Posted by ZeeCA on 4/21/07 9:58pm
Msg #186311

feedback please

I did a signing for a company that called me . I had never had any contact with. this company previously. After the signing they sent a request for a w-9 and said I would not be paid if i did not fill it out... ok, i sent them a completed w9....

but the doozy is: the next email sent from them stated "an independent contractors agreement MUST be filled out or if we do not receive a copy by the above date, payment will not be processed.

now, they called me and had no prob contracting with me for the closing but now the games seem to begin.... I do not want to fill out their paperwork to get paid....

Reply by OR on 4/21/07 10:07pm
Msg #186314

Re: feedback please/ what Company Name? n/m

Reply by Larry/Ca on 4/21/07 10:09pm
Msg #186315

Many companies want you...

to fill out their "independant contractor agreement" the first time you work for them. Why would you balk at this? Some of the best companies that will continue to give you work have the most extensive new agent packages to complete.

Reply by Signing_Doc on 4/21/07 10:10pm
Msg #186316

Re: feedback please...it's not 'games' as you call it....

they called you to do the job since you were not in their 'pool' of closers...since you HAVE completed the job, you MUST fill out their paperwork to get paid. The W-9 is a no brainer (hope you have an EIN and not your SSAN). As far as the IC agreement, you have a choice. Either fill it out and be done with it....or DON'T fill it out...."Hope" to get paid, and then when you argue either in court or out of court, they will come back with the answer "the IC did not follow our instructions...i.e. filling out an IC Agreement, and therefore we can't pay this person." It would be easier to just fill it out, get your money....and IF they call back, then you can "Deal....or No Deal" with it then. JMHO "Doc"

Reply by ZeeCA on 4/21/07 10:17pm
Msg #186319

It is the fact that hiring me for the contract and getting

paid was not conditional on filling out their paperwork... that is what I am objecting to.. that they changed the rules and holding it over my $$$$ ...If they had just requested I please fill out their paperwork for their files no problem.. .... It just doesn't come accross 'kosher' to withhold my $$$ for a condition after the fact.

Reply by Larry/Ca on 4/21/07 10:30pm
Msg #186320

Zee, check PM n/m

Reply by ZeeCA on 4/21/07 10:48pm
Msg #186323

Re: U 2, check PM n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/21/07 11:07pm
Msg #186326

Re: feedback please - Zee, I feel you have a right not

to sign the contract and still get paid. If they wanted a contract prior to the signing they should have demanded it first.

I don't sign them post signing because they often put non-compete clauses in them such as "If a client of EFG company calls you, you agree not to accept the assignment and will contact EFG company to advise them of this." That's taking it too far, IMHO. How can I know who their clients are? Knowing my luck I'd get caught up in some kind of silly lawsuit that would just cause me grief and money.

Jmho.

Reply by DogmongerCA on 4/22/07 12:04am
Msg #186330

This is what I do in these cases

I sign the contract, but line out any objectionable clauses and initial. I have put them and myself at ease:-)

Reply by DPazCA on 4/22/07 12:15am
Msg #186332

Re: This is what I do in these cases

dog monger do they ever say anything to you for lining out what you don't agree with, or do they even use you? Just curious, because it is what I would like to do as well?

Reply by DogmongerCA on 4/22/07 12:27am
Msg #186333

So far no one has ever said one word

A contract should be mutually agreeable to both parties. If not then it is not somebody I want to extend credit to:-) JMHO

Reply by ZeeCA on 4/22/07 12:32am
Msg #186335

I have also and some do and some get real pissy about that n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/22/07 8:38am
Msg #186354

Zee, we are in the minority here.

The reason I quit fooling with these is because a Houston SS balked when I lined out. Then wanted to argue forever about it.

I send in the W9 and tell them that the confirmation is contract enough to get paid by them. I feel I am within my rights to expect payment without a post-performance contract.

Fortunately, I don't get much signing service work. At this point in my business I decline them because of silly stuff like this.

If I refuse it I am in a position by location that often the title company will call me after they cannot find anyone to do the signing in this area and I get the full fee.

