Posted by CDandC Business and Legal Form on 11/5/07 6:54pm
Msg #219845

Again, Notary Signing Agents Are Under Appreciated.

A few days ago I read a very disturbing blog entitled “Buyer Beware When Hiring Notary Public" In my opinion, all notary signing agents should check it out for themselves. Please feel free to send us your feedback at [e-mail address]. Below please find our response to Diane Cipa of The Closing Specialists.

In response to your blog “Buyer Beware When Hiring Notary Public”. My first reaction was to ignore you. I figured you were someone who knew better but wanted the attention. However, as a notary signing agent I had to respond for the sake of my fellow notary signing agents who have worked very hard, but are never appreciated. As a notary public, if someone comes to me and ask me to notarize documents I charge them the state regulated fee which for me living in New York is $2.

However, when a lender calls me and asks me to take documents to borrowers who in most cases live at least 30 minutes from my house it is ignorant of you to say that it is fraud for me to charge $125.00. First the lender will email me the documents which are usually about 50 or more pages of which I am asked to print two sets. I am asked to call the borrower to confirm the signing. Most lenders expect me to have errors and omission insurance, and in addition to completing the state requirement for becoming a notary public, the lender asks that I take it a step further and get certified. Most lenders require background checks. After the closing I have to fax back documents to the lender.

For your information …
• The lender does not pay for my notary supplies.
• The lender does not pay for my certification.
• The lender does not pay for my errors and omission insurance.
• The lender does not pay for my background check.
• The lender does not pay for the pages they ask me to fax back to them.
• The lender does not pay or provide the paper for me to print more than a 100 pages.
• The lender does not provide the toner for my printer.
• The lender does not pay my internet service so that I can access email ...accessing the loan documents.
• The lender does not pay for gas or toll for me to get to the location most convenient for their borrower.
• The lender does not pay maintenance for my car.
• Some lenders do not pay me if the borrower does not show up.
• Some lenders do not pay me if the borrower refuses to sign.
• Some lenders do not pay me if the loan never gets funded.
• Some lenders do not pay me at All!

Its easy for an ignorant person to describe the notary signing agent’s duties as a “point here sign here job” but when the borrower ask me questions such as “What is my interest rate”, “What are my monthly payments”, “When is my first payment due”, “Where should I send my payments among other things”, the lender expects me to know the forms and be able to show the borrower where to find that information.

Lets not forget the borrowers who decide to read the details of the loans documents which means I have to sit there for more than an hour. Ms. Diane Cipa, I am sorry but my notary signing agent fees of $125 is more than reasonable!

Regards,
CD&C

Reply by Charles_Ca on 11/5/07 7:23pm
Msg #219847

Excellent response; cheap at twice the price! n/m

Reply by Stamper_WI on 11/5/07 10:43pm
Msg #219850

I recently saw a TC breakdown of fees. Edoc closing was $250. This is edoc from another TC and in house. Much more than I charge for going to the borrower.
I have been reading Diane Cipa for years. My take is that her objections are the untrained plain ol notary performing loan closings. This would be the one that doesn't have a clue about such things as providing borrowers copies, proper identification and a good understanding of loan documents to name a few. It is also imperative that we have a good understanding of the liabilities at hand to the borrowers and the TC's and lenders. Not to mention ourselves. Poor performance by a notary public overstepping or even understepping their boundaries is her beef. Mine too for that matter. Her delivery is blunt and to the point but it is important to that you get a sense of where she is comming from from reading more of her body of work. Including her subjects other than the notary public. Sure I think some of it initially was a knee jerk response to what she percieves as competition by untrained ignoramu's closing loans. But that is not the heart of what she see's as problems facing her trade.
Her objections lie in novice performances in an important role. Its not called a closing for nothing. This includes outsourcing title work and scheduling overseas and even out of state. The un educated notary is the final straw.

Reply by MichiganAl on 11/6/07 1:14am
Msg #219853

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I have two issues

One, although I do generally believe that her issues are with untrained, uneducated, unprofessional notaries, many times her comments blanket the entire profession without that distinction. If she wants any meaningful dialog, if she wants to be a voice for improvement, training, education, and accountability, alienating an entire profession isn't the way to go.

