Posted by notarydi/CA on 12/2/13 11:57pm
Msg #494766

a new first today....

docs drawn in name of trust, John Doe, trustee. Lender says sign with trustee after name. Ok, no problem. 4506-T, SSA, W-9, 1003 all have his name John Doe, trustee. Lender insisted all these forms be signed John Doe, trustee. Never had a 1003 signed as trustee. Or any of the other government forms as trustee......always something different in this biz!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/3/13 1:56am
Msg #494768

I hope you didn't put "trustee" on the notarial certificates n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/3/13 2:43am
Msg #494769

This is very common. Varies by lender. n/m

Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/3/13 7:14am
Msg #494777

Trusts have their own tax ID. As a trust entity, they can borrow based on how the trust is set up.
Been there, done that.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/3/13 7:15am
Msg #494778

Also

If you are acting as trustee, you always have to sign "Trustee"

Reply by notarydi/CA on 12/3/13 10:07am
Msg #494802

actually....

the lender had pre-printed all the notarial acknowledgements with his name in there, John Doe, trustee. I lined through that, wrote see attached verbage, and attached the acknowledgement that the bottom half of the form has optional boxes you can check as to capacity. Always just put individual name. Really like to use that form on trustee, attorney in fact transactions. Most of the lenders I have worked with in the past year have been insistent that the borrowers NOT sign with trustee after their name. So, this was a departure from what has been the norm.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/3/13 5:35pm
Msg #494854

Re: actually....

In my experience getting trusts signed (which is substantial), there is no "norm" - at least as to how the borrowers should sign - except for how the lender WANTS them to sign. And different lenders have different preferences. So I have learned to always ask if I'm not sure, unless signing instructions are included somewhere.

As for how to complete the notary certificate, that will depend on the state. notarydi/CA is correct that in CA we cannot include trustee capacity in our certificates. However, again, there will be differing opinions as to whether or not the preference is to correct the existing certificate (assuming it's correct for CA) or replace it with one of your own. The last trust signing I did was yesterday. This time, the preference was for me to line out the trust verbiage so that there isn't an extra page, increasing the filing fees for the DOT. (That's the more common response I've received.)

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/3/13 8:37pm
Msg #494886

Re: actually....

<<<This time, the preference was for me to line out the trust verbiage so that there isn't an extra page, increasing the filing fees for the DOT. (That's the more common response I've received.)>>>

I had to laugh when I read that because I find it ironic that companies could care less in hiring a lowball notary who has the potential to totally screw up the execution of the package, thus causing possible redraws, a complete re-sign costing a complete full signing fee, delays in funding, etc., yet the companies DO care about an "extra page" of a recordable doc because of an extra dollar or two for the recording fee - LOL - UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/4/13 4:37am
Msg #494922

Re: actually....

Not really fair to lump all companies in together. For this one, I was hired by a quality signing service and paid very fairly. (I don't ever work for the lowballers.)

Another possible reason some care could be so that the numbers on the HUD they've already prepared are accurate. I have no idea what internal bookkeeping (if any) is involved for the title company to account for that extra $1.00 or so difference in the recording fees for that extra page, but there might be something to it. I know they have fiduciary requirements (and then there are the closing cost parameters vs. GFE disclosures), but I don't need to get involved in all of that. If there are issues, the time involved might be the biggest consideration. And I suppose if that happens often enough, that $1.00 or $2.00 here and there could add up over time.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/4/13 7:29pm
Msg #495038

Re: actually....

When I took my R.E. classes at the local community college, Escrow was my elective. The instructor was a R.E. broker who handled escrow for her own deals, which that's legal in CA. Our midterm project was to create a set of loan docs. She guided us in drafting the HUD. There's several hundred dollars of reserves/padding for incidentals/accidentals so the additional recording fees wouldn't be an issue.

I guess my point was more along the lines of what's lesser of the two evils...an extra dollar or two for a recording fee or hundreds (possibly thousands) of dollars as a result of hiring an inept notary. And when a professional notary handles the job....still is it worth it for the company to squabble over of few bucks - when there's sufficient padding to cover incidentals/accidentals...