Posted by Tess on 3/30/09 10:30pm
Msg #282781

PA Notaries, Diane is at it again!

Just a portion of the letter she wrote because of a TIRBOP rate structure increase.


"Failure to follow lender instructions - well you might be interested to know that in many cases, the title agent isn't the one receiving or signing the instructions. Many title agents in PA use independent, unlicensed contract closers who received these instructions and make the delivery to the mortgage lender. I am appalled that this system has evolved and RECOMMEND LEGISLATIVE changes to bring the performance of the closing, the actual signing and delivery of documents to the lender, under the umbrella of licensing by creating the requirement that the closer is an employee of the title company or agent."

Reply by Maureen_nh on 3/30/09 10:48pm
Msg #282782

I am "Apalled" that she said this, but am glad that she is feeling better and is able to try to comunicate.

Reply by MichiganAl on 3/31/09 7:19am
Msg #282801

I've always supported Diane's right to her opinion, understood where she was coming from, agreed with her on some things, disagreed on others, but to me this is just shameful. It's not just misinformation, it's a flat out lie to try to support her position. I'm saddened that she would stoop to this. She's lost a notch of credibility in my eyes.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 3/30/09 11:40pm
Msg #282789

Sounds like a bit of misinformation to me, combining the signing and delivery of the docs. At least in my experience here in CA, docs are nearly always returned to escrow, i.e. the actual closing/settlement agent, not to the lender. I realize that things are done differently in every state, but I've worked with quite a few different companies out of PA and I don't recall ever sending docs directly to the lender (except maybe for Mod's, which are a different kettle of fish. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Reply by Pat/IL on 3/30/09 11:53pm
Msg #282791

It would help to have more information, at least the entire text of Diane's complaint, to see the context in which this was written. I will go out on a limb and guess that the quote was written by Diane Cipa.

What I don't really get is why the closing instructions would only be sent to the Notary and not the title company, unless there was no title insurance involved (in which case, it should be none of her concern).

I believe I know Diane's motives, and their order of importance to Diane. Again, this is only a guess. I don't even really know if we are speaking of the same Diane. But here goes:

(1) Survival of Diane's title agency. Not very long ago, the local title agent handled most of the transactions, and their customers were local banks and brokers. Notary signing agents became a factor with the consolidation of lenders, becoming too big to fail and too big to handle their (local title) vendor relations. What gets me is that most of the companies that have sprouted up to accommodate the vendor management are located in PA.

(2) Survival of the local title agency. I believe Diane deeply cares about the direction the title industry has taken. Standards have been lowered across the board, in all aspects of the industry, to maximize short term profit (at the expense of the long term health of the industry). This is not limited to the settlement end. Many NR readers also are regular readers of Source of Title. If you are one of them, you know that the abstractors experience the same problems as you, often involving the same deadbeat customers.

(3) The viability of the title industry. Overall, the industry traditionally known for eliminating risks before insuring, has evolved into another form of casualty insurance in many respects. There are dangers to this approach that have yet to be realized. I will look arrogant in my next guess, but here goes: There is not one CEO of any major title underwriter that has earned his bones in the title industry. They are all widget salesmen, and probably darned good at selling widgets. They are destroying the public records system because they understand widgets.

The Mobile Notary Signing Agent field, as it stands today, is a creation intended to accommodate the Walmartization of the lending industry. Good-bye Main Street. The fewer the local lenders get, the fewer also will the local title agents. Many local agents are bitter about this, as are many local stores bitter when the big box stores encroach on their customer base. Right or wrong, that's the way things are.

Reply by Julie/MI on 3/31/09 6:58am
Msg #282798

I agree with some of what you say, but in 1999-2000 most of the business was equity loans, which local title companies were not involved in. The mom and pop title companies, at least in SE michigan didn't really get involved in the refi boom either. They maintained their relationships with real estate companies and builders and some of the mortgage companies. The big banks such as Comerica, LaSalle, National City, et al all closed their loans at their branches and didn't offer customers the opportunity to close at home. With ABN Amro, if you called the Sunrise, FL call center, you got to close at home, but if you appliced at the branch you closed at the branch.

Additionally, the local title companies wanted to close at 5, they didn't want to stay open past that as they had enough business from purchases and refi's. I still see plenty of main street in the detroit suburbs. but as you say, every area is different.

Here opinions don't matter to any of the decision makers anyway.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 3/31/09 7:55am
Msg #282804

Perhaps we're doing some assuming, also?

