Getting Sued

[Chris Colston]

Look, hasn't anyone, besides me, noticed? The OP asked for advice, claimed the request was urgent. However, in y'alls falling over each other with refunds or don't refund, the OP has not returned even with an update or a thanks for the (?) advice (?). I wouldn't call what any of you have given as advice.

Stay on topic, stay civil with each other and maybe the OP will come back and post an update.

From the original post and it could be poorly worded....the first mistake I see is the changing of the report. Second mistake, and perhaps this was left out of the post, was accepting the LOs word without something in writing. I stand on the side of NO REFUNDS.

If the borrower is really suing the lender (or perhaps the mortgage broker, which is not the same thing), I wouldn't be that concerned until I was served. Otherwise it's just an intimidation tactic.

 

[Louis Pompeo]

If I'm hearing Chris correctly, he's saying that I'm the only one who was right and should be awarded a trophy for my rightness.

Thanks Chris (in all humility)

 

[Chris Colston]

If I'm hearing Chris correctly, he's saying that I'm the only one who was right and should be awarded a trophy for my rightness.

Thanks Chris (in all humility)

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, not my place. I am, like, everyone else, just expressing an opinion. An educated opinion, but an opinion, none the less.

BTW....you are WRONG on one point....HE's a SHE!!

 

[Webbed Feet]

Look, hasn't anyone, besides me, noticed? The OP asked for advice, claimed the request was urgent. However, in y'alls falling over each other with refunds or don't refund, the OP has not returned even with an update or a thanks for the (?) advice (?). I wouldn't call what any of you have given as advice.

Stay on topic, stay civil with each other and maybe the OP will come back and post an update.

<........ snip...... > Am I at fault here and should I give them the money back? Please help. This is Urgent.

Ms. Colston,

I think a moderator implying the O.P. has not clarified a host of things due to replies, and stating a suggestion that commenting on refunds or not was not appropriate (as everyone was just falling all over themselves), is in itself as off target as anyone else may be. Seems to me that responses regarding refunding is exactly what was asked for. Don't you agree? ..

Members here get chastised quite a bit when a new forum poster "Posts N' Runs" with claims we scare these individuals off because we are so harsh on them. My view is these posters have a duty to US to stay and participate in a thread they started, and to take responsibility for their own poor communication skills with the written word. Holy cow! .. Look what they do for a living! ... If they can't communicate in writing better than the majority of them do here on the forum, they are in deep doo doo professionally. And in our industry, when we do a crappy job the first time, we correct our work. We don't cut and run! ... If some forum members cop an attitude from assuming these people's reports are as bad as their posts, or only as good as their posts, who is to blame for that?

Last I checked, my opinion on the above is called accountability. Perhaps the forum needs posted SOW parameters for original posters posting quality, and they should have to meet the SOW with signed certifications. Just like they are supposed to in the real world. Then maybe we can get off the backs of all the forum "reviewers" that can't get a original poster to complete the assignment per minimum standards instead of running off and leaving it misleading.

Webbed.

P.S. This post is not just about this particular original poster. Especially, as I've seen much worse on the forum, and do daily. I just reject that it is our faults how threads go when original posters do a poor job communicating and then run off due to the affect that has on all the responses. What is responsible? .. The cause, or the affect?... Who is responsible for leaving things that way?

 

[Jim Mallon]

BTW....you are WRONG on one point....HE's a SHE!!

L-O-L-A Lola!! Ha!

 

[Kevin Mc]

Dude, that is called a "New Assignment," not just "change the report."

My bold.......

 

[Wolverinefan]

A new Marketing tool! If the deal dies you get your $300 back....what a concept! If only I could have thought of this years ago. Sarcasm.....

Come on, you guys can't be serious about refunding money. If your confidence is that lacking in your report, then you should refund your License and keep the $300.00

 

[Webbed Feet]

My bold.......

Dude! .. You bolded the quote! ... .. What the heck is so bad about "dude" anyway? .. It's used for comic relief in movies!

Webbed.

 

[Wolverinefan]

Dude is OK......... but Lady is not? I am confused. I personally think they both sound a little unprofessional....

 

[Webbed Feet]

Dude is OK......... but Lady is not? I am confused. I personally think they both sound a little unprofessional....

Mr Grutter,

I may have been the very first on the forum to actually use sir names. I did so as it just seemed professional and polite! ... All hell broke loose because I was supposedly insulting the people when I used sir names. It made them feel old, no matter how often I posted I was doing so because I considered it a sign of respect. ... so dude or lady sounding unprofessional? ... what about... "the Duck?" ...

Sometimes forum members are not happy regardless of what they get called. Just don't call them late for dinner..

Webbed.

It has come to my attention that my referencing "sir names" might be confusing as "surnames" is thought to be the common usage. However, "surnames" are not the honorific titles such as Mr., Ms, Mrs., or Miss I was referring to. I hope this clears up any perceived error on my part....