Closing on Tuesday, need opinion

[Rlynne]

I will be closing on some property on Tuesday, do you think the title company will hinder my using "without prejudice" with my signature.

This is the way I sign all paperwork including my own checks. A collegue tried last year to close on some property with signing without prejudice on the document and they told (the title company) him to stop or they would prevent the closing.

Although the title company is not the same one my collegue used I want to be prepared if they should attempt to hamper my closing.

Any suggestions for me, such as document to give title company if they should interfer with my signing of documents???

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Rlynne

I will be closing on some property on Tuesday, do you think the title company will hinder my using "without prejudice" with my signature.

This is the way I sign all paperwork including my own checks. A collegue tried last year to close on some property with signing without prejudice on the document and they told (the title company) him to stop or they would prevent the closing.

Although the title company is not the same one my collegue used I want to be prepared if they should attempt to hamper my closing.

Any suggestions for me, such as document to give title company if they should interfer with my signing of documents???

I know of a fellow who closed on property "without prejudice" and the deal went south within a couple weeks. Now I am sure it will be a dealbreaker much more quickly because of internet communications etc.

You can make your God-given unalienable rights clearer by signing "True Name dba Legal Name" - doing business as the artifice. That is to say "First Middle dba First Middle Last". You can even file a dba with your local county clerk and recorder and show a certified copy at the closing if they question why you sign that way. But it is basically the same thing as signing without prejudice so you might expect the same results.

I know of a suitor who was buying a home and tried this technique. After a few tries he finally signed the old-fashioned way. What JRB and other attorneys understand is that there are only two kinds of taxes; direct and indirect. The income tax is not on the income, that is illegal and unconstitutional. The income tax can only be on the event. The event is endorsement of the FRNs into existence as the loan. [FRNs are debt currency. The substance behind every FRN is debt. Even though you see them as compensation, your employer or some other institution prior created the FRNs as a loan and you must sign endorsement on your paychecks.*] If you present yourself to be the man or woman in true name instead of the artifice persona representing you by signature, then you cannot mix with FRNs. Therefore you must legally represent yourself in the legal or full name so the bank and you will have equal standing in any equity disputes later; standing as artificial entities. Otherwise any fraud (like FRNs) can be utilized as an excuse to renege - you being who provided the credit for the loan in the first place.

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 1
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 2
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 3
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg
Credit River Money Decision Page 4


Signing without prejudice retains your rights in common law. So it is a dealbreaker however you want to express it.


Regards,

David Merrill.


* Get a rubber stamp:

DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR IN EXCHANGE FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF EQUAL VALUE.

Then you disqualify the event being taxable because you do not endorse FRNs to be negotiable instruments. For reporting purposes, only report the paychecks that you endorsed. For instance, only report the ones up to this point in time when you started stamping them a non-taxable event.

[UGA Lawdog]

Well, sweetness, you have two choices here: take the advice of someone like David Merrill, whose legal theories have landed him in jail at least twice, or someone like me. I'm an attorney with over five years of experience at closing real estate transactions, title examinations, etc. In fact, I just closed one yesterday, and am going to close another one on Saturday.

The title company, and the lender, will insist that you sign EACH AND EVERY document exactly the way they want it signed. Typically, that is the way they have your name typed below the line where your signature goes. They don't want you to add or subtract ANYTHING. For example, if they have your name typed John J. Jones, you need to sign it that way...don't leave the middle initial out. Conversely, if they have your name typed simply John Jones, that is how they want it signed...in that case, you should not include the middle initial.

Forget the "dba" and "all rights reserved" style crap. For one thing, it does not have the effect you think it would. And more to the point, if you try that nonsense, they will refuse to let the closing go forward, and you won't be able to buy (or sell, as the case may be) the property.

If you want the property, you have to play by the rules of the lender and the title company. In this context, the Golden Rule is, "they have the gold, so they make the rules." I have done closings for Chase Bank where they insisted that the mortgage have two unofficial witnesses in addition to the notary. I have informed them on numerous occasions that Georgia law only requires one unofficial witness in addition to the notary. Their response? "We don't care. You have to do it the way we want." If I want to get paid, I have to play by their rules. So do you, if you want the property.


