they kick them back on what grounds or are they just being arbitrary?????? I guess it's their right?? but I guess it's my right to charge again after validating with title?