Posted by JerryhFL on 12/5/07 11:50am
Msg #224403

Uniform Closings Instructions

From a previous posted message comes this:

"Now you are hearing what they want you to do. Be professional and be trustworthy about identification, follow their instructions with doc order and explanations."

What do they mean by "explanations". If it means explaining all documents and the content, then I believe we as NSA's are in trouble. I have always been instructed that if the signer has a non-trivial question about a document, call the SS, Title Company or Lender with those and have the signer ask their questions.

Now I know most of you could explain the documents as well as any of the above, however what we don't know is what the signer has been told by someone in the chain and is that why we were told not to get into detailed explanations. I don't think so! States has said that we are there to identify and observe the signing of documents. If we cross that line it would be considered giving legal advice.

I cannot understand how we are going to explain the documents and comply with the law.
We can't and therefore states will re-evaluate their requirements and perhaps eliminate our existence.

Help me understand how this is a good thing for me and what benefits I will get from all this hoopla.

One last thing, it's an election year and politicians are looking for meat. Everyone associated with the "meltdown" is out to cover their you know what.

Reply by CF on 12/5/07 12:25pm
Msg #224406

I have been thinking the same things myself! Of course, I think that fraud prevention is a good thing. But not too sure how I am going to be able to do anything about it. I had a situation occur last month...that I think and the TC think was fraud. I did not notarize b/c they had no ID- yes NO ID. But how I am going to be able to really determine a fraud situation....and what about my safety? ( my personal safety and my professional safety) Of course, I can give feedback...but how is that accurate? It will only be my assumptions and opinions. I dont have any formal training to put a baseline to any of this. I have no problems with obtaining a license...I have no problem with obtaining different insurances (hopefully not too expensive)...I have no problem with a changing business environment. Sounds great to me.....no more BS at the table...but do you really think that more rules and regulations is going to help us out? Probably not....I am going to have to fight harded to make a fair living than I already have to now. Just they way that I feel. This is way to preliminary for me to get on board with!!!! I just cant forsee that regulations will solve the problems. It just wont solve it...and why should it be my responsibility?????I am not the one with $$$$ and lending it out. Sorry- but I just dont think that it is my probelm!!! As for explaining docs- I already do that inside of my parameters. I already put the package in what I think is logical order. How does that stop fraud?????? It does not!

Reply by Lee/AR on 12/5/07 12:48pm
Msg #224413

Lenders have far more ability to 'check things out' than we--who are at the table for an hour or so, with absolutely no idea of what transpired in the weeks before we arrived. What on earth are they thinking? Are they thinking? Or is this just a case of more 'stuff' rolling downhill as they scramble to find someplace else to lay the blame? Seems to me that most of the things they are concerned about we are already doing--as a notary. ID the signers, don't backdate. That 'explaining' the docs... if the bank or LO can't get it thru their heads in the weeks before ink goes on paper... I don't even want to finish that thought.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 12:59pm
Msg #224415

The fraud prevention contact is specifically not someone who is in the direct operation. They are likely internal quality control and they take this stuff very seriously. The panelists spoke a little about protecting the "closing employee" who reports fraud. This is something that could and should be addressed as concerns in comments.


Mortgage lenders and "Wall Street" have found what they believe to be weaknesses in the entire system that contributed to "the problem" and what takes place at the table is a big one.

The changes will take place whether or not people choose to participate in the planning of the change.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 12/5/07 1:09pm
Msg #224418

""The changes will take place whether or not people choose to participate in the planning of the change""

How true. Some changes will take place even in spite of people who do to participate. Legislators, when faced with what they perceive as a universal problem react in many ways, some not to everyone's liking. There are those who are clamoring for licensing. Since the functions that these self professed leaders are asking to be included under the idea of licensing for notary closers are already a capability other licensed entities already possess why reinvent the wheel. A new bureaucracy to regulate a licensed notary signer (as opposed to commissioned, and yes there are differences) would not be the most popular move. Attorneys and Licensed Title Producers already have the ability to do much of what is being discussed. It would be much simpler to just remove the notary from the closing process.

Reply by CF on 12/5/07 1:21pm
Msg #224420

Well, that is a good way to get things riled up around here- just scratch the noatry all together! Whatever!

