JAN 9, 2012

Related White Papers

Four Ways to Use Property Records to Uncover Hidden Risks, by Michael O’Connell
What We're Hearing

Regulatory Abuse or Foreclosure Sloppiness?

JAN 9, 2012 12:18pm ET

We heard an interesting one the other day and it goes like this: Supposedly, auditors were giving one bank servicer a hard time because foreclosure notaries that worked for the bank did not physically see their co-worker sign the documents. Instead, the documents were signed and then when he was finished the notary came in and verified them. Is this regulatory harassment or a simple case of a servicer not following the letter of the law down to the fine detail? Should the notary have to witness “live” the signing of foreclosure documents or is that a bit too pedantic?

Comments (6)
THIS TYPE OF "covering our eyes"; activities may well be how the 'robo signing' mess began. Notaries, like appraisers, should look carefully at the documents that they verify and or certify as well as the persons signing them. Purchasing a home and the documents surrounding mortgages , titles, transfers of property are important to the families who are involved in these transactions not only now but years later as well. YES, The notary should witness the 'live' signing of foreclosure documents!
Posted by chuck wilson | Monday, January 09 2012 at 1:38PM ET
A Notary or anyone else who attests that he has witnessed something when he has not done so is guilty of perjury. Period. His Notary seal is invalid and his signature is of no account. Since the document in fact was not notarized, it is not a valid document. There is a good reason for requiring this. Suppose someone stuck some other documents in the pile and got them "notarized" by this person. Could be lots of damage done and money stolen.
Posted by Tom Mccombs | Monday, January 09 2012 at 2:52PM ET
Add Your Comments: