Posted by SoCalcloser on 9/20/11 9:41pm
Msg #398049

Crossing out pre-printed names on DOT ack...

Have any of you ran into a problem with crossing out and initialing a pre-printed name on an DOT ack? The other borrowers name on the ack that I crossed out was not present. Lender is asking me to send another acknowledgement because I crossed out one of the names. I've never had this issue before.

Reply by SoCalcloser on 9/20/11 9:47pm
Msg #398051

They said county will not accept a crossout on the ack.

Reply by BrendaTx on 9/20/11 9:53pm
Msg #398053

I don't believe it that the clerk won't accept it. n/m

Reply by Buddy Young on 9/21/11 12:18am
Msg #398074

They just look for ways to make our lives miserable.

They also look for ways not to pay us.

Reply by MW/VA on 9/20/11 9:59pm
Msg #398054

I have done that many times for split signings & never had a problem with it being rejected. I do understand that CA has more quirks it what will or not be accepted. IMO you can't of course, complete an ack listing the name of someone who didn't appear before you, regardless of what state you're in.

Reply by LKT/CA on 9/20/11 10:07pm
Msg #398056

In my experience, cross-outs on DOTs - even the ack - is a no-no. If a signer is not present, I treat the ack on the DOT *as if it were* non-compliant for California by ignoring it and attaching a loose certificate.

Reply by SoCalcloser on 9/20/11 10:17pm
Msg #398058

Really? I never had an issue in LA county, but this property is up north. What county are you in?

Reply by LKT/CA on 9/20/11 10:23pm
Msg #398059

I'm in San Bernardino county.

Reply by SoCalcloser on 9/21/11 10:51am
Msg #398115

FYI I called the San Bernadino recorders office and they said it is ok to crossout and initial as long as it is one straight line and not a messy crossout. The lender is located in your county so I thought maybe this is the reason they assumed it was true in Sacramento.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/20/11 10:40pm
Msg #398062

I'm in Orange County and I've never had a problem with it, either. And I've done it umpteen times, including lots of "trustee" and "husband and wife" type comments. I suppose it could be a county-specific item - or it may just as likely be an overly zealous or new clerk in the Recorder's office.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/20/11 10:43pm
Msg #398064

I've never experienced this, either. I've crossed out capacity type notations before and have never heard back.

My guess is that they're blowing smoke "just in case" -- but most CA county clerks know what proper ack wording should look like, and I'm sure they've seen cross outs thousands of times.

Reply by DaveCA/CA on 9/20/11 11:30pm
Msg #398071

it's no problem

Even if it's Provident, if it's wrong, I cross it out and initial. I will usually add an acknowledgment if I am involved in a split signing though.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 9/21/11 7:53am
Msg #398092

IME, Provident will require a loose ACK.

They don't allow you to cross out anything!

Reply by SoCalcloser on 9/21/11 11:57am
Msg #398128

Re: IME, Provident will require a loose ACK.

Yes, but he said the county will reject it not lender.

Reply by LKT/CA on 9/20/11 10:56pm
Msg #398066

Rereading the OP - Lender wants Ack

OP states the LENDER is asking for another acknowledgment and that a preprinted name on the DOT was crossed out, not capacity (husband/wife, trustee, etc.). I've also crossed out various capacities on DOTs, which would make the acknowledgment non-compliant/illegal. Maybe this particular lender is like Provident.....very picky. Or maybe this lender knows something WE don't yet know - a change taking place within county clerks offices - time will tell.

Reply by HisHughness on 9/20/11 11:05pm
Msg #398068

This is probably an instance of salary justification

Not at the clerk's office, but at the lender's.

The functionary at the lender has been hired to oversee the correct production of the documents. If the documents don't need correcting, then there is no need for the functionary's position, so he or she will sometimes make unreasonable, even irrational, demands to jurstify his or her existence. Lawyers are notorious for this. If you ever give a lawer a legal document to review, he will find something to correct. Which is not to indicate in any way that something needed correcting.

