Posted by JinCA on 5/28/06 3:42pm
Msg #122885

Harrassment by Stewart Mortgage for background check

First an e-mail, then a fax, yesterday a letter in the mail!
Background check me all you want, just don't expect me to pay you for it. Plus, this company rarely even calls me.
After the letter, I finally called, and left them a message with my feelings.
Has anyone here actually given them what they want, or gotten this much crap from them?

Reply by Leslie_Mo on 5/29/06 12:14am
Msg #122935

I also received a couple of e-mails from Stewart Mortgage and then a letter came yesterday again requesting a criminal background investigation that would cost me $30. I have never worked directly for them but may have done some signings where Stewart Title was listed as the title company. LSI ran a background check on me in the past but they paid for it and I don't think I even knew they were going to do it until if was already completed. This just seems to be a way for Stewart to pick up some easy money if we allow them to charge us. If this really is a requirement for notary signers, why aren't all the ss, tc and mortgage companies requesting this?

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 5/29/06 6:28am
Msg #122939

Food for thought on the issue of background checks ...

Every lender I ever worked for required extensive background checks prior to employment - including credit checks, finger-printing, drug-testing, the whole nine yards. Now grant you, it's not usual to charge you for these things - but looking at this from Stewart's standpoint (Stewart Title is a huge enterprise), I'd probably be inclined to reach the same decision as they have about it, were I so fortunate to be in charge of all their money! Certainly it's easier to swallow financially, but the other aspect of having YOU pay certainly sews up any debate over your willingness to participate.

Knowing that background checks are the usual & normal routine within the industry, and seeing it extend outward to us SA's is, in MY opinion, a GOOD thing. It tells me that the lenders are realizing their own liabilities attached to closing services, and that we are another little duck to get lined up in the row.

I would think (me, personally, just my thoughts) that this trend might be the beginning of some serious reductions in the ranks - of both SA's and SS's.

Sometimes I think SA's practice a bit of double-speak, similar by analogy to the way people look at their property taxes/house value. To the taxing authority, we say "my house is worthless!" but to the potential buyer we say "my house is priceless!" The SA's seem to want the best of both worlds - they want 'in' and they want to stay 'out'. Value me, but leave me alone. Elevate the respect you give my field, but don't attach me to your process.

So. It makes perfect sense to me that the lenders (finally!) would begin requiring background checks on SA's. Stewart probably has hundreds of thousands of SA's in the data-base, multiply that by the cost of the check - what would you really do, if YOU were spending Stewart's money? Kudo's to Fatco for paying it themselves, but I would tend to think it went into the cost of doing business, and I'd bet policies just got a teensie tiny bit more expensive, and they didn't 'really' pay this themselves. There are no free lunches ...

The fact that Stewart owns their own information service - it's not like they just opened that up to be able to get your $30 or $10 or whatever. I don't take this so personally. They had that division, they now have to use that service, again - if you were running that company, would you farm it out??

All in all, I don't see the negatives outweighing the positives. Other than the cost, which in contrast to the income is pretty negligible, I guess I'm missing all the negatives. One might raise the civil liberties issue - but it's moot when it's free choice, you can agree - or you can not agree, and you can work with them or not work with them.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/29/06 7:52am
Msg #122941

Very good points, Renee...the problems with it are...

1. How many times are we going to be expected to pay for this? "This" co. will not accept 'that' co's background check. I have a copy of 'my' background check. So far, no company is willing to accept it & insists that they must do their own. This fact leads me to believe that it is just a profit pocket for the requester who wants the Notary to pay. (Note: if the co. is willing to pay for it, THAT is an indicator that it is really important to them.)
2. The 'background check' IS very nearly a joke due to the limited scope. I think that the fact that a person is willing to submit to it would be indication that s/he knows s/he has nothing to hide.
3. Passing a background check today may be an indicator of tomorrow--or not. No guarantees for the future. Only history is available. Which naturally leads to....

