Posted by Susan Fischer on 6/14/08 1:01pm
Msg #251326

Reply from FASS - and a few questions:

"Susan- Thank you for your below email. Certainly there are differing opinions and we thank you for taking the time to share yours with us. Our lender customers who send us business are at liberty to set whatever requirements they feel are needed to best manage their business. The large lenders want one standard which is why they are selecting the NNA’s Background Check which is applicable nationwide. As we indicated in our below correspondence, several of our large customers are indicating this will soon be a requirement for their business. We therefore wanted to make you aware of this anticipated requirement to be able to get our business. As an independent vendor, you are welcome to make whatever choice you feel is best for your business. - FASS"

1. 'The large lenders want one standard which is why they are selecting the NNA’s Background Check which is applicable nationwide.' Exactly what is this "standard?" Are these lenders saying that paid membership in the NNA in order to purchase its BGC comports with some industry 'standard' for Regulatory Compliance, or some industry standard for 'verification,' or some other unnamed criteria? Where there is no federal mandate for BGCs per se, who developed this supposed nationwide standard, and why is there only one member of the free market able to meet it?

2. Is there a legal theory to challenge this apparently arbitrary 'requirement' by 'large lenders,' who are certainly free to develop business practices, but who, in this instance, are essentially creating a monopoly in favor of a single, named, unrepresentative private company?

3. Do states have an interest in in this onerous one-option 'requirement' being placed on their notaries public independently contracting as vendors with signing services/title companies/lenders to perform doc signing services? If consumer protection is the impetus for BGCs, how does this single-option 'requirement' further that goal within each state?

4. While FASS is correct, that I am free to choose "compliance" to get their business - or not, are there issues of unfair business practices resulting in a sort of blackmail by 'large lenders'?

Reply by MW/VA on 6/14/08 1:23pm
Msg #251330

The Grahm-Leach-Billey Act (passed by Congress regarding protection of personal information) has nothing to do with NNA or SS's. The NNA offered it to notaries to become complaint & tried to create a nationally accepted standard for our profession. A lot of TC's and SS's starting make it a requirement to work for them. It's not mandatory as far as the federal or state govs are concerned. I did comply (NNA Certification/BGC) and have never regretted that decision. It's been an important aspect of my business to be complaint. IMO, as we move into e-transactions it will become even more important. There are options to paying the NNA. I've heard of many who went directly to Lexis-Nexis (who NNA uses) for the BGC. Just my 4 cents (adjusting for inflation, you know).

Reply by Lee/AR on 6/14/08 1:33pm
Msg #251332

"creating a monopoly in favor of a single, named, unrepresentative private company"
You forgot "with no recognized legal authority to represent anyone".

Reply by MW/VA on 6/14/08 2:13pm
Msg #251338

There's no monopoly--you can get a bcg from anyone you choose. I think it is available here on NotRot, also.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 6/14/08 2:26pm
Msg #251339

You are missing the entire point. It appears the 'large'

lenders are not going to recognize the perfectly valid BGC I purchased, submitted to, and passed from NR.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 6/14/08 3:02pm
Msg #251347

Their hands are all in the same pockets - ours. n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/14/08 2:28pm
Msg #251340

Yes you can - but many lenders and/or SS's

who use the NNA site or use NNA-certified notaries insist that the BGC MUST be done through the NNA and no other is acceptable - and I disagree with that concept...MHO

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/14/08 2:28pm
Msg #251341

Sorry..this reply was to MW/VA... n/m

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 6/14/08 3:01pm
Msg #251346

Another "A+" for Susan =) n/m

Reply by CaliNotary on 6/14/08 6:44pm
Msg #251377

Why does any experienced SA waste time with FASS?

It's been years since I've done any work for them and I had to be pretty rude to get them to finally take me out of their database. Their pay is crap and they expect their notaries to jump through a ridiculous amount of hoops for the privilege of working for them.

So this is just yet another hoop they've put up, I don't see what the big deal is.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 6/14/08 7:07pm
Msg #251380

Again, missing the point. It is not about a particular

signing service, it is about the legality of 'large' lenders "requiring" signing agents to purchase a non-required product (BGC) from a single companywho does NOT offer that product openly to NSAs nationwide, but extacts membership fees before a BGC can be purchased.

Reply by jba/fl on 6/14/08 7:36pm
Msg #251382

Total agreement. n/m

Reply by CaliNotary on 6/14/08 8:56pm
Msg #251407

Re: Again, missing the point. It is not about a particular

What law says that they have to only use a product that is openly available at no additional cost to everybody equally? They don't have to give us all equal opportunity. And we do have equal opportunity in this situation anyway, it's just whether or not we're willing to pay the costs associated with meeting their requirements. It's not unique to this industry, plenty of companies have similar requirements for various reasons.

Your line of thinking is as if we're consumers instead of vendors. Huge difference.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/16/08 1:21am
Msg #251462

Re: Again, missing the point. It is not about a particular

"...but extacts membership fees before a BGC can be purchased."

Don't you mean "extorts" membership fees?

I just started a new CA commission, which required I pay for a full BGC -- DOJ and FBI. If that's not good enough for them, they can go find someone else. I've done a few for FASS on occasion, but have been able to negotiate a better fee. They usually have been when they've been in a jam or had some special circumstance. I'd be happy to continue with that kind of a relationship, but I'm not going to be paying any dues to the NNA just so I can get work for certain companies.

Legal or not, it sure doesn't feel right!

Reply by MW/VA on 6/16/08 7:42am
Msg #251469

IMO to dictate that only one source of bgc is acceptable would be illegal. Why not start a "class action suit" against them.