Diane is undoubtedly a driven person, but she is also (I think) indisputably intelligent and seriously well-versed in her field - perhaps Diane actually has found title agents in PA skirting protocol, and the mobile notaries to help them do it? Nothing really surprises me anymore, but I would still find it difficult to believe that there are "many" title agents doing this. That part is just too hard to swallow ... too many of us would NEVER, have NEVER, have never HEARD of anyone in our 'unlicensed because there is no license to obtain' field, signing Closing Instructions. As for shipping back to the lender - well, even thought that isn't the norm either, I fail to see anything improper with it.

If there are "many" signing agents signing Closing Instructions - I guess we'll have to see how the courts play that one out, should an U/W deny a claim as a result of the signature, as in my wildest dreams no lender is going to just walk away from THAT.

In the larger picture and the bigger interest of consumer's best interests, I do support Diane's efforts - particularly humorous is this comment, in the same letter:

"Take a close look at closing fees and settlement fees and you will find NON-traditional title agents who give the consumer no choice but to use a mobile notary, contract closer and that consumers are paying big bucks for these closers."

It leads one to assume WE are making those big bucks, which of course is far from the truth but perhaps means to aim the arrow at Bundled Services & brokering of signings.

Reply by DianeCipa on 3/31/09 9:35am
Msg #282821

Hello. here's the full text of letter.

Dear Mr. Romberger:

I am writing concerning the proposed changes to the TIRBOP rate structure. I do hope my comments will be considered as I did not learn of the rate filing until last week, having received no notice from my title underwriters or PLTA.

I am a licensed title insurance agent. I have over 30 years of experience in the fields of real estate, mortgage lending and title insurance. Prior to starting a title insurance agency in 1991, I had worked for 13 years in mortgage lending including as a FHA direct endorsement underwriter and VA approved underwriter. I managed retail and wholesale lending departments for two large Pittsburgh based savings institutions. I was also responsible for regulatory compliance and assisted in the creation of quality control audit programs. Having to train personnel, manage the ever changing underwriting guidelines and regulatory compliance issues gave me a unique perspective when I entered the title insurance field. My first observations were that title insurance agents don't read guidelines, have no clue, handle lots of money and nobody is watching. Frankly, I was astounded.

I have since realized that state insurance regulators rely mainly on title companies, underwriters, to self police their agents. This would seem logical and probably did work for many years, as a company responsible for the acts of its agents, you would think, would be motivated to maintain quality. I have learned, however, through repeated observations that title companies work hard at maintaining the APPEARANCE of quality in its written procedure manuals and the TIRBOP manual while in reality the day to day business of title insurance largely ignores these standards.

Title companies, it seems to me, took a calculated risk that increased revenues generated by creating more agencies, mostly through affiliated businesses with real estate brokers and mortgage lenders, and generally tossing credible training and underwriting out the window to close and insure more transactions would make up for increases in claims. It was a bad bet. Judgment day has arrived.

I know from first hand experience that the TIRBOP manual is rarely covered in continuing education. The fact that title agents have trouble getting the premium correct and have left title companies exposed to class action law suits and regulatory penalties is NOT because the rules are too hard to understand but rather that title companies do not teach agents or monitor compliance in any way that would be effective.

I sit in continuing education sessions in which I am one of very few paying attention to the instructors. Most people in the room are reading newspapers, novels, working on their computers, texting or talking on their cell phones. It seems to me that CE credits should be worth more than simply showing up. I'm certain you agree, however, know that the instructors in charge of most of these sessions are title company attorneys. They are salesmen for their title company and afraid of enforcing discipline because the people in these classes are their CUSTOMERS or perspective customers.

The solution, if you want to make training meaningful, I think would be to have a moderator charged with enforcing discipline who is in the room. Sounds ridiculous, I know. I've never seen anything like it.

As to the SALE versus NON-SALE rate change, I don't care because other than the PHFA borrowers losing their discount, making the system easier because title agents are ignorant and title companies refuse to teach and monitor, I guess it's sort of revenue neutral and not a big deal.

I do STRONGLY object to the increase of the cost of the Closing Services Letter to $75. Losses covered under the CSL, defalcations and failure of an agent to follow lender instructions, can and should be reduced by legislative changes that introduce quality oversight where none exists.