Reply by Charles_Ca on 12/5/07 2:00pm
Msg #224427

Its easy enough to ridicule a thought but when one opens

up the ligislative process then one has to accept all possible outcomes. One of the reasons there has not been a constitutional convention convention to revise our federal constitution is just that argument. Others have warned of exactly the same thing. When you start looking at a function and trying to regulate it why would what I suggest be so controversial. There are notaries trying to establish licensing, why not use an existing form of licensing and just close the signing process to those already licensed. Why establish another costly bureaucracy when we already have laws in place to do what is beoing clamored for. Why is that "riling" things up are you incapable of logical discussion?

Reply by CF on 12/5/07 3:08pm
Msg #224465

Re: Its easy enough to ridicule a thought but when one opens

I did not ridicule any thought- or I am not incapable of having a logical discussion. Speak for youself! I said what I had to say!

Reply by Charles_Ca on 12/5/07 3:39pm
Msg #224473

And what you said speaks volumes....! n/m

Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/5/07 3:16pm
Msg #224467

Re: Its easy enough to ridicule a thought but when one opens

I have posted this before but the UCC is also looking at and revising the Uniform Code for Noatarial Acts. On their list of talking points is different certifications for notaries. Those "inputing" to that commitee include Michael Gordon from Freddie Mac, the NNA and others

"With the exception of NNA, all participants expressed a strong desire for NCCUSL to undertake a drafting project that would address the law governing notaries public"
Here is the draft

NCCUSL DRAFT POINTS
Appointment, including
Eligibility to serve
Minimum standards
Training, including who should conduct the training and ability to outsource,
Classes
Testing
Auditing of performance of duties
Retesting
Fees and appointment process
Bonding
Commissioning requirements, including issuing seals or other tokens and oaths
Responsibilities of notaries, including
Identification standards/practices
Notarization of electronic records
Journals and recordkeeping
Formalities for notarial act
Standard forms for jurats, etc.
Ethical standards, including witnessing relatives’ signatures and conflicts of interest
Reasonable care standard
Satisfactory evidence
Disabled signers
Accountability of notaries
Fees
Role/responsibility of those relying on or confronting notarized signatures
Notarizing electronic records
Responsibility of notary [securing integrity of record?]
Biometrics
Should there be special requirements/training before authority to notarize electronic records?
Are issues/questions related to security or integrity of record or to signatures?
Remedies for improper acts, by notaries and others, and authority to penalize unauthorized acts.

They also have talked about cordinating with other commitees, legislators and industry policy makers.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 12/5/07 3:40pm
Msg #224474

This deserves its own thread, read it and see. Important! n/m

Reply by MichiganAl on 12/6/07 12:30am
Msg #224577

Interesting which party stands out as NOT wanting it.

I guess the NNA likes their little notary machine churning just the way it is.

Reply by JerryhFL on 12/5/07 1:33pm
Msg #224423

"It would just simpler to just remove the notary from the closing process."

If for example a broker or lender in California uses a title company in Texas and the documents are to be signed in Florida.

How will this be done?

Changes are fine, I'm just trying to understand how the plan will work

Reply by LisaWI on 12/5/07 1:39pm
Msg #224425

Re: Can anyone tell me..................

of any state that recognizes the "Signing Agent" in their state laws?

Reply by Tess on 12/5/07 2:08pm
Msg #224431

Diane

I think it’s time for you to clarify for everyone, on whether the UCI will overrule state mandates on closings or if the state laws overrule the UCI and what it will mean to all the states involved, when this is adopted.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 2:16pm
Msg #224437

Not Diane, but ...

The UCI is a binding business contract between lender and settlement agent - it is not a law, and also states that any/all laws of any jurisdiction would certainly supercede the contract.

Reply by Tess on 12/5/07 2:19pm
Msg #224440

Re: Not Diane, but ...

So that everyone understands! It is a "business contract between lender and settlement agent"

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 2:29pm
Msg #224446

Also, there's a set of Closing Instructions ...

from every lender to every Settlement Agent to go with every insured loan. They didn't just invent these - this is simply an attempt to bring all the lenders together, to use a Uniform set, so that Settlement Agents can learn them once and learn them well (*and us, as to the portions pertaining to us), and NOT have to learn 300 different versions.