Reply by linda/ca on 9/21/11 2:26am
Msg #398081

Re: This is probably an instance of salary justification

I agree with what Hugh said. You had two options to make: Put a line through the missing persons name as you did, or as others suggested, attach a loose certificate. You definitely could not leave the missing persons name on the doc which I hope is not what this company is suggesting you should have done. Did they say you should have attached a loose certificate? Surely they have faced this situation before (the missing parties name crossed out) and if they prefer the latter, they should have stated that....I am assuming that they knew the second person would not be present, of course.
Perhaps the person that is requesting you make a return trip prepared the doc and did not like the idea that you crossed the name out. I can't imagine someone who has gotten to the level of preparing the docs to not know any better, however, the entire situation sounds ludicrous. You might try calling the county clerk and ask them if they would reject it, get a name and try to reason with the person that is requesting this.

Reply by SoCalcloser on 9/21/11 12:01pm
Msg #398132

Re: This is probably an instance of salary justification

They wanted me to give them a loose ack because they said county would reject it. I have called the county 2x, spoke with 2 different people and they said crossout on name and initialing it is OK. I forwarded this info and gave broker the phone number. I'm waiting to hear back.

Reply by SoCalcloser on 9/20/11 11:28pm
Msg #398070

Could be that the person is new or uninformed. I was assuming it was the lender but this is a person in the broker office who says the county won't accept it. I have to drive 60 miles R/T to drop off new ack. not happy about it.

Reply by DaveCA/CA on 9/20/11 11:35pm
Msg #398072

they are misinformed

I don't know if you get a lot of business from them but I would try to talk with them and just firmly say that you have done yada yada signings and you know others that have done the same thing and have never had a problem. Then state that if you find out from recorder that it would have been fine, you want them to reimburse you for time and mileage.

I don't know much but I will say that I have never had an issue and I have done signings for most counties in CA, granted I didn't need to cross something out. Sorry for the hassle you are receiving.

Reply by Notarysigner on 9/21/11 1:05am
Msg #398075

If it was pre-printed you send it back blank

>>>>>>>The other borrowers name on the ack that I crossed out was not present.<<<<<

If it was a pre-printed Ack with two names on it and only one was present you leave it alone and attach a separate Act with just the person's name who appeared before you. Just make sure you do not leave any room for them to add another name and correctly do your "she/he/they" stuff!

You send their pre-printed Ack back as is! IMO

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/21/11 2:23am
Msg #398080

Re: If it was pre-printed you send it back blank

I've crossed out names during a split signing (where only one party appeared) without adding a new certificate before and have never heard a peep. It would never occur to me to add a separate certificate if everything else was the same. I also wouldn't want to leave that certificate if I was the first notary signing the same package, as I wouldn't want to risk the second notary using it without crossing out the name of the party that I notarized. That's just how I handle it.

As we (hopefully) all know, the notary certificate is our domain and the lender shouldn't be telling the notary how to complete a certificate, imo.

Reply by Notarysigner on 9/21/11 8:05am
Msg #398094

We both did what we thought best..a couple

of times when I've had this situation after further investigation with TC I found out the first person (the one who appeared) had POA on file. They just neglected to inform the notary.

Most of the closing instructions I've had state " Do not cross-out or line through any names on the Documents". When it says it's O K to do it, then I will do it. WWPD?

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/21/11 3:53pm
Msg #398162

Re: We both did what we thought best..a couple

I didn't make it clear enough in my post, but I was just referring to the notary certificate, which is our domain, not theirs. You're right, I would never cross out anything on a document, but the instruction you refer to, I always assume means everything BUT the notary certificate, which they're are not allowed to dictate to us. Now, if we're talking Provident, I'm right there with you, and I'd add a loose cert.

As for the POA situation, I don't see how that would be relevant. The person is either appearing before me or is not. If the attorney-in-fact signs for a principal, I still wouldn't want the principal's name in my certificate, as they didn't personally appear.

Reply by Notarysigner on 9/21/11 5:24pm
Msg #398178

fully agree with you, no argument here about anything! n/m

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/21/11 1:17am
Msg #398077

One thing nobody has addressed

Adding a loose ack to a DOT also increases the recording fee. Wonder if your Lender has given that any thought.

Reply by Notarysigner on 9/21/11 1:29am
Msg #398078

Yep! a hold big three dollars if it legal size n/m

Reply by CopperheadVA on 9/21/11 5:13am
Msg #398084

I once had a CA title company tell me that I needed to resend a loose ack because I stamped my Virginia-compliant ack wording onto the California DOT. TC said it would not record. I contacted the recorders office and verified that yes it would record because it was Virginia-compliant and was notarized in VA. I politely informed the TC that I had contacted so-and-so at the recorder's office and confirmed that it was acceptable. That ended that.