Legal name change?

[KenRossman]

What PE said.

I would probly also list both names as intended users...

 

[Couch Potato]

Thank you to all.

They are both FDIC banks. No reason to change anything.

Knee Jerk Tripe


p.s. I banked at First Union, they were bought by Wachovia. I still use my first Union checks and they said I dont need to order new ones until these run out!

There is no longer a both, they are now one. :new_all_coholic:


My plan is to do as Jim stated, put the old name in all the usual spots, and make note of the purchase of the company in the report comments noting they are also known by the new name.

P.E., I agree with your assessment. By noting the name change in the report, if they come back and request an alteration it is not a change of intended user because they were listed in the original report comments.

As Carnivore stated, it is just a label; the entity is still the same.

I appreciate all the responses. It is not something that happens every day. I much prefer being prepared for problems than reacting to them. You have all helped in that regard.

 

[Ken B]

I'm looking forward to a few thoughtful responses among the knee jerk tripe. :new_all_coholic:

Yep, I must not be using enough Smilies...

 

[Carnivore]

If you have not delivered the report, the they should give you specific instructions and how to deal with the issue.

This is relative to the issue if you have delivered the report.

What would they do if you were dead or move on to something else? My point is that this is not your problem.

Do you think the bank has ask everyone and anyone associated with ANYTHING they do to change all the records in the bank for them. When I say all I mean all, like leases they may have, contracts, or other such things?

The bank should send you a letter stating what happened and suggest that you put the letter in your file.

The bank then should attach a letter to the loan file explaining what happened to all future users/readers down the road.

It is just not your problem!

 

[Ken B]

I would report the client's name as that identified on the original request and comment in an addendum that the client, as identified, subsequent to the request date and prior to the report date, merged with the new company and identify that new company.

 

[Mike Boyd]

So you don't see any problem with using a name that is legally inaccurate? Couldn't that be construed as misleading?

I would be willing to bet that the original company will continue to exist, possibly in name only, for several years. However, under the circumstances you describe, I see nothing wrong with changing the name. Whether you charge for it or not is a business decision on your part. Frankly, I would not. The new company is probably larger and has more diversidied loan products. Be nice and you may get more work from them than the old company gave you.

By the way, the lead on your thread simply said "name change." I thought maybe you decided to get off the couch and become Au gratin, scalloped, mashed, baked or french fried. LOL

 

[Vermonter]

Why would reporting the original name on the request be considered "misleading"?

 

[panappr]

I'm looking forward to a few thoughtful responses among the knee jerk tripe. :new_all_coholic:

IMO "First Charter Bank" there must be some sort of grace period in an acquisition, and you should be able to refer to the effective date of the report. However, that would be logical and your dealing with a Bank. :Eyecrazy:

In any case this would be easy to reconcile should you have to change the name. Just keep 2 copies in both names, with an explanation on the ladder.

Anytime, I have to re-open and make a change I write it into the report and give it a new file name (ie File No. 8045 to 8045A, 8045B, etc.)

Am I wrong?

 

[Couch Potato]

If you have not delivered the report, the they should give you specific instructions and how to deal with the issue.

This is relative to the issue if you have delivered the report.

What would they do if you were dead or move on to something else? My point is that this is not your problem.

Do you think the bank has ask everyone and anyone associated with ANYTHING they do to change all the records in the bank for them. When I say all I mean all, like leases they may have, contracts, or other such things?

The bank should send you a letter stating what happened and suggest that you put the letter in your file.

The bank then should attach a letter to the loan file explaining what happened to all future users/readers down the road.

It is just not your problem!

I agree with your statements. The long delay between the order and the inspection caused by the incomplete construction is the reason the issue is even a possibility. It was ordered more than a week before the acquisition closed. When I spoke with the loan officer I got the impression some parts of the transition where a bit chaotic.

No, old documents do not have the new names placed on them, but subsequent documents pertaining to the lease would have the new name. Consider when you walk in to lease an apartment just before it is acquired. You fill out an application and take home a lease to review. Then you show up on Monday after the acquisition, the lease you took home and signed would need to be redone if it was not yet signed by the company. No, they won't redo the application process because it was complete, but the lease was in process and likely requires change. (Hence the pet addendum to my apartment lease has a different company name than the lease itself.)

I may yet receive written instructions regarding the acquisition and name change. I'm still working on setting up the inspection appointment. I don't consider this issue a big deal, but it is unusual enough that I thought we would all benefit from discussing it.

 

[Dale Smalley]

My knee jerk said new client = new appraisal. But I am not a USPAP expert.