These are bringing some major changes to the table, definitely - but much of what's being discussed (and NOT directing this at you, Tess, or anyone in particular) in our NSA world is really indicating that NSA's were never even aware of all the routine things written in the usual Closing Instructions - and there have already been many that did point out things pertaining to the NSA. That's already been part of the problem - that NSA's didn't read them, didn't ever consider that they should, and consequently didn't understand the full scope of what at least PART of the industry was relying on them for.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 3:51pm
Msg #224482

I just have to say

that I love this group. I have never been able to get title agents or lenders to have and out and out great discussion, respectfully duking out the issues. This is wonderful.

Reply by LisaWI on 12/5/07 2:33pm
Msg #224448

Re: Not Diane, but ...Tess

Could you complete your thought on this please. Yes, understood, but the fact remains we are in the instructions far beyond a Notary which is how we are contracted through the settlement agent. I know, its more than that, but technically thats how we are hired. So with that thinking process, from the Lender down to us or vice versa, the role changes. Am I hearing you correctly, our roles will not change because of State Laws that supercede these instructions?

And everyone thinks our job is easy, LOL

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 2:40pm
Msg #224450

Will our roles change ...

Well, it depends on what you previously perceived as your role, I guess. I see nothing in the UCI that will change anything I now think, do, act on, or provide as a service. However, I do not have the same perception as many do, in the first place. For me, it's like this - I am a Signing Agent, and to be a signing agent and perform those duties I must ALSO be a notary public.

For many people, they are a Notary Public who learned that loan closings involve some documents that get notarized - viola, they're a signing agent. For those people, the role will change greatly.

Reply by LisaWI on 12/5/07 2:59pm
Msg #224461

Re: Will our roles change ...And that is the point

Im trying to make, is to continue lawfully in the direction our individual states see us which will contradict what the UCI says, IMO. You see yourself as a Signing Agent, as might many companies you work for, but does your state see you that way?
We have a dime a dozen Notaries around here that are just a Notary and get the docs signed. Anything beyond that is not their job. Did someone say 50 bucks?

Help, Im drowning!! JK

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 3:10pm
Msg #224466

What state recognizes the Signing Agent??

Where and how does WI recognize the NSA? The State of MI does not recognize the NSA.

What part of the UCI do you feel contradicts the UCI?

Those "dime a dozen" Notaries are not going to be able to provide the services as defined by the UCI unless/until they get someone to train them sufficiently to do so. That'll be just fine for now and probably for some time, but it will be the Settlement Agent's direct responsibility to figure out who to use, and how to determine their abilities.

Reply by LisaWI on 12/5/07 3:25pm
Msg #224469

Re: What state recognizes the Signing Agent??

Remember the song by David Lee Roth? "Im just a Gigalo", replace with Notary

Section J: As far as reporting fraud, as a Notary, yes I can report issues concerning fraud that would relate to being Notary, but anything beyond that might be looked at as practicing law.
And also explaining the closing process. Again past a Notaries duties.

Heres my deal, I want my cake and eat it too. I dont want an attorney only state, I want to continue as I am being a Signing Agent, and I dont want to be put into a situation where I say "oops, did I say that". And my jury is still out on this licensing thing.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 3:42pm
Msg #224475

Re: What state recognizes the Signing Agent??

The UCI does include an indemnification clause for those reporting suspicious things that could be potential fraud.

Part of the training that's going to be needed is just a run-down on the types of common fraud, things to look for, etc. It's not about playing cop, and I know MYSELF that I would never put myself in harm's way by standing up and saying "YOU GO TO JAIL!" lol

Simple example was posted somewhere today, where the borrower looked at his income on the 1003 and said "Dang - sure wish that were TRUE!" Ok ...myself, I would continue on, say zip, get outside ... get HOME, and then call the Fraud Contact (t/b on each specific instruction) or, lacking that - the lender directly, or settlement, depending on the issue and who was at risk. Doing an Owner-Occupied loan ... get there, and it's clearly for sale, listed /sign on the lawn - I made the call from the street for the direction of the settlement agent, and put a note in the pkg. Stuff like that.

