Title company is threatening to refuse to issue title.

The first lender servicer (SPS) is refusing to put on its approval letter a payoff to the second.
They say they NEVER have done this in a non-HAFA short sale. They defend by saying they don't have to because the the second lender's demand will do that. They also say their net is all they have to specify. But they have conceded to put their 'approval' directly on the HUD by writing at line 505 they approve of the payoff to the second BUT won't put this on their letter.

I called around and other title companies say the same thing. They want the approval letter to state what is being paid to the 2nd. This is in California. Neither lender or title company will budge, at  the moment.

Has anyone ever closed a short sale where the first did not state what it was paying the 2nd on its letter? If your in California, what title company was OK with that?

P.S.  Title company having a similar fit about the 2nd approval letter! The first is paying $3,000 relo costs to seller. The second lender refuses to put on its approval letter that it allows the seller to get relocation fees, but they will put an "OK" on line 506 of the HUD, similar to what the first is doing, above.

Lenders must all be reading the same play book. Suggestions /  your experience appreciated.

BJ