Defalcations are largely self created losses by title companies who have failed to police and monitor their agents. Once again, because agents are perceived to be referral sources and, hence, customers of title companies, there is an inherent conflict of interest that I believe cannot be surmounted by title companies. I RECOMMEND LEGISLATIVE changes to create rules for the management of title agent escrow accounts including independent annual audits by a CPA. This way you prevent mismanagement of funds and likely defalcations and you do it without the reliance of the title companies and without increased cost to the consumer.

Failure to follow lender instructions - well you might be interested to know that in many cases, the title agent isn't the one receiving or signing the instructions. Many title agents in PA use independent, unlicensed contract closers who received these instructions and make the delivery to the mortgage lender. I am appalled that this system has evolved and RECOMMEND LEGISLATIVE changes to bring the performance of the closing, the actual signing and delivery of documents to the lender, under the umbrella of licensing by creating the requirement that the closer is an employee of the title company or agent.

I do not object to the extension to the consumer of the CSL coverage, however, charging $40 per insured transaction to me is highway robbery unless steps are taken to solve the REAL problems causing these claims.

I read with interest the Attorney General's press release and comments concerning title insurance premiums in PA. I, too, would love to see public hearings and would welcome an opportunity to testify.

Consumers in PA are not well served by the system. I follow the underwriting guidelines and earn the portion of the title insurance premium I retain. I have a full search performed by an expert abstractor. I do my own professional title examination and prepare the title insurance commitment myself. Closings are performed by trained employees. We spend much of our time searching and identifying potential title problems and resolving them prior to the issuance of the title policy. Even after the issuance of the policy, we work hard to resolve title problems that surface before they turn into formal claims, those that show up in the title company reports. We, as a TRADITIONAL title agent, earn every penny in our split of the all inclusive rate.

NON-traditional title agents, on the other hand, are nothing more than referral sources for the title company and, in my opinion, are not performing core services of title agency. These non-traditional agents take a title order and transmit it to the title company who then obtains the abstract and electronically delivers to the agent a fully examined and prepared title insurance commitment. Most of these non-traditional title agents don't even perform the closing or delivery to the mortgage lender, they contract that job out to independent closers, often hired again, by the title company.

If we were to compare only value added to the transaction TRADITIONAL versus NON-traditional title agents, we could argue that consumers are paying for services they are not receiving from NON-traditional agents even if we looked only at promulgated rates, however, if you look at the HUD-1 forms you will find that consumers are being robbed in the OPTIONAL fee category as well.

Take a close look at closing fees and settlement fees and you will find NON-traditional title agents who give the consumer no choice but to use a mobile notary, contract closer and that consumers are paying big bucks for these closers. If the all-inclusive rate would purport to include the services of closing and preparation/copying and stacking of documents to the lender, then how do you view situations in which the consumer has no choice but to use an out of office closer? Are consumers in PA well served by remote title agents who NEVER have the option of closing without paying the extra fees?

If you are looking for a way to give consumers a better deal in PA, I would eliminate or cap optional fees. We can argue over a $40 average increase to the consumer in this rate filing but it seem ludicrous when consumers are routinely charged hundred of dollars over the promulgated rates in optional fees. Title companies don't keep this money and so they aren't talking about it, but it's a major source of income to many title agents and one that flies under the radar. You can fix it.

I welcome an opportunity to discuss title insurance at any time.

Sincerely,
Diane Cipa
General Manager

Reply by DianeCipa on 3/31/09 9:47am
Msg #282822

Darn.

I wish I had had Maureen proof that letter before it went out.

Yes, PA is different than many states and yes, we have some very large agents who have documents delivered directly to contract closers who sign the instructions, stack the file and deliver the signed docs directly to the lender. Before we stopped doing witness closings, we had a big regional title agent insist that we provide the service.

In PA we have all-inclusive title insurance premiums. For instance a $150,000 policy premium would be $1108.75, excluding endorsements and the CSL. The title agent usually retains 15% of that premium. The idea is that the premium includes all settlement services. Title agents are only permitted to charge a settlement fee for out of office or after hours closings.

Consumers are steered to title agencies by affiliated lenders and real estate brokers. This is a big affiliation state. Most of these title agencies do not have on staff closers and rely exclusively on mobile notaries. The consumer isn't given a choice and doesn't understand that the cost of closing/settlement is really included in their title premium.

I know now from having read your many posts that YOU aren't earning big bucks, but I've seen enough HUD-1s here in PA to know the CONSUMER is paying big bucks and that's the point of the letter.