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/29/06 8:00am
Msg #122942

Finishing my post... sorry...fast fingers.

4. Requiring annual? monthly? with every signing? background checks to assure that each Notary is still squeaky clean.
IMO, it really is a pointless requirement for all the reasons I just stated. It is as 'good' as being 'certified' by the NNA.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/29/06 8:14am
Msg #122947

Re: Finishing my post... Food for thought.

Lee, I always agree with everything you say because you are truly one of the longtimers who really knows the right stuff. I have learned a ton from you.

I personally agree with your theory...however, I have allowed title companies to do a background check on me with the caveat they take the amount of it out of my first paycheck. I will not give them a credit card to charge against.

It never happens Even though I have agreed to itl I have never paid for a background check.

I think there are two possible reasons they do the background request:

1) They are looking for a good list of good credit people to give to their clients...Yep...notaries need refis too....good subtle gift for your mortgage clients.

Many notaries do not know that they must tell the company to NOT check their credit just to make sure that the credit reports are not dinged...so the TC can manufacture client prospect lists for their own clients.

Or maybe they just hand our names over to the mortgage company as sweetner with the agreement to allow a "background" check and the mortgage company does the rest.

2) Or, if it is on the up and up they figure that those who will not take the background test should be taken off the list. However, many are still working who have not succumbed to the background check...that puts me back to thinking my #1 reason is more logical.


Just food for thought.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/29/06 8:26am
Msg #122949

You're probably right about that, too, Brenda

That certainly would explain all the junk e-mail I get in my 'business only' e-mail from mortgage companies telling me what a great rate they can offer me on a refi!

Reply by Anonymous on 5/29/06 8:34am
Msg #122951

Re: You're probably right about that, too, Brenda

Sounds to me like it's the SS's and TC's who want their cake and eat it too. They want to treat you like an employee, i.e. background check, but want to pay you like a sub-contractor, i.e. no payroll taxes. I went through a background check to get my title producers license and bonding, I do not see why that is not good enough for them.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 5/30/06 5:19am
Msg #123026

Lee & Brenda - followup

Stewart will accept a copy of your prior background check, if it was done w/in the last year. They'll then update/validate, and the fee is reduced from 30 to 10 dollars.

As far as the idea that the info will be given, sold or used as leads - I suppose anything's possible on this planet, but balancing the risk of such an activity against the potential profit and factoring in the myriad legally obtainable resources for leads, and the additional factor that so many SA's have their own lender connections ... it just doesn't sound like a reasonable game plan for them to use. The companies I've been back-ground checked by in the past (albeit as an employee, not as an independent) have never distributed my info in such a way. Not that that means much, but for me it does set at least an expected pattern.

Stewart's letter specifically addresses one issue that appears to be in response to the Patriot Act - saying they are checking for evidence of (in so many words) your having misused someone else's personal information.

As for taking the fee from your first job, post-background check - love the idea, but putting myself in their shoes, what a logistical nightmare it could become, plus the 'cross accounting' of this division/that division. I'm just trying to look at it from all sides, and it doesn't sound unreasonable to me, negative, or threatening - but rather very positive and pretty reasonable.

No, I take it back - there is one negative, and that will be in the math. IF this is an emerging pattern, and even assuming that entities like Stewart (who issues policies through 9,000 agencies in the U.S.) provides all their agencies w/ a 'cleared' data-base - there's still about 100 MORE title insurance companies out there. Ouch.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/30/06 6:53am
Msg #123029

Re: Lee & Brenda - followup

Hey Renee' -

Yeah, I can guess that it is a little paranoid-sounding about notaries as leads to market to conspiracy theory. But, I don't it is all that far fetched.

I study a lot of internet marketing and lead marketing materials. I have also "heard" from pretty reputable sources that notaries' credit reports were dinged once the background was okayed.

