Posted by NVLSlady/VA on 7/14/13 5:53pm
Msg #476787

UPL?

Funny, I signed with a borrower (atty) and his wife who both took exception to the property/title docs. I found myself having to explain borrowing (Note was fine) vs. non-borrowing docs and this dragged the closing out an extra hour!

The most frustrating was they were unhappy with the lender and whole process, really and that lack of trust was evident when it came to them signing. btw, He had POA for both of their children (on Title, riders, TIL). Of course, I couldn't comment on the F.I., etc. but had to admit it WAS strange that the revised HUD was NOT sent to me (hello, the notary printing out the docs). They immediately noticed my copy didn't match theirs (embarrassing since I had been given no knowledge of a revised version). Also, add was there was no signature page for the HUD!!

They explained how chaotic all had been and saw the need to Read everything. DOT with "borrowers" didn't sit well with them (I, of course explained that in this context it was more vesting terminology); he finally agreed that mtg was "boiler plate" in design (he was finally getting it). Then more trouble with TIL: Both felt that TIL should not included children's name; I politely and calmly made them aware that it was not up to us to determine what docs Title needed those vested to sign - and finally GOT IT DONE by having him add the following language (along with POA wording), which HE devised, on TIL:

"1st child, who is not a party to loan no. 111111" by Signer, atty in fact . . . " (and same for 2nd child) They insisted on doing this, though I INSISTED that the 2nd TIL (now I know why TC had more than 4 copies in package!!) not have "borrowers" names crossed.

They were very nice folks and appreciated my patience. It was my 1st POA signing and of course, I know we cannot question/determine which docs title or lender want vesting, non-borrowing parties to sign, but phew, if borrowers say docs are "messed up" and they know the history (and of course, we don't), what a Challenge to get them to go along with the closing - and let me go home!

p.s. Before any feel the need to add helpful critique, PLEASE don't say "always ask TC" (you think anyone was available on a Fri night????) I increased the invoice amount.

Reply by NVLSlady/VA on 7/14/13 5:55pm
Msg #476788

Re: UPL? (sorry didn't proofread) n/m

Reply by snowflake/PA on 7/14/13 6:27pm
Msg #476789

Hope you get the increased fee you requested. And,

sometimes lender or TC will send revised Hud to Bos. Attorneys don't always know all the procedures, either. Had one atty who said his wife had to sign note. I mentioned she was not. He insisted she sign. He had her sign. He was wrong. We had to resign docs!

I was to close a loan Friday evening. Spoke with borrower that morning and he was aware of what funds he needed to close as he talked with the LO. I get docs. Figure is $1300 more on HUD than B was aware. Called B to let him know new figure. Call and email title. No response. Called one more time and told them they needed to get me revised HUD/docs or I couldn't close. "We'll send revised docs directly to B." Me (very frustrated): Do you know how soon? Them: No. Lender is trying to get proof of tax payments. It could be awhile. Me: Sorry, I am not in a position to wait all evening for revised docs.

Got my cancellation notice of closing 30 minutes after scheduled appt time! It is to be rescheduled. Not worth the aggravation for Friday night closings.

Reply by NVLSlady/VA on 7/14/13 6:37pm
Msg #476790

Re: Hope you get the increased fee you requested. And,

<<"Do you know how soon? Them: No. Lender is trying to get proof of tax payments. It could be awhile. Me: Sorry, I am not in a position to wait all evening for revised docs.">>

Good for You! And shame on them (they would have you out wasting a trip).

Experience really teaches you the right questions to ask. You could have been sitting at borrower's all night (not sure what your family would say to that, but I can Guess)

Reply by Yoli/CA on 7/14/13 6:45pm
Msg #476791

It's not our job to sell the loan. We ID the signers; we present docs with a brief description; we notarize. We can advise/show the signers what our instructions are from the hiring party. Then, if they want to make changes - authorized or otherwise - it's on them. Most of us are not attorneys and cannot give legal advice. Granted, you were dealing with an attorney. He "devised" additional signing verbiage. From my reading of your post, you did not commit UPL. That's JMO.