It really just spells out the process and provides a contact, for the kinds of things we see (and sorry, but the lender and settlement agent can NOT catch many things that we MIGHT, face-to-face and in their home) - where we might just not know what to do, this spells it out.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 3:53pm
Msg #224485

Re: Will our roles change ...

agreed

Reply by Tess on 12/5/07 2:52pm
Msg #224455

Lisa,

I believe if you all add to the UCI, you are only adding and straightening a constricted term to the agreement and you will allow no room for state interpretation. This will cause each state to have to really close look at their own requirements, which may just end in attorney only states if they do.

Did the notaries that are already licensed in, Maryland for instance, think that they may also need to be additionally licensed in order to meet the UCI if they require a different licensing then their state?

There is a lot more to this then some may think and believe me, it is going to come back and BITE us in the end if we become more involved in this agreement then necessary!

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 3:48pm
Msg #224479

Re: Diane

Still reading thread but jumping in here....

As I read the UCI, they expect all players to know and conform to their states rules. Further, they expect everyone to know their own state rules of UPL and adjust the extent of explanations, etc. to local custom.

For instance, in GA, it's pretty clear that the "closing employee" would be an attorney.

What I find promising in the UCI is the structure which defines the role of a Signing Agent. This lends credibility and legitimacy and give regulators something to put their arms around.

Nobody is handing anyone a gift on a silver platter but it's obvious that the bright lights are going on and it's better to decide whether to join the existing licensed class in your state or present alternatives - such as a lesser form of license, one that doesn't involve the sale of title insurance.

You all know the rules of your own state or you wouldn't be working there.

In PA, much to my chagrin last year, I found a willingness by the regulators to allow NSAs a place in the process. The Department of Insurance seemed to have a comfort level for the NSA performing at the closing table but not going beyond that point. Though I disagree about the actual wording in the law, I find comfort in the structure, if adopted, of the UCI.

You see, as a title agent, I know I have liability for the closing and if I believe there is no place for NSA in the transaction, I won't go there.

I DO have to add that with these new instructions, I will change my remote closing procedure to accommodate hiring a Signing Agent outside of my area. You should know that I would only hire a NSA that was licensed. That's my personal risk threshold. So if that's any barometer, take it for what it's worth.

Reply by Tess on 12/5/07 4:06pm
Msg #224491

Re: Diane

By licensed, you mean as a title agent in PA, per what you interpet as the state law, if you would hire them for PA. right?

Reply by Tess on 12/5/07 5:13pm
Msg #224506

Re: To make this clear, you would not hire a NSA, you would

hire a title agent in PA. Sorry if my question was not clear.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 5:21pm
Msg #224510

Re: To make this clear, you would not hire a NSA, you would

Under the present rules in PA, I would seek a licensed title agent to act as Signing Agent. IF we can get the PA Dept. of Insurance to issue regulatory guidance that give their formal blessing to the NSA role as set forth in the UCI without license - which they appear to have informally done already - then in PA, I'd have a shot at finding someone who is not licensed that I might use based upon personal referrals. At least the UCI combined with formal guidance from the state would give an umbrella of formal structure to the program.

The point I am trying to get to IS - in the void of personal connections, due to liability issues, a licensed NSA would have an easier time being hired by a settlement agent because license implies a minimum level of expertise and reliability.

That is the entire basis for licensure

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 5:15pm
Msg #224507

remote closings

I mean, with the structure of the UCI, when I have a remote closing - one that my own employees cannot handle, I would hire a signing agent in that area. Most likely out of state because we cover 34 counties here in PA. So, if I were hiring a signing agent under the UCI structure, I would personally hire someone who was licensed in what ever licensure was available in that state.

If we were talking about PA, let's say the customer was in Philadelphia, then yes, I would want a licensed title agent.

Why? Because without the benefit of knowing a person in short order, I would trust licensure as a minimum standard.

So, while not everyone would agree with me, I have to assume that a certain percentage of settlement agents hiring signing agents would and that's why I support licensure.

It's not my show, though, it's yours. You all have to decide what you each as individuals want to pursue.

