Posted by Ocean Pacific Notary Services, Inc. on 1/6/11 2:37pm
Msg #367363

UTAH notaries - Need Feedback

We have lost all our business in UT because the Dept of Insurance has enacted a "SUPER SECRET" law that even the Lt Governor's office is not aware that basically states that notaries are not permitted to close loans in Utah without Title Producer License. It used to be if notarry was collecting/disburising funds, then they must be licensed. We were told by our clients that notaries cannot print docs and take them to borrower's home. That this violates the new law (still cannot find any such law and cannot get Dept of Insurance to respond). What was said is that borrower can print docs or docs can be delivered via overnight ship, but notaries cannot print. Notaries can work for title co and close at title co location under their license.

I would appreciate UT notary feedback (PM ME and I will send you the name of the employee who has banned notary closings in UT). We are at a loss and so are the notaries who this super secret law will greatly affect when compliance officer comes after lenders/outside of UT title co/signing co, etc.

thank you
gina

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/6/11 3:06pm
Msg #367370

A Utah notary posted about this on the numbers forum at the end of Dec. He said that Utah notaries who do not have an escrow license now cannot print e-docs or even receive them via overnight courier - that they must be sent to the borrower. He did say that there used to be a requirement that all signing agents must have a TPL, but that it was reversed after a short time.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/11 6:23pm
Msg #367379

From the Utah Insurance Dept's website:

At least one department bill is posted.

http://www.insurance.utah.gov/docs/legislation/leg2011/2011FL0233_013-Dept.pdf

It takes awhile to wade through it, but I would say, yes...that's going to influence signing agents in Utah.

Reply by MW/VA on 1/6/11 6:28pm
Msg #367380

WOW. That's a big hit for NSA's in Utah. What a shame. n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/11 6:40pm
Msg #367383

Bad for signing services--that's certain.

If I were a Utah notary I would be reframing my website to include a package deal to come to borrowers' homes and get the job done so that I could salvage a portion of the business. I would not offer any signing agent assistance, just notarizing.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/6/11 8:13pm
Msg #367391

Re: Bad for signing services--that's certain.

If companies are smart, they will get their Utah packages ready early and FedEx/UPS them to the borrowers. No way will the average borrower be competent to print a proper loan package.

Reply by Lee/AR on 1/6/11 8:35pm
Msg #367392

Re: Bad for signing services--that's certain.

I'm sitting here imagining what they'd get if Bs printed their own loan package.
Ink jet, for openers, most likely would not have legal paper so all on letter size with cutoff pages everywhere. And the TIME it would take on an inkjet! I can see different colored paper and print in blue or brown or whatever color ink they still have left. Then again, a few packages printed like that might make them appreciate us more, ya' think?

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/6/11 8:50pm
Msg #367393

Re: Bad for signing services--that's certain.

<< Then again, a few packages printed like that might make them appreciate us more, ya' think? >>

If only!!!

But I agree, they may get an occasional good package back, but, you know, borrowers can barely print their own legible copies of ID - no way will TC be able to consistently get properly printed loan packages back!

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/6/11 8:52pm
Msg #367395

Re: Bad for signing services--that's certain.

I've had a few borrowers say that they could not review the HUD because it was sent to them sideways. How will these same people be able to print their own loan package? And sometimes I get 10 or 11 attachments.... Yup, it's gotta be o/n docs in Utah.

Reply by Roadie_MD on 1/6/11 8:56pm
Msg #367396

MD also requires TPL

but as someone pointed out, it looks like you can still salvage some business at this point. Title companies are going to have to work around it to get the closings done. If they have to overnight the docs, like the old days, then that is what they will have to do.

I would look into getting the license in short order. Those that get it first wil have an edge on those that don't.

MD has required TPL since 2006, but only recently started really enforcing it. Time will tell how it will go in Utah. Good luck to you.

Reply by Doris_CO on 1/6/11 9:32pm
Msg #367398

Re: Bad for signing services--that's certain.

I really can't imagine a borrower being willing to print a 100 page loan package on their ink jet printer. I wouldn't. I have the paper supplies because I'm in this business but if I weren't, I wouldn't have enough paper to print a package that large.

Reply by Ocean Pacific Notary Services, Inc. on 1/6/11 9:57pm
Msg #367399

Re: Bad for signing services--that's certain.

Yes - I see all kinds of scenarios with docs not printed correctly. With the last minute docs and the 14 revisions to the HUD, I seriously doubt borrowers will be printing docs. It will mean another notary expense to get the TPL which in the long run can be amortized over increase in closings, since there be on decreease in the pool of available notaries.

You would think that with such a significant change, the Lt Governor's office would have been aware and there would have been a letter or announcement letting notaries know not to break this new law.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 1/7/11 12:17am
Msg #367400

I'm mystified as to why no UT NSAs have responded?? n/m

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/7/11 6:00am
Msg #367405

Re: Bad for signing services--that's certain.

