Posted by jnew on 7/11/13 9:52pm
Msg #476483

Citibank EZ Pay-form glitch

I got an order from your friendly neighborhood signing service directing me to have the borrower sign the EZ pay-form even if BO rejects the offer to debit his checking account. The problem is that the first paragraph specifically says that by signing the EZ pay-form the BO is authorizing the debit. All of my other customers that give me CitiBank signings only require a check mark in the decline box with an initial in the margin to the left of the box when the BO declines. Postclosing report comes back with me to go out again and have the form signed. I state to SS that if I have the BO sign the form, should I not cross out the first paragraph and have BO initial, so as to make the authorization to debit invalid.

I am no lawyer but I have been in enough real estate closings in the last 35 years to know that no lawyer would advise his client to sign the statement under those circumstances. I doubt that the lender required this. I have a feeling that the escrow people at the title company misread or misunderstood the document in requiring the signature. Anyway, I feel I may be opening myself to liability by asking the BO to sign this form. I feel by doing so, I am requesting the BO to sign a contradictory form and essentially I am asking him to sign a false statement.

Would you as a conscientious NSA

1. Refuse to present the form for signature and have the signing service have another person do it instead?

2. Hire an attorney to examine the form and give me legal advice that I can present to the signing service?

3. Dummy up and just do what they ask of me?

I put the choices in the order in which I am leaning. I might just have to bail on the closing and accept any fee they will allow me and not do Citibank loans with this title company any further

Reply by Lee/AR on 7/11/13 10:27pm
Msg #476493

None of the above. I would first try to reason with them explaining as you have above.
Second--a technicality--if there is no checking account info, how could they debit it no matter what s/he signs/doesn't sign.

Good luck, jnew...and just remember 'you can't fix stupid'.

Reply by jnew on 7/11/13 10:38pm
Msg #476497

Thanks for the response, I may be overthinking this thing, doesn't the possibility exist that the lender could require him to debit at some future time, based on his signature which authorized the debit. I might just call the borrower and see if he will sign in the event that the TC might refuse to disburse his loan and you are right about not being able to fix stupid. I believe the cumulative intelligence quotient of the title industry has been slipping.

Reply by jojo_MN on 7/11/13 11:39pm
Msg #476507

When I've run into the request to have borrowers sign even if declining, I have had them draw a line from bottom left to top right of paper and write DECLINED in big words, then sign as requested. I have not had any problems doing it in this manner.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 7/12/13 12:10am
Msg #476509

I do not see a glitch in this form at all. There are 2

boxes of which only 1 should be checked. 1. I authorize 2. I do not authorize Citimortgage to deduct (debit) the amount of my required mortgage payment each month from my financial institution account.

One or the other has to be checked and the form needs to be signed stating their wishes.

No lines need to be drawn, its a simple I authorize or do not authorize.

I do know that if a box is not checked (either way) and this form is NOT signed, they will send you back out on your dime.

Reply by jojo_MN on 7/12/13 12:56am
Msg #476515

Re: I do not see a glitch in this form at all. There are 2

Yes, that is how it is SUPPOSED to be; however, there are a couple companies that are requiring the borrowers to sign even though it clearly states that you should check and initial that you don't want want to sign up for automatic payments.

One form has the check on the left hand side that you authorize the automatic payments and sign your name, while on the left hand side there is a place to check and initial that you do not authorize. This is the one where some companies are requesting the signature regardless if you want the automatic payments or not.

Reply by jojo_MN on 7/12/13 12:58am
Msg #476516

Re: I do not see a glitch in this form at all. There are 2

The second form I am seeing this request is the same one as OP mentioned.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/12/13 4:42am
Msg #476521

Could it be that in this instance, it was a requirement for his loan? Sometimes it is a required condition for the interest rate provided - not always clearly communicated to the borrower prior to signing.

Reply by BobtheElder on 7/12/13 8:00am
Msg #476525

If it's a loan requirement then the borrower should already know about it. I had to go out and get this signed even though there was a second form declining the option... . Did the Do Not Accept checkbox AND they drew a line through the bank info section... not a problem, but it's only happened once for me... generally if it's in the package I get it signed...

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/12/13 8:18am
Msg #476527

They don't always know - or it's a small tidbit they've

forgotten during the underwriting process - not with Citibank but I've had this come up with other loan packages where EZ-Pay or autodebit is required for that particular loan - have also seen where borrowers are also required to open a checking account with that specific lender. They don't always remember the mandatory autodebit requirement.

However, IMO they don't need us to go back out there, although yes, fixing our oversights on our dime is our responsibility - but this can just as easily be accomplished directly with the borrowers - probably quicker too.

Reply by jnew on 7/14/13 12:19pm
Msg #476780

Re: They don't always know - or it's a small tidbit they've

No one has mentioned, as a response, how to explain the contrary language to the borrower. The borrower was the one who read it and wanted an explanation as to why the form said "by signing this form you are authorizing the lender to debit" I know that, in effect, they can not do that, but why have that language in the form? Why have the borrower sign with "account holder" beneath his signature? My answer to him was "the statement is ineffective the settlement agent needs a signature for the loan to go through." I think that is a lame response and an insult to the BO's intelligence. I was threatened with a major lawsuit last year, when the bank lost a deed in lieu of foreclosure and went ahead with a foreclosure action against the signers. I have been gun-shy about what I say or do at a closing ever since. The community here thinks I don't understand the form, so I think I will reserve asking any further questions here.

Reply by MW/VA on 7/12/13 9:02am
Msg #476536

There are specific instructions from one ss that it be

marked declined (box to check) and signed. I forgot that on one assignment, had to go out again to have it signed, and $25 was deducted from my fee.
While I've always been of the opinion that I'm not there to "sell" any aspect of the loan, we need to be sure to follow instructions.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 7/12/13 10:16am
Msg #476551

If you fixed the error they should not deduct $25! JMHO n/m

Reply by MW/VA on 7/12/13 10:18am
Msg #476553

My thinking, too, but they deducted $25 for the cost of an

extra shipping charge.

Reply by Darlin_AL on 7/13/13 10:38am
Msg #476681

Why would it be a glitch if the BO

checks a "don't want auto-deduct" and signs & dates the form? If you are trying to analyze the detail of all the forms we get from the various lenders, you are really doing upl & most likely mis-interpreting some. These forms are a yes or no situation, but as stated above, always require the signature & date to establish the signer was presented the form. Other forms are marked "declined" somewhere by the BO, signed & dated & everybody's happy. Common procedure is that when the form comes back with no signature, there's no way to determine it was presented by you in the package. Also, this is not a sell-purchase situation most likely; not the same cards on your table. The fact that there is a part A,( the top where they complete details if they want auto deduct) and the bottom accommodates no-deduct (part B) should not be this distraction for you. options 1 & 2 seem silly and your #3 smacks of nanny-notary. (Stuff should be put in a nice way w/out the drama.....takes practice.) What about the appraisal forms where the BO has to sign they decline a copy, when no appraisal was required? I just explain that's our Federal Gov't in action....please sign & date.