Those who are reading this should realize that they are more likely to be called again by the SS if they go by the SS instructions and don't pick a battle over this. However, is it necessary to sign that contract for payment? IMHO - No.

Try accepting a job for $125 some time and then deciding after the fact that you want $150 for it. See how willing the SS is to change the terms of the signing after you have completed it. It won't happen, of course.

Reply by ZeeCA on 4/22/07 10:51am
Msg #186372

agreed... and I find the more conditions the ss have the

less they pay.... seems to be a direct correlation.... I guess they have to try to make themselves look professional since the amount they want to pay is ridiculous.....

jmo

Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/22/07 12:32am
Msg #186334

And, add my terms... n/m

Reply by ZeeCA on 4/22/07 10:55am
Msg #186375

or mentioned it in the phone call,, confirm notice etc n/m

Reply by Lee/AR on 4/22/07 12:48am
Msg #186336

2 things: Chose your battles wisely. Contracts are not unilateral; they are an agreement between parties.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 4/22/07 12:57am
Msg #186340

Actually there are unilateral contracts and aleatory contracts and you don't needto sign them to be consideed obligated to abide by them if you have perfromed in an ostensible agency. Now I am not an attorney and my opinion is valueless but one has to be careful when dealing with both aleatory and unilteral contracts to make sure that you don't ratify them by your actions.

Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 4/22/07 8:06am
Msg #186350

unilateral and aleatory contracts

Charles is right. Not all contracts must be agreed to "in writing" for them to be valid.
I am not sure it would apply in this situation, as I am not a lawyer
Personally, I would line through all objectionable parts of the contract, initial all changes, sign it and fax it to them with your W-9 to ensure payment.
I have used this practice with nearly every company that sends me an ICA and have never had a problem.

Reply by ZeeCA on 4/22/07 10:54am
Msg #186373

but the oral contract was my doing the signing and the

confirm notice was the written contract for payment is how I view it...

*** not an attorney

Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 4/22/07 12:05pm
Msg #186388

You're right, Zee...

but in my post, I said "to ensure payment". This is one reason I don't accept SS work any longer. Too many headaches, not enough $$ and I do not like to chase my paycheck.

The contract you had in place would be the confirmation, in my non-attorney opinion. That being said, if you want to be paid, send their stupid ICA back to them with a W-9 and put them on your "NEVER" list.
As the market gets tighter, I predict you'll see many SS's trying to trim the fat by 'docking' the signing agent for anything they can come up with, including the "you don't have an ICA in place with us" excuse. When will it end? When XYZ stops churning out NSA's that have lofty goals of $100K per year taking $50 SS deals, thus keeping the SS's in business.
Wanna make the SS's go away?
Just say "no" and market your services to the TC's directly.
Just my .02, of course, and not to be construed as legal advice

Reply by Kevin/Ct on 4/22/07 8:46am
Msg #186355

You had an oral contract with this company. The terms of that oral agreement are reflected in the confirmation and the closing instructions you received. You performed the signing in accord with the instructions. Your work was accepted. They can not alter the terms or the oral agreement with a written agreement after the fact. What they are doing is called a contract modification. It can not be effectuated or imposed without your agreement.

The work you performed is your property until you have been paid for it. Demand that they pay you or return your property to you. Attorneys in Connecticut are a little luckier. They have a right to a common law attorney's lien on the file until they are paid.

Insist on payment. Initiate collection procedures if you do not receive timely payment. It would seem that you client needs to take a course in contract law.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/22/07 9:00am
Msg #186357

Re: feedback please - thanks Kevin...

And thanks for putting it in plain English so everyone can understand it.

Reply by Kevin/Ct on 4/22/07 9:11am
Msg #186360

Re: feedback please - thanks Kevin...

My pleasure , Brenda.

Reply by ZeeCA on 4/22/07 10:29am
Msg #186367

EXACTLY my point... n/m

Reply by Stamper_WI on 4/22/07 10:34am
Msg #186369

Re: EXACTLY my point...