<< It will mean another notary expense to get the TPL which in the long run can be amortized over increase in closings, since there be on decreease in the pool of available notaries. >>

I think that SS and TC need to be prepared to pay a higher fee to the Utah notaries that have their TPL. All that training, testing, bond expense, continuing education time and expense, etc., can add up to a huge chunk of change for one individual. I don't feel the notary should be expected to eat all those expenses without a commensurate increase in their fees. The notary will have made himself/herself more valuable by securing the TPL. Just like in any business, costs get passed on to the consumer.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/7/11 5:53am
Msg #367404

The borrowers will not print.

They will receive them via courier; or, the local title companies will be doing "courtesy" signings and making $350-$400 on them.

Reply by BobbiCT on 1/7/11 8:29am
Msg #367417

I agree with Brenda ..

Local title companies can use one of their conference rooms, have a staff secretary or even receptionist print the documents, and use a part-time (or full-time if workload is slow) salaried staff secretary who is a notary public handle the "signing of the documents" for $350-400. "Supervised" because documents are controled by title company and the signing is done in-house, where a title attorney is available if there is a question and to review signed documents. Higher net profit for title company.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 1/7/11 9:06am
Msg #367421

I have said this before, and I know people don't like to

hear it ... but this is further proof that the NSA profession as we know it is on its way out. I can see similar laws being enacted nationwide.

I understand its upsetting. But now is the time to start looking into another "backup" career when this one falls through.

Unfortunately, until there is a cap put on the number of notaries allowed to be appointed, none of us will be able to make a living on notary-related work alone.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/7/11 11:55am
Msg #367455

Re: I have said this before, and I know people don't like to

I tend to agree. I've always found it disheartening that these companies freely email loan documents with sensitive information to notaries through unsecure channels.

Personally, if I were buying a home or refinancing, I would insist that I print my own documents (only because I know how to do it) or that I will take myself to the title/escrow office and sign them in person. Not that I wouldn't trust the notary... but I don't trust all of the insecure channels that these companies often use to send the documents.

I've been emailed loan docs with social security numbers from gmail and yahoo emails addresses used by signing services and even escrow/title. It scares me.

That's why I try to focus on regular notary work more than loans right now. I'll do loans... and I have a couple of companies that provide me a nice constant stream in that arena, but I wouldn't be devastated if it went away.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 1/7/11 1:24pm
Msg #367478

Re: I have said this before, and I know people don't like to

We also need to keep in mind that, although most of the notaries on this board are dedicated to what they do and understand proper notarial procedures, IMO the majority does not know what they are doing, and will sign and stamp whatever is placed in front of them. This complete carelessness is finally being address with these multiple foreclosure cases across the country, and this is not something that's going to go away. Notary carelessness is going to continue to be brought into the spotlight and eventually state laws are going to have to become more restrictive. Even with California's strict notary laws, almost daily I see documents notarized by CA notaries that have the signer's capacity ("Vice President", etc.), or jurats that don't comply with CA law, etc. Same goes for Florida notaries and notaries in most other states.

It is unfortunate, but we need to face reality.

Reply by Cari on 1/10/11 4:00pm
Msg #367856

Re: I have said this before, and I know people don't like to

"This complete carelessness is finally being address with these multiple foreclosure cases across the country..."

This complete carelessness stemmed from those bank officials that used "in-house" notaries to notarize their sigs on acks attached to petitions that they didn't even fully read!

These are the notaries that have either no clue as what their notarial duties really are or do know, but were scared to death to defy their employers orders, for fear of losing their jobs.

IMO, its up to all of us, to send the message out there, to ALL employers that they MUST provide some sort of training for their employees that undertake the role of a notary public.

The Vancura decision, though reversed, still sends a strong message to employers that yes, they can be held liable for their employee-notary's actions, especially if the employer has first hand knowledge of the illegal act.

Reply by Cari on 1/10/11 2:43pm
Msg #367841

Perhaps Utah changed their notarial laws because they're

in a 'panic mode' due to recent court cases involving some of the major banks involved in the foreclosure mess?

I would like to see all Utah NSA's blow up the SOS's phone and demand a reason as why the law was changed.

I'd also like to read an opinion of a Utah NSA on this forum...are any out there???

Reply by Jennifer Shakespear on 5/24/11 12:02pm
Msg #384171

Re: Perhaps Utah changed their notarial laws because they're

I am a NSA in Utah. I do have my Title Producer License. I got the license like 4 years ago when Utah was requiring signing agents to have it. I never heard anything from the state about the new law. A signing company was the one who told me. Getting the license was a pain in the but. After all that work they then changed the law saying you didn't need the license. I still am keeping my license. I had not heard they are requiring the license again. They are obviously not enforcing the law, because I know of other NSA who do not have their TPL. It has been very frustrating.