banner
article1photo
byline
in this issue
article1
article2
article3

 
On August 30, 2018, Russell Anguiano, Escrow Officer from Fidelity National Title's Santa Rosa, California office, opened a cash–out loan transaction in the amount of $500,000 with a hard money, private party lender.

The lender was located in Santa Rosa, the borrower was located in Vallejo, California and the property securing the loan was located in Redwood City, California. The borrower, a certified public accountant, ran his business from the subject property in Redwood City, which was worth approximately $1.7 million. The title report revealed the borrower and his wife owned the property free and clear of any liens.

On Thursday, September 13, 2018, Russell received loan instructions indicating the loan would be for $500,000 at 9% interest and a $15,000 loan origination fee would be charged. Russell worked up the file for the closing and contacted the borrower for the signing appointment. The borrower elected to sign with a mobile signing agent.

Russell scheduled the signing with a Bancserv mobile signing agent, Geraldine "GiGi" Sagmit. GiGi called the number Russell provided to confirm the appointment, but the borrower did not answer. The phone was answered by a gentleman she believed was the representative of the borrower and said they would meet up with her at Starbucks®.

GiGi met the borrower and his wife for the signing appointment. The wife was conveying her ownership interest to her husband and then he intended to be the sole borrower on the loan.

GiGi asked for their identification and immediately noticed their driver's licenses did not contain the signers' middle initials. The closing documents were drawn with their middle initials reflected on their respective documents. She asked the signers for additional identification containing their full names and middle initials, but neither signer could produce identification exactly as their names appeared on the documents.

GiGi contacted Russell to let him know the signing would have to be postponed until the signers could obtain identification containing their full names with middle initials. She concluded the signing appointment and made notes in the Bancserv system, stating the signing appointment was unusual since it was orchestrated by a third–party and it just did not feel right.

GiGi then returned the documents to Russell. Russell informed the lender the signing appointment would be delayed. The lender was anxious and wanted to schedule another signing appointment as soon as possible.

Knowing GiGi felt uneasy about the signing, Russell reviewed copies of the front and back of the driver's licenses for the husband and wife, that the lender had provided at the time he opened the order. Russell looked at the signatures on the licenses and compared them to signatures on previously recorded documents in the chain of title.

The husband's signature looked authentic but the wife's did not match at all. Russell sent the identification and previously recorded documents to the Title Officer, Andrew Benavides. Andrew looked over the identification and noticed the wife's signature did not match signatures on previously recorded documents. Andrew also noticed the sex on the wife's license indicated she is a "male" and the date of birth was incorrect. The real wife was born on April 13th but the driver's license reflected a birth date of April 15th.

Russell contacted the National Escrow Administrator to discuss his team's findings:

  • Non–owner occupied property free and clear of encumbrances, so why did the owner need a hard money loan with a $15,000 loan origination fee?
  • Property is worth $1.7 million, so why would the owner need a loan at 9% interest?
  • A stranger arranged the signing, who was neither the lender nor the borrower.
  • The signers could not produce sufficient identification to enable their signatures to be notarized.
  • The wife's identification was clearly a fake and she is conveying her interest in the property. Usually a spouse only conveys their interest if it is required by the funding lender. The lender did not make the requirement.

The answer from escrow administration was clear: Resign as escrow holder and refuse to issue any policy of title insurance. Russell notified the lender the Company would not be able to close the loan.

At the same time, the stranger who had arranged the signing called GiGi, claiming to be from a title company in Los Angeles. She recognized his voice immediately. He wanted to confirm the only problem she had with notarizing the documents was the missing middle initials from the identification and there was nothing else wrong. Although she knew the other facts about the transaction, she confirmed the identification presented was not sufficient and hung up.

GiGi does not plan on ever meeting with the husband and wife again. Russell resigned as the settlement agent and Andrew cancelled the title file. Thank you to GiGi, Russell and Andrew, for thwarting a forgery and for saving the Company from a potential claim! As tokens of appreciation, the Company has rewarded them each $500.

 

 
 

MORAL OF THE STORY

Had GiGi accepted the identification and notarized the documents, Russell likely would not have examined the signatures on previously recorded documents to compare them to the signatures on the driver's licenses, and Andrew would not have examined the driver's licenses for inaccuracies.

Together, all three prevented the real wife from losing her interest in the subject property and prevented the Company from insuring a bad loan. It truly does take a village to successfully close and insure transactions and it takes a village to protect the Company and the public we serve, from fraud and forgery.

 
 

 

 
  SHARE    
 
 
 
footer_line
 
stop fraud! share
 
footer_line
 
 
FNF Home