The Lawdog

[palani]

Rlynne

Stop by Office Max or Staples and have a stamp made "without prejudice". My own signature is not a legal signature without this phrase. If they ask what it means at closing tell them you aren't a lawyer and can't give legal advice.

Why did they make a point of putting it in the UCC as the only remedy available if you are told you can't use it? Common law was the norm for at least the last 800 years in England and was good enough for your grandparents before the banksters decided to make fake money. Only a crook would be trying to convince you to deviate from sound law to a bogus law that has only been around for 60 some years.

Don't you object to being called 'sweetness'? Follow the previous posters advice and obtain the legal status of 'road kill' instead. I think David Merill gave you some good points.

[Glenn]

Please excuse the spelling errors.

Why would you want title insurance?

Would it not be benifcal to have a certified abstract which is conclusive proof of title.

You propbly do not know that there is more than one type of title insurance and most likely the type they are going to sell you will not cover paying off anyone who may have a supeior claim upon the land, in that case you loose your home and still get the payment!

Think about it.

Glenn

[Glenn]

The banking system you are going to or beleive you are going to borrow mony from is not what you think theye are so after it is all said and done I can give you some Ideas on what to check for and where and you might be suprised as to what you will find.

It dont realy matter the newUCC title 9 says it dont matter any entent to enter into a contract equates your agreement, so no matter what you put or do not put on the document at the time of closing equates your agreement and rember they have witnesses there.

Oyes that reminds me....when it comes to signing the Morgage look and see where the lender signs the document as a party to a contract or as a witness to a trust?

Think about it....

Glenn

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by Rlynne

I will be closing on some property on Tuesday, do you think the title company will hinder my using "without prejudice" with my signature.

This is the way I sign all paperwork including my own checks. A collegue tried last year to close on some property with signing without prejudice on the document and they told (the title company) him to stop or they would prevent the closing.

Although the title company is not the same one my collegue used I want to be prepared if they should attempt to hamper my closing.

Any suggestions for me, such as document to give title company if they should interfer with my signing of documents???

It all depends on how badly you want the property.

The people you will be with will not know what you're attempting to do and will simply not let the closing take place. No title company accepts these kinds of bogus attempts to modify a standard agreement with signature alterations. Any modification would require the involvement of their legal counsel (in advance) and they won't proceed without them or your conformance to the normal signing.

Your risk is with the seller's claims of entering into an agreement in bad faith - i.e., them expecting a legally recognized standard transaction at closing and you trying to add conditions to it, possibly as a ruse to void it all together.

This is not legal advice, but any earnest money you submitted is at risk.

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Your risk is with the seller's claims of entering into an agreement in bad faith - i.e., them expecting a legally recognized standard transaction at closing and you trying to add conditions to it, possibly as a ruse to void it all together.

This is not legal advice, but any earnest money you submitted is at risk.

JRB is correct about the interest money, but his suggestion that the seller could claim against you for bad faith are far fetched.

That could open a can of worms that their "counsel" does not want to open, should that be discussed.

You could always write: "Right of presentment not waived."


That would put their panties in a wringer.

and they could not (in good faith) pursue you for bad faith.

Now, JRB, correct me if I am wrong.

{most deeds of trust waive your right of presentment for you.}

[Rlynne]

You could always write: "Right of presentment not waived."

Henry wouldn't this also cause the title company to reject the closing documents?

Originally Posted by Rlynne

Henry wouldn't this also cause the title company to reject the closing documents?

I am still waiting on JRB to rebut, but if they did reject, it would be an actionable case of bad faith that you could pursue. (IMHO)

The question to them would be, "for what reason, other than bad faith, would you object to me retaining the right of presentment? Why must I waive this right to do business with you?"

Take witnesses. At least two, who are disinterested third parties. Have them sign affidavits that document the proceedings and things said. If it were me, I would wear a digital recorder.

Also not legal advice, as I believe there is no such thing.

If you are going to do this, make sure you know what presentment is, and why it is important to retain the right of presentment.

You should look at the UCC for your state.

Briefly, the right of presentment means that, if you request it, they must show you the original note. This would be most advantageous.

You could state that otherwise, you will not know who the real holder in due course is.

Henry Franklin