If PA does not come out with regulatory guidance on this issue, I'll consider having my employee closers licensed as agents and do some sub-contracting as a signing agent. We'll be fully licensed, bonded, and carry some weight of experience.

There are all sorts of opportunities here. Many people I read here have enormous amounts of experience and I just don't know why you have fear, but I also don't live in your state and don't know the lay of your land.

I agree with Renee that the attorney-only trend is NOT one I see developing. If it were, the UCI would embrace the idea.

We read the headlines and see just as many attorneys being prosecuted as non-attorneys.

This is about finding expertise and quality of product moving forward.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 12/5/07 4:36pm
Msg #224499

Re: Diane

"You all know the rules of your own state or you wouldn't be working there"

However, we know from some of the questions asked on this forum, that not all NSA's know their own state's laws.

Reply by Tess on 12/5/07 4:42pm
Msg #224500

Re: Sylvia,

As Diane has stated, in PA, there is the state interpretation on the word “closer” !

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 5:22pm
Msg #224511

Re: Diane

Well, that's a problem to resolve with education, isn't it?

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 12/5/07 7:16pm
Msg #224533

Re: Diane

The problem is that some states do have educational classes, however the notary seems to forget everything he/she learned in class the minute they walk out the door.

We have to take a class in Florida to become a notary, CA is also a state that requires classes.
But you wouldn't believe (or maybe you would ) the number of notaries that still do not seem to comprehend (or follow) notary laws

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 7:20pm
Msg #224535

education

Sylvia: It's a problem for everyone. Some people want to know and understand and some just want the credits. I am always appalled by folks who sit in class reading books or newspapers and they still get credit. BTW - they are most often attorneys!

Reply by Terri Garner on 12/5/07 8:02pm
Msg #224543

Re: Diane

Having taught CA notary law/Exam Education classes, I can tell you that many vendors only teach the law so that the student can pass the exam. But what they don't teach is how to do the notarization itself. Such as completing the certificate, etc.

What I tried to do in my classes, was provide handouts showing examples. I went so far as to go through "hands on" exercises, where the students would fill out acknowledgments, Jurats, and make a journal entry. While that in itself, wasn't a lot, it sure was more than others provided. AND - I answered every single question that the students had. I didn't put them off like instructors from XYZ (I know this from a friend who took their class, the instructor wouldn't answer questions, referred the students to their "hot line" instead!) Whoa, that would have had me on the phone the first break, bending someone's ear!

So yes, many new notaries, come away from the CA educational classes, having passed the exam, but have no instruction on practical application. Sad but oh so very true.

Terri
Lancaster, CA

Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/5/07 9:33pm
Msg #224554

No Notary left behind

My daughter, a teacher, rant about the "no child left behind" laws. Teaching for the test.
What we have is a generation of kids unable to do critical thinking. They are learning by rote and cannot think a challenge through.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/5/07 5:56pm
Msg #224519

Hear, hear! (re Sylvia's Post) n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/6/07 6:00am
Msg #224588

Tess, I think you and I have the same point. n/m

Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/5/07 2:22pm
Msg #224442

Charles_CA is, I fear, right.

The simplest thing to do is make every state an attorney-only state, whether that is done at the federal level, once and for all, or by states individually. If legislators have to make the decision, that is likely to happen. Whether we like it or not. And we _won't_ like it.

Please, do not get riled up. I am not suggesting that having only lawyers do closings would be a good idea. Far from it. _For the consumer,_ having an attorney do each and every loan closing _personally_ would be a huge burden. Having a Notary Signing Agent (by any other name) able to perform closings saves the consumer time, trouble, and (most important of all) _money_.

Should NSAs be licensed?r I don't know. Should NSAs have better training?r Heck yes! Should _formal_ training be required, whether or not the state has Notary Public training?r Probably.

Are changes coming?r YOU BET YOUR LIFE!

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 2:36pm
Msg #224449

Re: Charles_CA is, I fear, right.

I disagree - I don't believe any state Bar that decided to attempt to do what Georgia did, against the expressed opinions of the Federal Trade Commission, for one - and given the history of the failure of that action (atty only) to bring about any measurable benefit to the consumer (as it results in higher closing fees) and the industry (as Georgia went on to lead the nation in mtg fraud AFTER going atty only, although it has since given the cup to some other state).