Two, she seems to want to display the worst of us. She comes here looking for the most grievous behavior, the absolute worst of our industry, and holds it up for all to see. "Look how incompetent they all are." I'm as critical as anyone about the ineptitude we see on a regular basis (and one only needs to pick up the newspaper to see that the title industry has their own issues), but there are some shining lights in this industry as well. Instead of just displaying the worst of our profession, how about presenting some positive examples as well?

Ok, two and a half. We know you're here Diane. We know you're reading. And this will probably be more fodder for your musings. But how about instead of going back to your blog and saying "look what they did now!" you actually try to affect some change right here. I know you'll have to wear a hard hat. I know you'll get some criticism, and there will be some childish remarks. But you might actually find some allies if you weren't trying so hard to tick us off.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 11/6/07 2:23am
Msg #219856

So who is this Diane Cipa besides someone with a Blog and

an axe to grind. Has she done anything of note? Is she an expert in the field and by what standard? Does anyone really read her Blog, I never have? There are tons of blogs on the internet and most aren't worth reading. Just 'cause someone has a computer and can get some space, much of it freely available, doesn't make them worth reading. We all know that there are problems in this business, you can tell there are incompetent notaries just by reading some of the questions asked in the forums. There are notaries here who have no business either being notaries or being in business. But what sets up Diane Cipa as a critic, and why should anyone pay any attention to her. There are people here who I respect, I can see Brenda Stone or Laura Vestanen Blogging with authority, both have contributed immensely to the business and continue to do so. Both have experience, they've researched in depth and they've written extensively but just who is Diane Cipa and why is her opinion worth listening to? (did I just dangle a preposition or is it a participle? Who cares? Its late and I'm tired.)

Reply by Ndwa on 11/6/07 3:36am
Msg #219857

Re: So who is this Diane Cipa...

Well, I think she a clone of Flacmac (sp) in the escrow field. I browsed her blog once, maybe twice, but noticed there's hardly any EO who agreed or support her criticism of notaries.

Reply by DogmongerCA on 11/6/07 9:01am
Msg #219870

She hates Notary Signing Agents

but yet she is advertising on the PA Notary board for a loan closer for her firm. Apparently is she hires you, you are all right, but if you are an independant, look out.

I also recall several months ago, I saw on the net where her firm had charged a couple for a title search that never occurred, and If my memory serves me, it actually was transferred into someone other than the owners name. The prolific writer of all blogs, mysteriously had no comment on the charges:-o

Reply by DogmongerCA on 11/6/07 9:15am
Msg #219872

I found the article, I guess my memory isn't that great

A cut and paste of the previous deed was substituted for a actual title search, and the property was double deeded. I have no problem with the criticisim of untrained NSA doing loan closings. But if you are going to make it your lifes work to go after NSA's, you should at least have your own firm in good order....



EmailPrintLawrence Walsh: Dirty deed has Baldwin couple up in arms
Friday, December 05, 2003
By Lawrence Walsh, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
In May, Ron and Dianne Gruendl bought a weekend home in Addison in southern Somerset County.

"It's only an hour from our home in Baldwin [Borough]," Ron Gruendl said. "We feel like we're on vacation when we're out there."

A month or so later, the Gruendls decided to buy a small lot next to their property. Ron Gruendl called the local tax collector and got the name of the woman who owned the lot.

But when Ron Gruendl contacted her, she had some unsettling news for him.

"She said she also owned one of the lots that was included in the property we had purchased," he said.

Ron Gruendl called Janice Miller, the Addison tax collector. After checking her records, Miller confirmed the woman had been paying taxes on the lot.

An official at the Somerset County tax assessor's office confirmed the lot had been "double-deeded" -- two deeds had been issued for the lot several decades ago.

"I feel so bad for the Gruendls," Miller said. "There was a developer back in the early 1960s who apparently sold the same lot to two different people, and no one ever noticed."

The Gruendls thought The Closing Specialists, the Ligonier-based company that did their title search, should have noticed. They called Diane Cipa, the company's general manager.

"I told her that if her company had done any research at all, it would have discovered this," Ron Gruendl said. "It only took me one call to find out what had happened."

Gruendl told Cipa he wanted a refund for the $530 he and his wife paid for the lot and the $726.75 they paid for the title services.

"Those 'services' apparently consisted of nothing more than cutting and pasting the information from the previous deed on to our deed," Gruendl said. "They didn't do a proper title search."

