MBA Says FHA and IRS 4506-T Allow E-Signatures 2012
November 13th, 2011
4 comments
Archive
Posts Tagged ‘contract’
E-Signatures for Real Estate and Mortgage Industry – Ask the Questions?
October 1st, 2011
1 comment
Thinking about adding secure and efficient e-Signatures to your current
workflow? Well, quite bluntly, not all vendors offering e-Sign solutions are
the same. Just this week we heard of a REALTOR® that ‘grabbed’ an tablet e-Sign
app off the Internet and actually used this tool on a real estate transaction. When asked about levels of security, tamper evident audit trails, non-repudiation and lenders, Fannie Mae, County Recorders acceptance, etc., blank stare – huh?
As electronic and digital signatures affixed to contracts and agreements continue to gain adoption, seems like everyone is now jumping on the bandwagon. We also read where a Mortgage vendor, now claiming expertise, is offering this solution for Free, huh? Same compliance questions – who has certified or willing to accept these as binding?
When it comes to Real Estate and Mortgages, our 30 year old domain experience has advanced our vision for a complete digital, electronic and paperless real estate and mortgage transaction over the Internet. Having collaborated with Industry experts and pioneers for complete ‘buy-in’ we now enjoy at least a 4-5 year head start and provide the Industry’s ‘Holy Grail’ - a pure electronic end-to-end solution – from opening to closing (and beyond).
In another example, the real estate promissory note is probably the highest liability document any consumer will ever sign (representing the asset and in some residential markets that could translate to a $ 10 million or more risk) yet many so called e-Signed experts have not even approached, no less been certified by, the required compliance agencies, huh?
Not all e-Sign vendors are alike – ask the questions.
OMG – Post Office on “Brink of Default”-ZapSign to the Rescue!
September 6th, 2011
No comments
WASHINGTON (AP) – Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warned that the Postal Service is on “the brink of default” as he battles to keep his agency solvent. Without legislation by Sept. 30, the agency “will default on a mandated $5.5 billion payment to the Treasury”, Donahoe told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday. Taking a tip from the current administration, “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste…”
We introduced our ZapSign division this summer to alleviate some of the overwhelming burden shouldered by the USPS. Today, we offer the first Global, eco-friendly and purely automated contract delivery service - first class, registered receipt, round trip, and legally binding e-Signature service in less than 5 minutes (members pay only 99 cents). Send sales agreements, contracts, NDA’s, Applications, HR docs, etc. from anywhere to anywhere, no extra charge. Signing at the airport, on the golf course or while traveling abroad - on your smart phone or tablet – price included..
The Postal Service has lost $7.9 billion in the past two years. It has borrowed money to pay its bills. Mail volume fell 4.5% last year and the Postal Service expects a bigger drop this year.
Most Americans understand that this is not your Daddy’s Postal Service and we’ve known for generations this has got to change. A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll suggests that most support cutting back mail services — closing post offices, trimming delivery service — rather than raising stamp prices or using taxpayers’ money for a bailout.
Now is the time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of their country… Don’t Mail it - Zapsign it!
Will Rising Fuel Prices Ramp E-Signature Adoption?
May 20th, 2011
No comments
Out of town at a conference today and had the chance to scour the USA Today-seems like I only get to do this when I trip over it while traveling..Anyway, I was amazed at what I found in the headlines and quotes as I traversed the business section:
- Amazon Sells More eBooks than Print
- Linked In Shares Soar On First Day of Trading
- Investors are Willing to Take Chances on Up and Coming Companies
- Businesses Struggle as Shipping Costs Rise
- Some Change Driving Habits as Pain Hits Those Who Can Least Afford it
- Gas Prices Pushes Some Consumers to the Edge
- “It’s painful, it erodes my profits and I’m concerned about the potential for growth”
- “If I can ship the same product, reduce shipping costs, reduce shipping costs and the carbon footprint thing by not using so much fuel that would be huge”
- “Over the next four years we could see $185-$200 a barrel of oil, which translates to a gallon price of $6.00″
Could this provide the catalyst and create the tipping point for e-Signature adoption? It’s made sense to us for more than a decade!
Arkansas Supreme Courts Upholds UETA and E-Signatures
April 25th, 2011
No comments
In a very important case the validity of e-Signatures was once again reaffirmed in Barwick vs. GEICO. To learn more about the ruling and validity of Electronic Signatures on Contracts and Agreements please read below:
In a March 31, 2011 opinion, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the lower court’s granting of a summary judgment in favor of GEICO, upholding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (“UETA”) and e-Signature that waived minimum medical coverage. After an auto accident the insured incurred medical expenses and the insured claimed that the electronic signature on the online wavier of medical coverage was not binding because the waiver was not “in writing” as required by the Arkansas Insurance Code.On April 12, 2010, appellant moved for summary judgment, contending that Ms. Barwick’s electronic signature on the application did not qualify as a written rejection of coverage as required by section 23-89-203. GEICO responded with its own motion for summary judgment, in which it argued that Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-32-107 (Repl. 2002) gives legal effect to electronic records, signatures, and contracts and that Ms. Barwick’s electronic signature on the form satisfied the “in writing” requirement of section 23-89-203. In support of its motion, GEICO submitted excerpts from Ms. Barwick’s deposition, and the “Arkansas Information and Option Form,” completed by Ms. Barwick online. The form indicated that she rejected both medical benefits and medical-payments coverage, and it bore an electronic signature of her name. In her deposition, Ms. Barwick acknowledged that she completed the form on the website and that she did not select coverage for medical benefits. She also testified that she signed the application electronically. Ms. Barwick stated, however, that she had not physically signed any written document provided by GEICO rejecting medical-benefits coverage.
After a hearing, and upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, the circuit court granted GEICO’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the online rejection of coverage and electronic signature satisfied the statutory requirement for a rejection to be in writing under section 23-89-203. Appellant filed a timely appeal from the order of summary judgment entered on August 9, 2010. For complete Judicial View story:
Follow Us!