The industry, as being shown in the proposed UCI, is NOT calling for a head down that road. Rather, it finally acknowledges the NSA as existing in the first place - and I have to have THIS fully explained to me, but ... IF the UCI now recognizes us and defines our position - would this then include us (by osmosis?? lol) in the Closing Protection Letters??

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/5/07 2:55pm
Msg #224459

Re: Charles_CA is, I fear, right.

**I disagree - I don't believe any state Bar that decided to attempt to do what Georgia did, against the expressed opinions of the Federal Trade Commission, for one - and given the history of the failure of that action (atty only) to bring about any measurable benefit to the consumer (as it results in higher closing fees) and the industry (as Georgia went on to lead the nation in mtg fraud AFTER going atty only, although it has since given the cup to some other state).**

I hope you are right. Texas legislative types don't give a tinker's d*mn about what's going on in other states, however. Hanging out at the capital during session gave me an eyeful. While your reasons sound really reasonable, I think we ought to lay odds on this...state by state. It will be an interesting wager.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 3:05pm
Msg #224464

What are the viable options?

The UCI are not our game - as the song goes, we didn't start the fire ... The industry we serve was gracious enough to write us in, AND invite us (ok, along with the entire population, STILL ...) to attend their presentation, and to provide comments and feedback.

WE are not going to be telling THEM a whole lot about how WE want THEM to ... um ... anything.

So what are the options? Do we rise to the occasion, put on our Sunday Best and say "OK, you're inviting me to the banquet? Here, let me roll up my sleeves and I'll wash dishes!"

Or, do we entertain the notion that we will send them the menu and let them know what color tableclothes we prefer?

Brenda, I think you understand this part in a way that not many do - we are expendable, and we COULD have easily been excluded from the UCI, making things WAY more challenging than they are now.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/5/07 8:52pm
Msg #224550

Re: What are the viable options?

Just asking: In your opinion, what happens if nothing is done? (One option.)




BTW Renee'. I wrote three books full before realizing that a better way to hash this out might be to simplify the process. You know...discuss it one point at a time.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/6/07 3:13am
Msg #224581

If nothing is done ...

I guess you mean if nothing is done by us, right? Well - it would just remove any potential influence we might affect during this call for comments - which ends Jan. 30th.

If nothing is done by us, by way of any preparations - such as learning about them and whatever changes it might mean to however each of us performs our job - then the possible outcomes depend on how close we're already coming to performing within the proposed protocol already.

I agree absolutely, Brenda, that the better way to go over these and form comments to present is to take it one spoonful at a time. That's exactly what I'm doing in other places - perhaps someone will do that here, too. I sure don't need to do it more than once, as it's quite the undertaking as it is.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/6/07 4:54am
Msg #224584

Re: If nothing is done ...

**I sure don't need to do it more than once, as it's quite the undertaking as it is.**

Thank you for your answer, Renee'. That helps. I did not mean to overburden you. I really was trying to respond to your question of what were the viable options.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 12/5/07 3:45pm
Msg #224476

I believe that it is extremely myopic to think that the UCI

is the only platform for reform. I believe that a veritable Pandora's box will be opened in the name of mortgage reform. The various agencies investigating the morgage business will each vye for leadership and therefore power in taking over the industry.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 3:50pm
Msg #224481

Definitely it is not the only platform ...

nor is it the only action being undertaken at this very moment (and as you see from the UCC's review of the Notarial Acts). It is just one of many, it is just currently the Reform De Jour being discussed - probably because it's one of the few that is actively seeking public comment and input from all interested persons.