Hope your increased invoiced amount is granted and paid and that you didn't short-change yourself! After all that, you deserve to be well-compensated!!

~~~~
A few weeks ago, I got a call from FASS. They had a signing in my immediate area for a regular refi. This was a signing already turned back by another notary. The problem was that borrowers wanted notary to schedule them for 2 hours as they were going to read everything. I informed them I had no problem with that and was thankful they had that information in advance. However, my fee would reflect that additional time. And, the scheduler understood that reasoning. I also asked them, knowing this, why didn't they just send the docs to borrowers in advance of signing appointment. He would look into it, get my fee approved and call back. Never heard back. Guess they sent docs in advance and secured the services of a low-cost (translation "cheap") notary. Oh well, karma. Someday, it'll be my turn.

Reply by MikeC/TX on 7/14/13 6:50pm
Msg #476792

If you're concerned whether you committed UPL, in the entire narrative the only part that gave me pause was this:

"I, of course explained that in this context it was more vesting terminology"

I don't think you should be saying stuff like that, assuming that is what you actually said. UPL happens when you apply your knowledge of the law to someone else's specific circumstances. Once you say "in this context" - which could be understood as "in this situation" - you may have crossed the border...

The fact that you were working with an attorney probably works in your favor, since he had no objection to what you were telling him. OTOH, if there are problems with the loan he could come back at you for the "advice" your provided.

Bottom line - be careful with what you say. You may very well know tons more about the process than the BO does, but keep in mind that the only stuff you can tell them is general info. And if that means there is no one to call on a Friday night and they will not sign without answers, your only option is to adjourn the signing. If you push forward and try to respond to their objections, you may be asking for trouble..

Reply by NVLSlady/VA on 7/14/13 7:02pm
Msg #476793

<<"I don't think you should be saying stuff like that . . . UPL happens when you apply your knowledge of the law to someone else's specific circumstances. Once you say "in this context" - which could be understood as "in this situation" - you may have crossed the border...">>

I completely agree, Mr. C!

In fact, I patiently sat through most of it so they wouldn't feel pressured, trying to say nothing that would "come back at me" (I made SURE I included, "I am not an attorney").

I appreciate all the comments about where we must draw the line in our duties. I think this is the hardest part for newer ones. And understand our Role - and it's not to "save the closing" (thanks, Yoli!)

Reply by MW/VA on 7/14/13 9:00pm
Msg #476796

IMO this wasn't UPL. UPL is when you would ADVISE them

about the loan in any way--it's good for you financially, etc. The whole point is that we're a 3rd party--don't legally represent the lender or the borrower. We are sometimes put in a position to have to explain more about the docs or the way the process works than we'd like.
I do a lot of POA signings. They can be a PIA (bad pun, I know), but it sounds like you did the right thing. I hate when we're put in a position to trying to smooth things over when people have lost trust in the process because of their dealings with others in the loan process.
It sounds like you did what you could, and went above & beyond. After all, what are our options?
I've heard of too many notaries who abort the signing & walk away just because it isn't just a "sign, sign, sign" situation. Not all signings go smoothly.
I'm sure you gained a measure to experience & do hope you are compensated for the extra effort. :-)

Reply by NVLSlady/VA on 7/14/13 11:08pm
Msg #476801

Re: IMO this wasn't UPL. UPL is when you would ADVISE them

thanks for this perspective (and the support), Marilyn!

I was definitely in the "hot seat" wedged in between not knowing enough and knowing JUST enough to be potentially "dangerous" to the borrower. It was a position I did not feel comfortable in - and even with the headache I DID get the experience I needed with that one for sure.

I felt like a notary "closer- administrator - mediator- matador - signer" all in one!!



"Courage and grace is a formidable mixture. The only place to see it is the bullring."*
-Marlene Dietrich

*or signing table

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/15/13 5:36am
Msg #476804

You nailed the explanation of UPL, Mike. =) n/m

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/15/13 5:35am
Msg #476803

For these 'non-borrowing' "borrowers" issues ...

It's a fairly common issue - non-B's being referred to within documents as "borrowers". If the mtg/DOT is a Fannie/Freddie version (and 99% are), there is a paragraph that spells it out for them and no UPL involved in showing it. The VA Fannie/Freddie instrument places this paragraph on Page 11, Item 13:

13. Joint and Several Liability; Co-signers; Successors and Assigns Bound. Borrower covenants and agrees that Borrower’s obligations and liability shall be joint and several. However, any Borrower who co-signs this Security Instrument but does not execute the Note (a “co-signer”): (a) is co-signing this Security Instrument only to mortgage, grant and convey the co-signer’s interest in the Property under the terms of this Security Instrument; (b) is not personally obligated to pay the sums secured by this Security Instrument; and (c) agrees that Lender and any other Borrower can agree to extend, modify, forbear or make any accommodations with regard to the terms of this Security Instrument or the Note without the co-signer’s consent.
------------------------------------------

The TIL & RTC are required disclosures to any/all parties who have title interest, whether borrowering or not - Fed law, Reg Z. As an atty, he should've been able to figure out that the TIL isn't a contract, but a disclosure of information. He was an atty out of his element, and that (as you know) can make things a lot of fun.

There is no law that requires the HUD to be signed - it's just typical for them to be signed. Often, though, you'll get separate signature pages in the pkg (these have some disclosure blurbs but NO numbers), which can be used for the revised HUD.

Reply by NVLSlady/VA on 7/15/13 4:30pm
Msg #476880

Re: For these 'non-borrowing' "borrowers" issues ...

Thanks, Renee! Of my package of signing trade "tricks," #13 (above) was the one I needed!!!

Of course, the DOT WAS a fnma production (and I explained that to him); after that I felt I was beginning to cross the boundary - until he finally conceded that the instrument was "boiler plate" (wasn't sure at that point whether to hug him or choke him

Oh, when I got into Reg Z, oh my! Did I TRY . . . next time I'll chant "disclosure, disclosure, disclosure" (didn't know that HUD signature was optional).

Non-ob docs: I will always remember: 13. Joint and Several Liability; Co-signers; Successors . . .

Muchas gracias everyone.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/15/13 10:33pm
Msg #476929

Re: For these 'non-borrowing' "borrowers" issues ...

"Boiler plate" are words that nearly always fall out of my mouth when I reach the DOT/Mortgage... Also, I point to the very bottom of the page where it usually says "...Uniform Instrument".

Reply by VT_Syrup on 7/15/13 10:37am
Msg #476808

Check your state's laws/rules/court decisions, but I think you'll find talking to a lawyer about legal matters is never UPL, regardless of the relationship between the lawyer and the person having the discussion with him/her. The lawyer is presumed to be capable of deciding whether the ideas from the unlicensed person have merit or not. The wife in this thread could be a different matter.