Posted by CopperheadVA on 12/29/12 9:58am
Msg #448052

Getting tired of having a morning appointment

scheduled for LSI and no docs ever arrive. No contact from LSI as per usual. I tried calling but just got the general mailbox. I called borrower and told him I'm not coming this morning as I have no docs. I will not spend my Saturday waiting for docs either - they can reassign to another notary for that.

I declined two for LSI that were scheduled for the day after Christmas, one at 9AM and one at 10AM because I knew they would never have docs to me on time the morning after a major holiday.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/29/12 10:14am
Msg #448057

I had two with LSI in the last couple weeks -

scheduled 2 weeks in advance and had docs 3-4 days ahead..

My two this past week, docs were late on both. I'm chalking it up to the holiday - chatting with the scheduler they told me they were absolutely slammed. My signing for yesterday had the wrong first payment date on the note and couldn't get a new note sent over in time - told to line through, change date and initial.

Reply by CentralNY on 12/29/12 10:20am
Msg #448058

Not against you Linda but

i don't see an altered note flying and if it does there is something very wrong.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/29/12 10:35am
Msg #448061

I just did what I was told..and I agree with you

Those instructions straight from title and borrowers were in agreement. It was obvious the note was wrong as they credited interest back to the borrowers (funding 1/3, interest credited 1/3 to 1/1/13 - first payment 2/1/13). I honestly think the problem was on lender side as lender seemed to be the hangup all along with this particular loan.

That's what they said to do and they'd straighten it out later - not my call. Signed and shipped.

Reply by CentralNY on 12/29/12 11:09am
Msg #448066

Re: I just did what I was told..and I agree with you

i would have done the same thing but my guess would be that the lender will send a new note. we used to have all kinds of post closing issues, some that took months to resolve.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/29/12 11:11am
Msg #448067

Truth be told, I think I know exactly what's going to

happen..

Note was not initialed or notarized...soooo....they'll get package back, print out new first page and call it a day.

Reply by CentralNY on 12/29/12 11:21am
Msg #448070

Hate to say you are probably right n/m

Reply by Teresa/FL on 12/29/12 11:13am
Msg #448068

First Payment is 2/1/13 if interest credit given for 1/3 to

1/1/13.

First payment would be 3/1/13 if interest charged from 1/3/13 to 2/1/13.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/29/12 11:16am
Msg #448069

Right...interest was credited BACK

1/3/13 - 1/1/13....borrowers got credit - will make first payment 2/1/13 representing January interest.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/30/12 1:28am
Msg #448138

Re: Right...interest was credited BACK

So do I assume correctly that the Note said that the first payment was due 3/1/13? If so, and if it didn't throw the numbers beyond the variances allowed between the GFE and the HUD, seems to me it would have had a better chance if they redid the HUD instead of messing with the Note. The borrowers likely would have had to come up with roughly the equivalent of another monthly payment up front, but it would be at the new loan rate, and they wouldn't have to make another payment until March 1.

I guess that would probably have messed up the TIL, too, but I've heard of those being redone after the signing. Can't say whether or not that would be kosher, though, and I can't remember if there was an RTC involved on any of those. I should probably add that I've never been an EO or LO and I don't concern myself much with all their new compliance requirements. I'm just very surprised that someone would ask for you to have borrowers make changes to a Note! Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I'd be very interested to know if it goes through like that...

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/30/12 8:02am
Msg #448148

This loan was re-done so many times I don't think

anyone at lender had the info right any more. Sounds to me like so many changes were made that they started to lose track of all the docs that needed changing.

I don't think Borrower wanted to come up with any money. He also didn't want escrows and they kept escrowing. This was supposed to close the day before, hence the date changes in funding (would have made it for December if they'd gottent he escrow right the first time). All-in-all IMO a very sloppy team effort. These discrepancies should not have happened.

Reply by Teri_PA on 12/29/12 2:50pm
Msg #448105

Re: Mortgage is also wrong

Yes, you corrected the note, but the last payment date of the mortgage is also wrong. With that said, you followed directions...you'll get paid. But, the poor borrowers will need to resign if anyone has their wits about them, as the mortgage is also wrong with the date it is paid off, and that is notarized...For a top title company, I would have addressed it early on...For vendor management, get them signed correctly.....and follow instructions....Sad, but true

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/29/12 3:46pm
Msg #448109

I know..I'm concerned...this whole loan just seemed to

be a problem all around. Mr. Borrower did not seem pleased at all and at one point I thought he was inches from calling it off - but he smiled and signed (thankfully didn't shoot the messenger).