The dates of the signing precedes the contract. Unless there is language in the contract that covers the proceeding work done, the only contract for that work is the confirmation. You performed according to that contract. All unsigned contracts are negotiable

My name may be Darrow but I am not an attorney and have no inclination to be one. I am just an opinionated business woman

Reply by Charles_Ca on 4/22/07 10:57am
Msg #186377

Kevin don't you agree that there is a cost/benefit ratio to

consider. I realize that it is much more satisfying to prevail in any conflict but how muchi is it worth in you time ($$$$$) and actualy cash. I think sometimes practicality needs to come into play.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/22/07 11:44am
Msg #186387

Re: Kevin don't you agree that there is a cost/benefit ratio to

If they are going to pay you *with* the contract with *no problem* they'll pay you *without* the contract with *no problem* in my experience.

Reply by Kevin/Ct on 4/22/07 1:07pm
Msg #186395

Re: Kevin don't you agree that there is a cost/benefit ratio to

I am kind of in a fortunate position in that I can handle my own collections. In most cases the delinquent clients call to arrange payment the day I serve them with a summons. For some signing agents and abstractors there may be the consideration of cost/benefit. As for me...my self respect is worth more. I sue on principal if the client is wrong. There are too many good clients out there in the market to have to play games with the habitually delinquent clients.

I also have the benefit of the above mentioned common law attorney's lien on the file. The lien travels with the file, and can be enforced against everyone in the chain that has come into possession of the liened file. Ultimately the lender takes the file subject to the lien. Fortunately it has never gone that far. The delinquent client realizes the gravity of the situation, and makes arrangements to pay the bill.

Furthermore, the work done by the signing agent/abstractor is his property. No one but he/she has title to that property until his/her bill is paid. If the client exerts control over that property which is inconsistent with the signing agent's/abstractor's ownership rights...the delinquent client may be liable for the tort know as Conversion of Property (Civil Theft).

Reply by Charles_Ca on 4/22/07 1:56pm
Msg #186407

Re: Kevin don't you agree that there is a cost/benefit ratio to

Yes Kevin, but you are an attorney and your time is your stock in trade so you can do with your time as you wish. A suit only costs you court fees and your time. While I have become comfortable with handling a lot of problems in Pro Per, I still go running to my local friendly barrister when I am out of my depth. I wouldn't think you would have a problem collecting. However in the interest of practicality there are other approaches for us poor un-anointed ones who are not permitted to practice before the bar. My own attorney, a man of some years and considerable stature in the community regularly advises trying to avoid his services: of course when his services are necessary they are invaluable.

All I was suggesting is that sometimes, as in martial arts it is easier to go with the flow and get what you want anyway rather than to expend the effort necessary to make your point. As a layman I have arrived at the point where I do my own collections and I also do my own evictions and a few other things but even then it takes effort and time that may be better spent on something else. To me at my stage in life my adrenalin is to valuable to waste it on small conflicts if they are easily resolved. I see no harm in modifying the contract to your liking and then if the SS is such a jerk as to object to that I'd haul them into court in a heartbeat.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 4/22/07 2:02pm
Msg #186408

Kevin this concept may be a bit Machiavellian even for an

attorney but wouldn't you agree that in this case the end justifies the means; hmmmm??? Well, I'm off to ride my bike in the Great Northwoods, I hope everyone has a fine Sunday afternoon. TTFN

Reply by Kevin/Ct on 4/22/07 2:27pm
Msg #186410

Re: Kevin this concept may be a bit Machiavellian even for an

Our firm has a number of really great clients. We have built business relationships on mutual respect and trust. Ocassionally a client runs into a cash flow problem. We are flexible with the good clients, and work with the clients to help him out. In these instances the clients notify us of a problem, and based on the honesty and respect that has been achieved we overcome the problem together...business continues harmoniously.

However, occasionally you run into the problem client that wants to order work without the ability to pay for it. When a client is delinquent we try to resolve the problem on an amicable basis first. We make reasonable inquiries about the status of payment. If the client gets cute about it (ignores the inquiries, won't come to the phone, repeatedly says the check is in the mail) it is time to avail one's self of the legal process.