Hence, my theory that notaries who do the loans of those companies which require background checks are developed into loan leads. It's not sinister, it's just good use of resources. Every name of every creditworthy person is a lead in our business. Leads perpetuate our livelihood...leads are like gold. The more I know, the more I think it's naive to believe that leads are not created, utilized and recycled from the huge body of notaries which we are.

It certainly could be a logistical nightmare as you note, Renee', to require them to deduct from their first check, but putting forth the idea to the company requesting the background check has not turned them off. They understand and agree. Sometimes they ask a supervisor, and then agree. The idea did not originate with me.

I feel it would already be a financial nightmare to the notary had there not been a hard line set by the ones who have come before us saying, "No, if we start paying $30 ahead for a background check to every company who needs it, we'll go broke." Thank goodness it has not broken through the lines without some resistance, or believe me, we'd be doing it for every SS as well as title companies, mortgage companies, etc.

Like I said, I agree to it, but I am not interested in having a background check at my expense to every company who *might* call me.

Finally, if I could get a copy of the background check to see what I paid for, I'd feel a lot better. That won't happen.

Since we cannot get a copy, I have made mention before that I do not know why there cannot be an annual background certificate / proof of checking issued by a reputable company each year for those who subscribe to the service.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/30/06 7:08am
Msg #123030

PS: Renee' there's history on this with NSAs

So perhaps I have taken what I know of this and combined it with what I have been told by NSAs when this kind of thing got started.

Let me also be clear that I think it should be a given that every person who handles loan docs be cleared of a criminal history. Every notary should be cleared from a criminal past, however, in Texas the checks are only random.

Just something to think on - In many states there are controlled handgun licenses. These are "real" background checks and should be acceptable means of status.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 5/31/06 3:41am
Msg #123148

Brenda - more, and great points you're making

Very good point you make about fees being put back on them, it would take a unified response from the NSA's and I don't disagree that it could be a horrific cost to either 'front'.

Stewart will send a copy of the report, and a copy of your 'rating', upon your written request. It's in the body of the consent form. Also, they will accept a copy of a previous background report, if it's dated w/in a year and used the same criteria. So, the handgun checks you mentioned would possibly be acceptable - and then the fee reflects this, the charge is lowered to $10.

As for the credit report being "dinged" - I'm not sure what you mean by "dinged". If, as they say, a credit report is going to be checked - then the report will show their name listed under the inquiry section.

Multiple inquiries may possibly become an issue though - as it's viewed as an indication that you're 'shopping' to open credit accounts, and it might lower your scoring slightly. I do not know the time frame criteria used, but I imagine there is one - like, x amount of inquiries over a specified time period will be 'grouped' as possible shopping, and other 'stand-alone' inquiries are ignored; also there would have to be a time-frame for when the score recovers from a supposed shopping penalty. Still, it's a viable issue - and reason enough to obtain copies of any background checks and use THEM instead of allowing new ones. Perhaps the reporting bureaus will establish a separate category for these 'non-credit' credit checks, to elliminate the scoring issue.

Thanks for your points and views - you always think of things I didn't think about, and then make me think again!

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/31/06 7:13am
Msg #123151

Renee' - revisiting the CHL and notary commission

In Texas, the moment your criminal history is changed, you have to report it to the CHL dept. and relinquish your license. If not, the state will remove it for you and you have gained another black mark on your criminal history.

Too bad the one hand is not talking to the other (notary office and criminal office) but that would require about three extra lines of computer programming code! LOL.

I'd gladly pay the secretary of state an extra $100 or so to avoid numerous requests for background checks.

Reply by Dee_Fla on 5/29/06 9:19am
Msg #122957

You too?!!! I too got that...talk about a waste of paper!!! they don't seriously think we are going to "give in" and pay for something they want. If they want it that bad, they'll have to eat it and pay for it themselves cuz i'm NOT giving out my cc# or anything like that.

hey...I don't got "stupid" written on my forehead!