Cipa, whose company writes title insurance through Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation of Pittsburgh, forwarded Gruendl's request to Lawyers Title. On Aug. 19, Lawyers Title authorized Cipa to pay the Gruendls the $530 for the lot but nothing more.

The Gruendls declined the offer.

In an Oct. 2 letter to the Gruendls, Alfred V. Watterson Jr., the vice president of Lawyers Title, increased the offer to $650.

The Gruendls declined, saying they "should not be penalized because other parties did not live up to their standards."

The Gruendls then contacted me.

Cipa declined comment and referred me to Watterson.

Watterson said Lawyers Title won't refund the money the Gruendls paid for title services.

"We have offered them the full amount of the loss provision of their title insurance policy," Watterson said. "They received the benefit of the title work that was done. There was only a problem with one of the lots and we have offered them a rather favorable settlement to resolve it."

Cipa and Watterson declined to identify the person who did the title search.

Watterson said title search work "depends on the type of property and also depends on whether we have done a prior search of the property. It also varies on location and situation.

"A 60-year search is standard in the industry," he said.

If the title searcher applied that standard in the Gruendls case, it appears he or she should have discovered the double-deed.

Rosanne Placey, a spokeswoman for the state Insurance Department, which regulates title insurance companies, said the Gruendls could contact the department if they are unable to resolve their differences with Lawyers Title.

I'll keep you posted.

First published on December 5, 2003 at 12:00 am
Lawrence Walsh can be reached at [e-mail address] and 412-263-1895.
EmailPrint

Reply by Renee Kovacs on 11/6/07 5:03am
Msg #219858

Again, we fail to meet the real challenge

First off, I give credit to Ms. Cipa for putting her name where her mouth is. Whatever she does say and whenever she says it – she owns it.

Why would you shield your identity, CD&C, while seeming to stand on some higher ethical platform? Why has your profile been blanked-out? Why is this same posting of your’s flying all over the internet (including into my e-mail spam file, btw)? This is not something you read “a few days ago”, but nearly a month ago – and you did receive a response from Ms. Cipa (with her name attached) when you posted this to her Blog.

This begs the question “What is it that you want, CD&C”? I have to suspect the motive here as being more about getting yourself some site traffic than about initiating any productive dialog about the very real problems the NSA industry faces, and what possible solutions there might be.

I am happy to see that I’m not the only one reading and paying heed to what Ms. Cipa and others in the title and lending industry are thinking about my profession – these people allow us to look into the world of our CLIENTS, the industry of which we are a part of the body of, an industry which there is such a sad lack of broad understanding among the NSA’s as a whole. While everyone has their own bent and style, and while Ms. Cipa hasn’t ever been accused of mincing words – there is no DOUBT she’s highly intelligent, always responsive, and again NEVER shields her identity.

Ms. Cipa, along with the rest of the more visible Bloggers within the title & lending industry present an opportunity to identify real issues, and try to put together some form of very urgently needed changes before it all becomes a moot point. I believe she is absolutely correct that the NSA profession needs some type of standard structuring FAR beyond what currently exists, that would put some type of regulating device in place. HOW that should be done I don’t know, WHY it should be done seems obvious to me.

But that’s a whole other post – this one is really meant to question the underlying motive of this particular Anti-Ms Cipa Campaign.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/6/07 6:05am
Msg #219859

Cordina Charvis /CD&C/ is a spammer.

"Why would you shield your identity, CD&C"

Cordina Charvis is the owner. It took a few minutes but a google of the Cordina's phone number reveals the name attached to it. I can't post the link where I found this because it is a competing board's link.

Cordina Charvis
Cd&C Business & Legal Form Processing Sevices, [sic] Llc
Po Box 326
New York, NY 10805
Main line: (888) 680-0870

BTW - Well said, Renee. All of it. Cipa may be rough on the NSA world, but at least she owns what she says and she says it straight out. And she doesn't pretend to be something she's not.

It reminds me of another group--no, multiple groups come to mind-- who have used this board to pretend to be helping newbies while harvesting email addresses from NR, and who eventually wound up removed from this board's membership. That group also used hard to determine identification or fake names.

Glad I am not the only one who is T-ed off by the secretive Cordina Charvis's methods, or by the spam I receive from that advertising organ called a newsletter. As I recall, the attack on Cipa is the only article of semi-substance I have seen.

Cordina sashays onto this forum, never having posted before that I can tell and creates a common enemy in Ms. Cipa and tries to build traffic to their website and advertising letter (not a newsletter).