To date problem clients have been in the minority. However, we have taken exactly the steps that I outlined above. We have never been stiffed.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 4/22/07 8:41pm
Msg #186446

Kevin, I don't disagree, court is a very effective solution

for many problems, I know I spend on an average of 10 to fifteen days a year there. There is an old oriental proverb and that is "when the only tool you have is a hammer then every thing begins to look like a nail. You have the most powerful tool in the US for exacting compliance from wayward people and its yours for very little cost. Believe me I have a very healthy respect for your profession; attorneys have saved my bacon on numerous occasions. Unfortunately it is not without cost and every time I get an envelope in the mail with an attorneys return address I get anxious despite the fact that some of my best friends are attorneys and judges. I just think it is financially effective and expeditious to try and get the issue resolved to your satisfaction without going to dourt, at least for ose of thus who do not operate in your rarified atmosphere (I am in no way being condescending). I don't know how your court schedules are in Connecticut but unless we have a case that falls in a very narrowly defined "emergency action (usually unlawful detainer and restraining orders) the waiting time is two years even for a simple case (as defined).

Anyway have a great week and win all your cases.

Regards,
Charles

Reply by Kevin/Ct on 4/23/07 4:31am
Msg #186465

Re: Kevin, I don't disagree, court is a very effective solution

There are many effective procedures in the legal system to assure payment. In Connecticut we have something called a prejudgment remedy. This allows the plaintiff to attach the defendant's property and/or garnish the defendant's bank account at the beginning of the case. It secures the debt and assures that there will be sufficient assets to pay the judgment. In most cases the delinquent client is on the phone almost immediately to discuss payment. It usually is not necessary to wait the time necessary for the trial date.

Reply by Larry/Ca on 4/22/07 12:07pm
Msg #186389

I'm really not understanding this adversarial.....

approach to these companies that want to add you to their database and use you for their signings. Many of the best companies with the best payment policies will not pay you until you complete their vendor packages. I filled these out all the time when I first started, egar to grow my business with repeat clients. Today 1/3 of my business comes from three huge title companies that use me repeatedly for signings in my area. I would have shot myself in the foot if I had balked at their sign-up packages, initially required BEFORE I received payment. I do realize that some contracts have things that you will not agree with. I have signed them anyway and have NEVER been adversly effected. Like has been said, choose your battles wisely and always make your decisions based on your best business interests.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/22/07 12:48pm
Msg #186392

Re: I'm really not understanding this adversarial.....Larry

Read Lisa's post Msg #186388. She's said it good 'nuff for me. It is a matter of personal choice.

And, I'll repeat: A good company who asks for a contract post signing will pay you whether they have a contract signed meeting ridiculous demands or not. A bad company won't pay you easily if you *do* have a contract with them.

Larry, I am not adversarial with companies who hire me. In fact, week before last I printed docs for a double, it cancelled and I told them I would gladly shred the docs and charge no fee to them for the printing if they'd just consider using me and my network members as well as Florida's, Virginia's, California's, NC's, MI's and so on, so forth (I named all I knew about from NR and listed their websites or main email of NR member.).

I pick my battles also. When I have a $300 fee paying company of good repute, I am so sweet that butter won't melt in my mouth when we run into a minor problem like a $50 printing fee they'd have paid me for if I'd have requested it...I will promote my network affiliates as well with said sweet disposition. It's not fake, it is appreciation...a $50 favor done for a big hitter who knows a professional when they encounter one...not a lowball signing service. $50 was cheap to get so many networked members of NR in front of them.

When it's a whiny $75 SS who demands a post-appointment contract OR YOU WON'T GET PAID, I have no interest in them or with torturing my network affiliates with their BS either.

Is that adversarial, or is it just a matter of selecting good clients based on the type of behavior they choose to deliver back to the SA? The bully coefficient of demanding a post-appointment contract or-you-won't-get-paid is a sign of toxic-ism, IMHO.

Larry, we don't have to agree to both be right...or both wrong.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 4/22/07 1:43pm
Msg #186402

Re: Thank you, BrendaTX

Brenda, on behalf of the Virginia Notary Network and all the networks, I thank you for your generous spirit in promoting our networks along with yours. My hat's off to you!