It's really just business as usual, but a bit larger and louder than usual - due to the obvious climate.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 12/5/07 3:57pm
Msg #224486

The unfortunate thing is that this climate is asking for

the powers that be (TPTB) to come up with a formula to save the loan business and make it safe again for the poor consumer. Whenever TPTB have to show that they are being responsive to their constituents' needs, things happen, sometimes weird things. The law of unintended consquences is alive and well in the halls of our regulators, they constantly come up with new examples.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/5/07 9:40pm
Msg #224557

It's an elected officials dream come true

just in time for the elections. Perfect environment for slapping something together fast to appease the masses.
Sorry I am a child of the 60's

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 4:05pm
Msg #224490

Re: I believe that it is extremely myopic to think that the

I think this IS the vehicle and it's moving now.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 12/5/07 9:36pm
Msg #224555

Re: I believe that it is extremely myopic to think that the UCI

Already happening Charles. Uniform closing, Anti predatory lending bill, UCC on notarial acts.
WI is working on a UPL definition.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 4:03pm
Msg #224489

HOO HOO

I think so, Renee, only because the Settlement Agent is responsible and the CSL covers the Settlement Agent. I do expect that title companies will seek to amend the CSL/CPL language to address the issue.

Reply by JerryhFL on 12/5/07 1:35pm
Msg #224424

I am not talking about identification what I really want to know is the defination of explaing the documents.

Reply by NCLisa on 12/5/07 2:01pm
Msg #224428

There is a HUGE difference in explaining the documents and UPL. UPL is giving a legal opinion or advice. Telling the borrower their interest rate, loan amount, payment dates, etc. is not rendering any kind of opinion or advice, it is simply stating what is printed on the documents. Whether there is a prepay penalty or not, is clearly stated in the docs. What term of time the prepayment is in effect is also clearly printed on the docs. Now telling the borrower that no prepay means they can refinance at anytime, is giving an opinion. But if you state to what is clearly printed on the documents, it is NOT UPL. It is done everyday by EO's and closing agents all over the US that are not attorneys.

Reply by JerryhFL on 12/5/07 2:07pm
Msg #224430

If that is clearly all they are asking for then I don't have a problem. We do it all the time. My worry is that they may ask for more which would then put us NSA in a precarious position.

Reply by LisaWI on 12/5/07 2:09pm
Msg #224433

Re: Uniform Closings Instructions-JerryhFl

Have you downloaded and looked at the proposed instructions? They are pretty easy to read and pretty straight foward I think.

Reply by JerryhFL on 12/5/07 2:17pm
Msg #224438

Re: Uniform Closings Instructions-JerryhFl

I would be interested to see a lawyers review on the proposed changes. If anyone out there with a law degree care to comment.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 2:51pm
Msg #224454

Ken Markison, General Counsel of MBAA ...

and prior to that, he was General Counsel of the Fed Dept of HUD for 30 years ... that's just ONE of the many, many legal brains that worked on the UCI (which is now the culmination of 18 years of work). If you look at the first page of the Webinar's presentation (avail at the MBAA site and now all over the internet), there's a short list of the presenters - the credentials are mind-boggling.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 2:24pm
Msg #224444

UPL - so correct, Lisa

a snippit from what I've posted elsewhere on the planet:

I think there is a wide misunderstanding of the use of the word "explain", as it relates to UPL. The literal definition is:

"An explanation is a statement which points to causes and consequences of some object, process state of affairs, etc., together with rules or laws that link these to the object. "

In the consumer's question of "Will you be explaining the documents to me?", they generally aren't looking for an 'explanation' in this literal sense. What they want to know is "Will you be able to clearly show me the terms of this loan I'm about to sign, and will you be describing every document you ask me to sign?"

Rare is the consumer who understands UPL or the implied risks of the word "explanation" or "explain", and UPL isn't in the use of the WORD "explain", but the act of actually practicing law without a license.

Reply by Nancy Steffen on 12/5/07 2:46pm
Msg #224451

Hello Notary Land......I've been reading here for a while and I'm a longer time reader over at Radical Title Talk. I am the Escrow Administrator for a title company and we do use your services sometimes.

Here in Oregon anyone performing escrow services must be licensed. I think the "explanation" of loan documents is condidered to be the practice of escrow...not to mention "fully" explaining the closing process. (at least that's what my conversations with our state regulator have indicated)

On the other hand, I'd hate to see our principals lose the convenience of being able to have a Notary come to their home after hours or to their place of business (in the case of Scrooge Bosses)

I'm wondering if the middle ground isn't in the Escrow Officer (together with all the other players and in line with the intent of the UCIS) get the copies out to the Borrower early enough that she can spend time going over any areas where the parties have questions.

