Posted by JAM/CA on 11/24/12 7:58pm
Msg #444527

WFB, Strange packages

I've had two WFB loans this week that are really strange. Perhaps someone can help.
Loan closing as individuals. No problem there, but then they have been throwing in
a signature page only for DOT with names as Trustee, along with the first page of DOT in Trust.

Also, the signature page only of the Note in Trust.

There are no Grant Deeds in the package, to take in and out of Trust. No PCOR.

My feeling is, they are going to record out of Trust and then record after close using the first page of DOT and signature page to put back in Trust.

What I'm concerned about, since no date is next to signatures on the DOT, are they going to use my notarial certificate (Page 15 of 15 of DOT) to record back into Trust? If this is the case, this seems unethical to me.

Anyone else seeing this?

Reply by Roger_OH on 11/24/12 8:23pm
Msg #444528

Don't analyze, notarize...

Dates on the documents are not your concern; so long as your certificate bears the date of notarization, you're fine.

Reply by JAM/CA on 11/24/12 8:28pm
Msg #444529

Roger, you misunderstand

Are they going to use my one notarization to re-record the DOT, to put
back into Trust?

This has nothing to do with dates or my notarization of the DOT as individuals in Joint Tenancy.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/24/12 8:36pm
Msg #444531

Obviously I'm not seeing it...

But it sounds to me like they threw this loan package together before they completed the search and figured out how title is vested - so throw in two signature pages and two first pages to allow for all possibilities, just in case.

I would agree to provide them ONE notarization for the DOT - they need to decide what they want...as for the Note, I guess it's up to the borrowers if they wish to sign two signature pages - but the notarization pages are your main concern and, IMO, to provide both is basically giving them a "loose cert" to use "just in case".

JMO

Reply by LKT/CA on 11/24/12 9:01pm
Msg #444532

<<<There are no Grant Deeds in the package, to take in and out of Trust. No PCOR. >>>

These days, it is not required or even necessary to pull a home out of trust (then put in back in trust) to refi it. It hasn't been for several years now. Learned this in the Escrow class I took, the R.E. Broker instructor does the escrow for her own deals......lawful according to the CA D.R.E..

Escrow and TCs waste paperwork and man hours doing so but it isn't required/necessary.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/24/12 11:37pm
Msg #444536

Doesn't sound at all strange to me. Just sounds like they're leaving the property in the trust, which I've seen many times with WFB loans (and others). When that happens, the borrowers have to sign the Note and DOT not only as themselves individually, but also as trustees - and usually as Trust Settlors, as well. There are also usually several additional Riders to the DOT and the Note, with various combinations of signatures.

I recommend checking with your client regarding how they want the borrowers to sign. I've heard lots of different variations on how they want it done - and seen lots of variation on how the verbiage is typed and even where it's typed on the pages.

Reply by JAM/CA on 11/25/12 12:05am
Msg #444538

Obviously I did not explain myself well. The loan is not closing in Trust.
The loan is closing as individuals in joint tenancy.

Inserted with the Title docs is the first page only of the DOT in Trust. Also, the signature
page to sign as Trustee's. Plus, only the signature page of the Note to sign as Trustee's.

This loan is NOT closing in Trust.

There is 15 complete pages of the DOT to close as joint tenants.

I realize the loan can close in Trust, so why aren't they doing that? Why the separate pages
to sign as trustee's?

If loan was closing in Trust, there would be no need for the complete DOT recording as joint tenants. There are no Grant Deeds taking out of Trust or putting it back in.

I may be confusing the issue and may have to give up. Too hard to explain without seeing the docs.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/25/12 2:08am
Msg #444540

Or maybe the person who prepared the docs is confused...

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/25/12 2:33am
Msg #444541

Just had another thought... Several times I've received packages with a property staying in the trust where they sent all the trustee signature pages in a separate attachment and asked me to replace the ones originally sent to me. It was as if they had planned to take the property out of the trust, then changed their mind. [What a pain!] Maybe something like that happened with the package you have and they forgot to amend the first page of the DOT?

It's times like that when the old crystal ball becomes "required equipment..." If only!!