Asking for a rate increase from the consumer is just not right in my opinion.

Raising the issue of who should close? Well, I think you know that my preference would be an employee, however, I would certainly support a sub-license. This, I hope, opens the door to discussion.

Reply by BrendaTx on 3/31/09 11:40am
Msg #282838

Re: Darn...my thoughts...not that anyone asked...but

**I know now from having read your many posts that YOU aren't earning big bucks, but I've seen enough HUD-1s here in PA to know the CONSUMER is paying big bucks and that's the point of the letter. Asking for a rate increase from the consumer is just not right in my opinion.**

It would have been good to clarify in your letter that the mobile closers are not receiving the big bucks. I printed out your letter and read it and I'm not seeing that.

I don't necessarily like the Walmartization of your business...of any business. We're on the same page there...but sometimes consumers don't see it like it may really be...somewhere some of them are getting better deals by this relatively new way of doing business because they keep doing it...something is good about it.

Just a comment: I've seen a good many settlement statements as a mobile notary with no, zero, notta closing costs passed on by the lender to the consumer. If a local TC would have been providing the settlement services it is highly unlikely that they would have been able to offer the services for NO cost to the consumer. You have tarred the mobile notary with a broad brush that makes them appear as a huge burden to the consumer, IMHO when that's not truly the reality.

Reply by Tess on 3/31/09 12:11pm
Msg #282844

Re: Diane

"Yes, PA is different than many states and yes, we have some very large agents who have documents delivered directly to contract closers who sign the instructions, stack the file and deliver the signed docs directly to the lender. Before we stopped doing witness closings, we had a big regional title agent insist that we provide the service."


Diane,

I would have to believe that this happens less often then you are willing to admit. Yes, we have had some discussions on here about signing the HUD, and the majority has said no they do not. I do not remember (someone correct me if I am wrong) seeing any discussions about sending the docs directly to the lender!

I also believe that if that is happening, then the fault falls back to the agents who expect or ask for such service, as they KNOW what their responsibilities are and SHOULD know better. Again, I think you are over emphasizing the few problems in our field to further your goals. It’s like saying: All are bad because of a few.

Reply by MichiganAl on 3/31/09 1:08pm
Msg #282850

Nope, I don't buy it.

Lender instructions cover a multitude of things, most of which are issues that are handled prior to the actual signing and some of which are post signing instructions. There's just absolutely no logical way that these instructions would go to the notary signing agent who purely handles the doc signing instead the title company. Sorry, don't believe you. How can you even handle your responsibilities as a title company without the lender instructions? You can't. The instructions may have been sent as part of the package, but they would have most surely been sent to the t.c. in advance as well. You may have seen someone screw up, or you may have seen some odd circumstance, but you're letter makes it sound like a frequent occurrence and that's total hogwash.

Reply by DianeCipa on 3/31/09 1:29pm
Msg #282853

Well, folks.

I raised the issue two years ago in a large CE classroom with about 100 agents. The underwriting attorney conducting the class didn't believe me either and was flabbergasted when most of those agents attending the class confirmed that this is how they handle remote closings.

Of course, the title agent preparing the HUD has to see the instructions, however, the remainder of the transaction is handled by the contract closer.

You can believe or not, that's your option. I work here and I know my market.

The larger issue, the reason for the letter, is my primary concern. I work in an industry filled with title agents who are crooks and incompetents. I'd like to see that fixed before we considered laying off increased costs to consumers without fixing what's wrong with the system.

Reply by MichiganAl on 3/31/09 1:52pm
Msg #282855

Re: Well, folks.

Quote: "In many cases, the title agent isn't the one receiving the instructions."

Quote: "Of course, the title agent preparing the HUD has to see the instructions."

Hmmmm. You may know your market but I know totally contradicting statements when I read them.

Reply by DianeCipa on 3/31/09 2:24pm
Msg #282861

Re: Well, folks.

Yes, I see how those statements seem contradictory. Lender written instructions contain many pages. Typically the person preparing the HUD does not review the entire instruction package. The instructions to the closer and post closer are delegated functions within a larger agency.

The claims that are filed under the specific protection of the CSL involve actions that take place primarily at the closing table, often with who pays what, documents that must be collected and delivered, etc.

Reply by Maureen_nh on 3/31/09 4:34pm
Msg #282884

Re: Darn.

I am nor responsible for spelling errors after 10 PM. It's my evil twin.