We also need to do some education in the Realtor segument so that they understand that there are closings that just need to be done by the closer. They are sufficiently complicated and it would be a disservice NOT to offer a detailed explanation.

All that being said, I think it's going to take a lot of dialogue and openess to address all these issues and implement the UCIS.

Reply by NCLisa on 12/5/07 3:38pm
Msg #224472

On all the job websites looking to hire EO's in Oregon, I did not see anything about being licensed. Please tell me what licensing that individual EO's get in your state.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/5/07 3:47pm
Msg #224477

A licensed agency (TPL) can hire all the employees it wants, and they work under the agency's license.

Same w/ mtg brokers and originators (at least at this moment) - the broker gets a license to operate, the originators hired work under that license.

We can't work under anyone else's license unless hired as an employee of the licensed agent - which means either going for the whole W-2 game, or staying independent, and (if you were to do this) obtaining a license of your own.

Reply by NCLisa on 12/5/07 4:28pm
Msg #224497

I'm asking this because I've met EO's that are just as clueless as some NSA's. How they got the designation as EO is just beyond me. One of my jobs as an EO in CA was cleanup work, I'd take over the desk of an EO that had been let go and clean up the mess. And let me say, bad EO's can leave huge messes behind. In most TC's, you work up from receptionist or assistant to be an EO, which means you have no type of education for this position, it is all about on the job training.

I'm just tired of hearing how everyone needs to be licensed. If everyone needs to be licensed, then that includes the employees of the TC's and Settlement Companies, and then everyone will have the proper training.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/5/07 5:27pm
Msg #224513

Lisa: I think it's a great idea to think about a class of license for the "closing employee" whether they are employed by a settlement agent or an independent signing agent. With this newly defined role and the extra responsibility what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Reply by NancyOR on 12/5/07 11:06pm
Msg #224569

Licensing serves the purpose of providing standards and accountability. In Oregon title companies are licensed to perform escrow services and the companies are responsible for their employees actions. A consumer can lodge a complaint and it will be investigated. The state can assess a fine, suspend or revoke a license. In addition they can come and audit as many files as they like whenever they want.

Reply by NancyOR on 12/5/07 3:58pm
Msg #224487

Re: Uniform Closing Instructions

I think if you look at the Oregon Revised Statutes which govern the practice of escrow start at section 696.505 (and the licensing requirements are soon thereafter) and continue through to 696.500.

Most of the Escrow Officers work for title companies but there may be a few independent escrow companies in the state.

I also have some knowledge about Washington State where escrow practioners are required to have or work under an LPO License. That stands for the "Limited Practice of Law"

Reply by CF on 12/5/07 3:18pm
Msg #224468

NCLisa- I think that you are right on....this is how I go through packages. If it is in black and white then you can explain it- it is NOT UPL. I dont think the UCI- is aksing us to do anything more than that. They probably are asking for at least that: point and sign needs to be redirected to explaining what it in black and white....and if you dont know what you are talking about and cant do that then you should not be a NSA anyway. Just my opinion.

Reply by Gerry_VT on 12/5/07 4:48pm
Msg #224502

Practice of law for whom?

Everyone seems to think that the potential for unlawful practice of law lies in the area of giving too much explaination to the borrower, that is, one might practice law on behalf of the borrower. What about the lender and title company. Isn't there a risk that, by being the "eyes and ears" of the lender and title company, the signing agent might be practicing law on behalf of the lender or title company? It might be easier to prove; at least the borrower is there, and a case can be made the borrower was looking out for his/her own interests. The signing agent is the only one there on behalf of all the other parties.

Reply by Demore on 12/5/07 5:56pm
Msg #224521



Hi! JerryhFL -

I understood that you are asking an explanation about these fundamentals on loan documents. Okay! I am familiar of be an impartial witness (for the state of Wyoming). Then, I may explain to the signer(s) when to rescind and to provide the borrower(s) two copies of RTC. As a time-honored, it is mentioned to signer(s) about these signing requirements comes from both state law and lender, Title Company, etc and it is a customary requirement to signing a loan documents.

What to you think your state allows you to acknowledge while needed you to show proficiency when complete a loan documents?

What are your thoughts?

Hope this helps you figure what is missing or how to solve this dilemma.

Life is Good! -ļ





I