Page 4 - Brand News v15, No. 2_2018

FRAUD INSIGHTS Winners
V.
Kari Allegro, Escrow Officer for Ticor Title, Woodland Hills, California, opened a sale transaction. The sellers, Mary A. Richman and a company we will call "RE Holdings," were selling a condo for $335,000. Two uninsured deeds were found in the chain of title.
In April of 2011, Darren Deeds, a Vietnam Veteran, purchased the condo. On November 29, 2012, a deed was recorded transferring the property to Darren Deeds, Mary A. Richman and RE Holdings. On February 12, 2016, another deed was recorded where Darren Deeds transferred his interest in the property to Mary A. Richman.
Neither of the deeds were recorded as a part of an insured transaction. The first deed was executed on February 28, 2012 and the second on March 16, 2012. Even more concerning was the fact Darren Deeds passed away on March 22, 2012.
Kari had no way of confirming with Darren if he did, in fact, sign the deeds, and she was concerned whether he was of sound mind or not. She decided to pull a previous copy of a deed of trust signed by Darren. She compared the signature on the documents and was unable to confirm or deny whether it was his signature.
Kari shared her concerns with her Chief Title Administrator, Chris Akin, who chose not to insure the sale, since he could not be certain the deeds in the chain of title were validly executed.
November 2017 issue
Read on to discover how John Alvarez, Title Officer for Chicago Title of Nevada, uncovered a forgery after reviewing all of the warning signs.
On November 22, 2017, a loan transaction for $150,000 was opened with Escrow Officer Lorena Arellano. The home owner provided instructions to open an escrow for a new loan in favor of a private party using their rental property in Las Vegas as the collateral. Lorena opened the order and placed an order for a title report.
Lorena worked up the file and contacted the borrowers to schedule a signing appointment. The borrowers lived in Westminster, California, so Lorena was going to schedule the signing with a California mobile signing agent.
The borrowers declined the mobile signing agent and said they were driving to Lorena's office in Henderson, Nevada, to sign their documents in Lorena’s office — a four hour trip.
The preliminary report required a Statement of Information to be completed by the borrowers since the property was free and clear of encumbrances. Lorena obtained the completed Statement of Information from the borrowers at the signing and sent it to John in title to review.
The names matched, the taxpayer identification numbers matched, but the mailing addresses did not match. The tax bill was being sent to Arcadia, California. The Statement of Information listed that as a former address, but now the borrowers supposedly lived in Westminster. The Westminster address does not even exist.
John pulled documents from a prior file and noticed the signatures were completely different. He sent the statements to Title Manager Mike Gilliam for comparison, and the signatures were determined to be a forgery. The Company refused to close and insure the loan, and cancelled the order.
John's astute recognition of the forgery saved the Company from a $150,000 potential claim from the insured lender and a possible claim from the real property owners for clouding title to their property with a forged deed of trust.
January 2018 issue
Coral Tudrick, Escrow Assistant at Ticor Title, opened a refinance transaction. The elderly borrower held title to the property in a trust. A power of attorney appointed the elderly borrower's daughter as his attorney–in–fact. When scheduling the signing, the daughter told Coral her Father was "illiterate" and informed Coral she did not need to talk directly with her Father, the borrower. The daughter signed the documents through an approved notary.
When Coral received the documents, she reviewed them for a phone number of the borrower but did not find one. Without a way to verify or speak directly with the borrower, Coral raised the issue to her branch manager, Linda Villa. Together, they discussed how the Daughter indicating her Father was illiterate could be a red flag
for elder abuse and brought this to the attention of the lender.
The lender requested a conference call with the elderly borrower, broker, escrow officer and title officer. The lender asked some very direct questions of the elderly borrower. The borrower stated he was "confused," or deferred to his Daughter.
When asked directly if the elderly borrower understood the Daughter was taking a loan out on the property he stated simply, "No." At that point, Coral and Linda obviously refused to proceed.
Coral recognized what could be a case of elder abuse. The decision to halt the transaction and talk with the borrower directly prevented the Daughter from defrauding her Father and prevented a potential claim to the Company.
May 2018 issue
4 15, No. 2 / BRAND NEWS