Reply by DianeCipa on 4/1/09 8:16am
Msg #282961

Re: Darn.

Maureen: Truly when I wrote that line I thought you were right and I wasn't. I was punching myself mentally for missing the typo.

Reply by MW/VA on 3/31/09 2:15pm
Msg #282858

Re: Hello. here's the full text of letter.

While I may or may not understand the issues you are facing in the title industry, I do not see any relationship to the role of notary/remote closer. Are notaries required to have a TPL in PA? I asked this question recently on another thread that referred to the term "settlement agent", which we are not. I have seen threads and heard things through the grapevine about the problems MD had encountered, and their crackdown on the "crooks". To make any reference to the notary/remote closer with regards to costs to consumers is a joke IMO.
Most tc's are charging $350 & we see $100-$150. We are at the end of the pipeline, and get what's left over after everyone gets their piece. We're being offered less these days, but I'm not seeing any reduction in closing costs. We don't prepare the HUD, figure costs, etc.
FWIW, my .02.

Reply by NCLisa on 3/31/09 10:15pm
Msg #282944

Re: Hello. here's the full text of letter.

"Failure to follow lender instructions - well you might be interested to know that in many cases, the title agent isn't the one receiving or signing the instructions. Many title agents in PA use independent, unlicensed contract closers who received these instructions and make the delivery to the mortgage lender. I am appalled that this system has evolved and RECOMMEND LEGISLATIVE changes to bring the performance of the closing, the actual signing and delivery of documents to the lender, under the umbrella of licensing by creating the requirement that the closer is an employee of the title company or agent."

I wonder how that title agent prepared the HUD and the title commitment/policy without recieveing or reviewing the lenders instructions? Must have been really tough.

Reply by MichiganAl on 4/1/09 1:59am
Msg #282952

Come on Lisa, try to keep up

First Diane said that in many cases the title agent isn't the one receiving the instructions.

Then she said of course the title agent preparing the HUD has to see the instructions.

Then to clarify this contradiction, she said the person preparing the HUD does not REVIEW the entire instruction package. In other words, they do receive the entire instruction package at the title company but the HUD preparer doesn't review it all.

Then to further clarify, we're told that the instructions to the closer and post closer are delegated functions within a larger agency. But again, the person preparing the HUD who we've now determined does get the entire instruction package (until the story changes for the fourth time) apparently can't forward those instructions to the delegated closer and post closer in the next cubicle. As anyone can see, all this is clearly due to the involvement of the NSA.

You got it now? They'll be a quiz on this later.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/1/09 5:54am
Msg #282954

Re: Come on Lisa, try to keep up - thanks, Alex.

I was confused by all the clarification.

It seemed like there was a big, big brush tarring to help understand the reader that the group of vendors known as NSAs is the apex of all troubles to consumers...if we dig deeper, probably right down to the auto industry.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/1/09 8:31am
Msg #282962

Re: Come on Lisa, try to keep up - thanks, Alex.

I said, "It seemed like there was a big, big brush tarring to help understand the reader that the group of vendors known as NSAs is the apex of all troubles to consumers...if we dig deeper, probably right down to the auto industry."

Clearly I was not in a "fully 'awake' state" when I wrote this gibberish but I think it probably says what I meant as well as I could say with an attempt to re-write it.

Reply by DianeCipa on 4/1/09 9:10am
Msg #282968

I'm staying at this because I respect the debate that takes

place here and the views of professional closers I have read here over time. Sometimes it's hard to see each other's viewpoint because we are coming at the subject with different histories, working in different states and certainly with different views on the role of contract closers.

I am a title agent working in a state that is highly regulated and I was personally involved in the legislative change that took place in the early 1990s wherein language was crafted to dictate who could do closings. We apparently did a crap job of it because we, those of us working on the legislation, had no idea that contract closers existed. I was president of the local MBA and contract closers weren't being used by our members, traditional mortgage lenders. At that stage I had already been in lending since 1978 and had never heard of contract closers.

So, the facts are that the business of using contract closers evolved in PA outside of prime lending, outside of our legislative and regulatory structure and was only tolerated by the PA Department of Insurance because once discovered, those who were making the case for contract closers convinced the Department that the closing wasn't the closing, the real closing took place afterwards with the disbursement and delivery of documents to the lender. That was bogus and if you were in my shoes and not those of a contract closer, you might understand my initial outrage which has since subsided. I have accepted the fact that contract closers exist in PA, evolved through a loop hole with the assistance of a squirrelly spin by title companies that I liken to the "depends on what the definition of the word IS is" kinda spin. Anyone who buys the idea that post closing is the closing, doesn't really understand that business.