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/22/07 2:34pm
Msg #186413

Re: Thank you, BrendaTX - Thanks Copper, but...

No one acts totally altruistically where business is concerned. I am no different.

One of the theories of the NSA network is that when you can offer not only your own professionalism but by association you can offer many professionals your emails, cards, lists, marketing materials get held onto by businesses who appreciate that kind of offering.

In addition, my association and ability to latch onto other networks is a big boost for me personally and for my network.

It's my hope that future schedulings out of the company will occasionally bring a thought of, "Hmmm, I wonder of those networking people have someone in that area...where's that list in that email that woman in Texas sent me?"

It cost me very little to print those edocs even at 500 sheets of paper and toner* but the worth to them was $50 and I felt like that was a very good trade out to get their attention with a lot of people who are on board for working for good fees and treating good companies with courtesies. (*I recharge my own cartridges/but paper in bulk.)

It's in situations like these I prefer to let my battles go. I couldn't care less about SSs and their contracts...post closing.

They are the ones who'll agree to pay $150 and then send you a check for $75 and claim, but our contract states we only pay $50-$75. We would NEVER agree to pay $150. You signed it.

Yeah, but I crossed it out.

Well, we never agreed to it and sent you a copy of our signature did we?
--------------
Those contracts -- including those with the X'd out parts by the SA-- mean squat unless the company agrees and signs it also and sends you a copy. Contracts are signed by two parties...NOT just the contractor. IMHO the contracts are just to give you the idea you cannot work for their clients.

Reply by Kevin/Ct on 4/22/07 1:15pm
Msg #186396

Re: I'm really not understanding this adversarial.....

I would agree with you provided the client notifies the signing agent of the need for the contract up front. The signing agent then has the ability to read the contract, and negotiate its terms. I have to say that the signing agents are in a much more fortunate position than the abstractors with respect to their bargaining power in contract negotiation.

The problem that may arise (and which I think was the problem with the original post in this thread) that the client ordered and accepted the work without telling the signing agent of this requirement. The client then subsequently imposed the contract as a condition to payment...thus holding her fee captive until the contract was signed. The problem is that there may be terms contained in the contract to which the signing agent may not wish to agree.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 4/22/07 1:37pm
Msg #186401

Re: I'm really not understanding this adversarial.....

So is that a duress situation?

Reply by Kevin/Ct on 4/22/07 1:46pm
Msg #186404

Re: I'm really not understanding this adversarial.....

An argument could be made for that if the signing agent wanted to escape the contract after having signed it, or raise it as a defense against a claim of contract breach. There are better and stronger arguments that can be made to collect her fee without ever having to sign the contract.

Reply by Larry/Ca on 4/22/07 1:52pm
Msg #186405

Nope, not coercion, hopefully I'm...

acting in my own best interest intentionally. I don't need to be forced to behave this way.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/22/07 7:37pm
Msg #186429

Re: I'm really not understanding this adversarial.....

I think you hit the nail on the head. When it's after the fact, it feels like extortion - unless there are no objectionable terms, in which case I would have no problem with it. Unfortunately, nearly all the ones I've seen have some language that I would have a problem with. The last one that comes to mind had a clause that required the notary to do "anything" the ss asked them to do, without clarification. Who in their right mind would agree to something that open ended in ANY circumstance, whether related to our business or not??!! Yet I'd bet that most of the NSAs probably signed it without even reading the contract because they have been a good company to work for who pays decently and timely. (I have successfully completed a good number of assignments for them without a contract, but they have apparently decided recently that they need further protection. I'm guessing this is a result of the huge influx of inexperienced, newly minted notaries who are trying to do loan signings. No offense to those of you who are new and have taken this seriously. But I continue to hear unbelievable stories about some of what is (or isn't) being done out there.

Ultimately, as has been said, it comes down to how much you want to do business with that company, how much risk are you willing to take and perhaps how reasonable are they willing to be when it comes to negotiation of terms. I also would much prefer to try to come to a reasonable accommodation with a company, rather than being confrontational - unless they are conducting business in an unscrupulous way, in which case, I don't want to do business with them at all. Even so, I think the hardline approach should be a last resort.