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/25/12 4:05am
Msg #444545

I think Janet's theory is probably correct - they're not taking the property out of the Trust, and have sent front/signature pgs for a DOT and signature pg for the Note that reflect it being IN the Trust. One reason I can imagine for doing it this way might be a software thing - doing it this way leaves all the other signatures as Individuals (rather than as Trustee flowing throughout the entire pkg).

Regardless, your question about any potential misuse of your notarial cert I don't think is a concern, since even if they DO take the prop out of Trust and then put it back in, they wouldn't re-record the mtg/DOT. The only reason they take it out - prior to the mtg - is to record a lien against property owned by individuals. In those instances when they put it back into the Trust, they do so with a Deed (not sure what type for CA, here they'd use a QCD). The 'original' recorded DOT is not re-recorded (replacing one by Individuals with one by Trustees) as that would totally negate the whole process and they'd end up right where they started.

Reply by JAM/CA on 11/25/12 11:39am
Msg #444552

Thanks Linda, Janet and Renee n/m

Reply by JAM/CA on 11/25/12 11:41am
Msg #444553

Re: Thanks Linda, Janet and Renee

Hit enter too soon.

I had another package this week from WFB that kind of did the same thing, but
then put wife on Note. What they didn't do was put her name on any of the other
documents. Called escrow and we just had her sign everything. However; she didn't
have her own W-9. Just seems these packages are being put out too quickly with no
QC. Thanks again.

Reply by FormerEO on 11/25/12 12:36pm
Msg #444554

Perhaps I am wrong, but I seem to recall that it was against CA rules to notarize an incomplete document.

How could you notarize page 15 of 15 when you did not see pages 1 to 14 for the document you were asked to notarize the signatures on page 15 of 15? You have no idea if that was a complete document or not. That in and of itself should preclude you from notarizing that page.

Reply by JAM/CA on 11/25/12 1:21pm
Msg #444557

To Former/EO

Only notarizing one time for complete DOT as individuals. Not notarizing an incomplete document.
I think when they get the loan package, they will swap out first page and signature page on DOT closing in Trust.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/25/12 12:47pm
Msg #444555

Re: WFB, Strange packages -- Staples

I understand that California notaries are now required to staple the pages of the notarized document together. The Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts (RULNA), which has been adopted in ND and IA, also require this. So I suppose any notary in those three states that isn't sure which pages are to be covered by a particular acknowledgement must stop the show and obtain clarification from the hiring entity before proceeding.

Adoption status of RULNA may be found at

http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Law%20on%20Notarial%20Acts,%20Revised

Reply by FormerEO on 11/25/12 1:14pm
Msg #444556

Re: WFB, Strange packages -- Staples

There are no references in the 2012 CA notary Handbook for "stapling" an acknowledgement, which is what is required for a DOT. CA has not introduced or embraced this rule per the website link in your post.

The only possible relevant reference I could find in the notary handbook for CA was the requirement for a jurat "to be attached" to a document, but a paper clip could do the same thing as it does not specify a permanent or secure attachment.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/25/12 1:24pm
Msg #444559

Re: WFB, Strange packages -- Staples

Use the search button. I have read that the California SOS sent out a newsletter within the last several months stating that certificates must be stapled to instruments. Truly a sneaky thing to do, hide requirements in newsletters and leave the manual undisturbed.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/25/12 1:28pm
Msg #444562

Re: WFB, Strange packages -- Staples

Well, it hasn't been the last several months, really... but all year. It was in the annual newsletter published in January and has been on the Secretary of State's website all year long.

I think the only truly "sneaky" thing about it is that because of budget cut they didn't actually publish a newsletter for a couple of years, so some notaries may not have known to look for one this year. Also, in years past they mailed the newsletter out... not this time.

But they also tell us that we are supposed to monitor the Sec of State's website for updated information. So, really... it's our responsibility to make sure we know this stuff.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/25/12 1:54pm
Msg #444566

Re: WFB, Strange packages -- Staples

"But they also tell us that we are supposed to monitor the Sec of State's website for updated information. So, really... it's our responsibility to make sure we know this stuff." That seems like a poorly-thought-out scheme on the part of the CA SOS. If Ms. Bowen requires notaries to check a website on a regular basis, internet access should be spelled out as a requirement to become a California notary. (Or maybe such a requirement exists, and I missed it. I think there are one or two states that require applications to be done on the internet.)