That's all history but I'm putting it out there because I hope it helps to understand my perspective.

Now, in my efforts to understand YOUR perspective, that is contract closers in PA, you are performing work that you have no reason to believe it out of line. You may have been engaged in this career for a very long time and worked with lots and lots of title companies and no one has ever told you that you were operating outside of traditional methods because they all wanted to use your services and so once I finally realized that there is no way that YOU could have understood that I viewed you as interlopers, I cooled off. I am not angry with you. I am not blaming you.

I am pissed as hell with the title companies, that is underwriters, and the vast numbers of unqualified, unscrupulous title agents they sponsored as licensees. My objections to the proposed rate increase condemn the irresponsible stewardship of the underwriters.

Your thread here deals with one area of concern that is specific to claims suffered by the underwriters due to title agents failing to follow the written instructions of mortgage lenders. In PA, the consumer pays $35 per transaction for this type of extra lender coverage. Our PA title underwriters have suffered severe losses under the terms of these Closing Services Letters and are seeking to increase the cost to the consumer by more than 100%.

I am of the position that the system should be fixed. Whether you know or not, in PA there are many contract closers signing closing instructions, stacking document packages and delivering the final doc package directly to the lender. They are doing so because they have been instructed to do so by the title agent. Those who object may lose the business, so they decide whether to stand their ground or not. Some do, some don't. You may not engage in this practice in your business, but I know that YOU know that there are many contract closers who do things YOU would not do.

What we need to do in PA is fix the system and as part of that fix, I suggest that we find a specific place for closers. In my opinion, the best fix is making closers employees. If not that, I would at the very least require a sub-license.

If you read my letter you will see that the bad guys, in my opinion, are the title underwriters and the non-traditional title agents. The fact that these bad actors use poor judgment and delegate their signatory and delivery responsibilities to unlicensed contract closers who they have likely selected on the basis of the lowest cost and immediate availability just isn't a risk that I believe should be passed onto consumers. Remember, these are the BAD title companies, the ones who don't make selections based on merit and professional performance. They aren't the ones who hire people like YOU. They hire the lowball, who knows if they are qualified, contract closers. They are killing my business and they are killing your business. They should not be rewarded with increased rates to cover their poor judgment and that's my point. Fix the problem, don't cover it up.

Reply by Pat/IL on 4/1/09 11:47am
Msg #283004

Re: I'm staying at this because I respect the debate that takes

I am not going to question whether the problem exists as you say it does. It seems to me this would be more likely to occur when a AfBA is involved, as most of those 'agents' are nothing but an entity created to accept kickbacks.

I disagree with your tendency to look to government licensing as the answer and, even more, to recommend employee status for contract closers. The employee status thing just opens a whole new can of worms. And government licensing often tends to amount to nothing more than an annual fee payable to the state. Maybe it's different in PA, but you said yourself that nobody paid any attention in your CE classes.

I would think that the more likely route would be through the ALTA, with pressure to change the standard CPL to include contractors within the umbrella of protection to the insured. That should cause the underwriters concern as to the abilities of the contract vendors their agents are hiring. The pressure on the underwriter's wallet and, by extension, the agent's, would be more likely to trigger scrutiny of the quality of work performed by the contract vendors. Licensing, on the other hand, will only cause the agents to seek out vendors who have payed their license renewal fee, and business as usual will continue - only at an additional cost to the contract vendor.

Reply by Tess on 4/1/09 12:20pm
Msg #283009

Re: I agree!

Diane,

I do understand your position, but I really don’t think that the problem you bring up is as widespread as you describe. I have not come across the full scenario you have described in the years I have been in business. Yes, I can guess that there may be a few that do this, but I believe it is because they have been in this business since the inception of our field and they believe that there is nothing wrong with agreeing to providing this type of service for their clients, as they consider themselves experienced closers. But on the flip side, you can also think that, as such, if they are that experienced, one would think that no mistakes are made and therefore are not the cause of the increase.

Although I would agree to a sublicense, it would have to be drafted within reason. I also do not believe, as in any occupation, that it will stop those who decide to do things, that some of us may object to, so your argument for it, is in vain! You really need to address these issues where it starts, not where it ends.