Reply by Teri_PA on 12/29/12 5:26pm
Msg #448113

Re: I know..I'm concerned...this whole loan just seemed to

Sad, since you know he has to resign. After I get all the signatures, I tell the borrower in this type of situation that when the lender reviews the changes the possibility exists that they might need to resign, just so they are ready for it if it comes to be. I hate being deceptive and letting them think all is ok.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/29/12 6:13pm
Msg #448118

Heh..I didn't quite say it that way - I just told him

not to be surprised to hear from someone during the 3-day rescission period....I'm guessing they'll reprint the front page and replace it, although it did require initials. <<shrug>> We shall see...

Reply by Darlin_AL on 12/29/12 12:59pm
Msg #448086

OK, dummy chiming in here--who is LSI? Please reply privately if you prefer, but I think a lot of us would like to know about a "problem child".

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/29/12 1:25pm
Msg #448093

Trust me - LSI is not a problem child. They're listed in SC n/m

Reply by Claudine Osborne on 12/29/12 9:03pm
Msg #448129

Re: Trust me - LSI is not a problem child. They're listed in SC

LSI is a Title company based out of PA..I like working with them..It seems in the last couple of months there has been issues with getting documents to us on time..I have worked with them for years and never had any problems..i get paid through Direct deposit the fees are good etc..I just hope they can get us the docs like they used too..Dont really know why they have been late other than they are busy?

Reply by CopperheadVA on 12/30/12 5:33am
Msg #448145

Re: Trust me - LSI is not a problem child. They're listed in SC

I feel like I have a love-hate relationship with them. I like working with them too when docs come on time. I'm not crazy about the 8-18 attachments that docs come in, but I can deal with that. I have the direct deposit too and I love that. But when they just leave the notary hanging with no docs, no communication - I'm getting really tired of it. This particular team is one that I don't normally work with, and apparently this team doesn't work on the weekend. So when they left on Friday and they didn't have an approved HUD or docs, they should have contacted me and the borrower. They left borrower SOL also!

Reply by bfd110_IN on 12/29/12 9:33pm
Msg #448131

Linda.want to make sure I am correct on your statment before

I say you were are incorrect.... Re: Msg #448057 and Msg #448061

"It was obvious the note was wrong as they credited interest back to the borrowers (funding 1/3, interest credited 1/3 to 1/1/13 - first payment 2/1/13). I honestly think the problem was on lender side as lender seemed to be the hangup all along with this particular loan. "

If this statement was correct, then the note was correct... on your HUD-1 you would have seen a credit of interest going back to 1/1 i.e. 3 days interest credit.. At that time there would be 30 days before first payment i.e. 1/1 to 2/1. First payment date would be 2/1 and if note said this then it was correct.

Most lenders will allow interest credit up until 5 days into the month and give the borrower interest credit on the settlement statement.

Linda, if I read your statement incorrect then I am sorry. Interest credit to the customer is common. I did have one yesterday though that first payment was not due until March 1 and they collected 27 days of interest. Customer was ok cause they "skipped" 2 months of payments.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/30/12 8:05am
Msg #448149

No, I said interest was credited back, yet note stated

first payment was March 1, 2013. That would be incorrect.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/30/12 8:07am
Msg #448151

I think the confusion comes in right here

I said "(funding 1/3, interest credited 1/3 to 1/1/13 - first payment 2/1/13). "

maybe I should have phrased it "first payment should be 2/1/13"...

Reply by bfd110_IN on 12/30/12 10:20am
Msg #448162

good... just wanted to make sure

cause way it was typed looked correct to me. I was thinking you knew better than that... Kudos for you recognizing it payment shouldn't be due March 1st based on settlement statement. Alot of notaries wouldn't catch it.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/1/13 1:17am
Msg #448336

Re: I think the confusion comes in right here

I made that mistake, too, thinking the Note said first payment WAS 2/1/13. I was scratching my head trying to figure out what was wrong with that... Thanks for the clarification.