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/25/12 2:48pm
Msg #444567

Re: WFB, Strange packages -- Staples

Yeah.... but right on the first page of the handbook there's a "letter" with a paragraph that basically tells us.... anything you need including updated information, is on the website. They don't mail out new handbooks every year. It's out responsibility to obtain one, either by downloading it or writing and having it mailed to us. I have several copies mailed to me every year, and they always get them to me quickly.

And throughout the handbook, many references are made to the website about obtaining forms or how to contact the office to get copies of items mailed to them on request.

But then, I'd be surprised if half the notaries in our state remembered they were supposed to file a change of address form via certified mail within 30 days if they move. I'm sure more might remember if they also remembered it might cost them up to $500 in fines for that little infraction.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/25/12 1:24pm
Msg #444560

Re: WFB, Strange packages -- Staples

The staple rule applies to when we attach our own loose forms to a document... if the certificate is already part of the instrument, there's no need to staple.

FormerEO, this was clearly explained in the 2012 newsletter put out the CA Secretary of State and has been available for download from their website all year, and discussed here many times.

See: http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-newsletter-2012.pdf

Specifically pages 2 and 4 that state:

"The certificate of acknowledgment must be endorsed on or stapled to the instrument. Taping or paper-clipping the certificate of acknowledgment to the document is not permitted."

and

"The jurat must be endorsed on or stapled to the instrument. Taping or paper-clipping the jurat to the document is not permitted."

Reply by JAM/CA on 11/25/12 1:27pm
Msg #444561

FormerEO

Please see link below. Not in handbook yet. Separate newsletter.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-newsletter-2012.pdf

Hope link works for you, if not, simply go to SOS, Notary Public, and download and
print newsletter.

Reply by JAM/CA on 11/25/12 1:23pm
Msg #444558

VT Syrup

Stapling is not required if the notarization page is part of the document.
In this case Page 15 of 15 inclusive.

My question has been answered. Thank you all.

Reply by HisHughness on 11/25/12 1:39pm
Msg #444563

Apparently, comestibles are the rage for NotRot handles

The previous thread featured posts by JAM/CA and VT Syrup.

I may have to change my handle to SugarBuns, in which case a little JAM would be in order.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/25/12 7:47pm
Msg #444575

Re: Apparently, comestibles are the rage for NotRot handles

SugarBritches would be my choice.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/25/12 1:41pm
Msg #444564

Re: VT Syrup

Actually, it seems to me the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts and the CA SOS newsletter are equally vague about when a staple must be used.

CA SOS says: "The certificate of acknowledgment must be endorsed on or stapled to the instrument."

RULNA says, in the commentary, "With respect to a notarial act evidenced on a tangible record, this subsection requires that the certificate must be a part of, or securely attached to, the record. If the certificate is not a part of the record itself, the means of attaching the certificate to the record are not specified. However, stapling is a common means."

So both will be satisfied if the instrument is one page, including the notarial certificate. But it is unclear what is required if the instrument consists of several unattached pages. Also, there is no distinction between the page where the signers signed and any other page of a multi-page instrument. We could argue if a 15 page document has a running footing with name of the document, signer's initials, and "page n of 15" at the bottom of each page, and page 15 contains only the acknowledgement certificate and the running footing (with initials), it is part of the instrument and no staple is required. Someone else could argue that every multi-page notarized instrument must be stapled.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/25/12 1:43pm
Msg #444565

Re: VT Syrup: links

CA SOS newsletter:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-newsletter-2012.pdf

Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Act, with comments by committee that created it:

http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/notarial_acts/rulona_final_10.pdf

Reply by Sha/CA on 11/25/12 8:32pm
Msg #444576

Maybe the SOS thinks we have brains.

We are all independent contractors and all have differing interpretations of law. May common sense prevail.