The funniest part is that they sell advertising to unwary newbies for advertising in their ad letter...what a concept. "Pay to advertise your notary services to other notaries who are ticked off that they are getting our spam!"

Reply by Stamper_WI on 11/6/07 7:30am
Msg #219861

It's important to note

That Diane Cipa's subject matter on her blogs and comments on other sites are overwhelmingly on title industry issues. All you have to do is google her name

Reply by Charles_Ca on 11/6/07 11:25am
Msg #219898

Brenda, this business is like a walk through my pasture...

you got to look out for the cow pies. As I've mentioned before economic segments are fun to watch in a transition and this business is not different. All kinds of creatures come out of the woodwork to fight for what little scraps of the business are left: hmmm, kind of solidifies the cow pie analogy

Reply by CDandC Business and Legal Form on 11/6/07 1:07pm
Msg #219912

Re: Cordina Charvis /CD&C/ is a spammer.

Hi Brenda and my fellow NSAs. As Brenda indicated my name is Cordina A. Charvis and I am one of the owners of CD&C Business & Legal Form Processing Services, LLC (“CD&C”). We are ALL active NSAs. Combined we have more than 30 years working as corporate paralegals and more than 10 years working as NSAs. I had/have no intention of hiding my identity, but, like the majority of the members on this and other message boards, I post my responses/questions/comments using a screen name which is usually an abbreviation of my company’s name.

I believe that ALL NSAs, like myself, are in this business to make money, but definitely not at the expense of deceiving anyone. CD&C offers several products and services including advertising. It is up to the individual whether or not they purchase any of our products or services. No one is forced to visit our website. If you have received any of our newsletters in the past and would like to unsubscribe please send us an email mark unsubscribe at [e-mail address] and we will remove your name immediately.

If you would like to write to me via direct mail…the address that Brenda posted is incorrect. The correct address is Cordina A. Charvis, PO Box 326, New York, NY 10022

Contrary to what Brenda have said, CD&C does not have a method of determining "newbies" from "experienced" NSAs. Therefore none of our advertising is directed to any particular group. Our last newsletter was #12. Other issues of our newsletter have dealt with many issues concerning NSAs of ALL levels. According to Brenda, the purpose of this message board is to provide information useful to notary signing agents. That is what I did; sorry if you got offended. Your comments were uninformed and lacked any insight into what we NSAs really do. Therefore, if you want to discuss this further you know how to reach me.

Good Luck. Kind regards, Cordina A. Charvis, proud owner of CD&C Business & Legal Form Processing Services, LLC.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 11/6/07 1:14pm
Msg #219914

Start by reading the terms and conditions of use! n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/6/07 1:35pm
Msg #219917

Re: Cordina Charvis /CD&C/ is a spammer.

You do not need to PM me to let me know you have replied on the board. I read the board.

I'm comfortable with my earlier post today on this matter and would refer back to it rather than reiterate what I have already said.

Reply by Sue White on 11/6/07 12:22pm
Msg #219905

Renee...you nailed it again

Why is it so difficult to see the forest for the trees? Why the heck is it so much easier to see Ms. Cipa as the enemy and not listen to what she's saying? She's right, all you have to do is read the forums to see how ill equipped this profession is. When new SA's (and I've seen some comments from some oldie but goodies that make me cringe too) ask questions that can easily be answered by just KNOWING the rules and regulations of their state one has to wonder what the heck is going on. Is it just easier to log on to a public message board and ask an elementary question rather than to know their rules? Is it just more friendly to ask a loan document question than to read the instructions? If I were sitting in her chair and saw the question "what does venue mean" I'd campaign against SA's too! These questions just add fuel to Ms. Cipa's campfire. The latest e-mail from LandAmerica says it all, to shrug it off as "you get what you pay for" doesn't come close to scratching the surface of what is wrong within our industry.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 11/6/07 12:38pm
Msg #219908

You are right Sue, that is why I am campaining to have

electronic filing become the standard, it will eliminate all those pesky NSAs who are at the tail end of the signing and frequently muck it up for everyone else.

Reply by Sue White on 11/6/07 12:45pm
Msg #219909

Re: You are right Sue, that is why I am campaining to have

Hi Charles~

I'm still researching electronic filing, I know that my state embraces it but I am not as educated on this subject as my peers. I do know that until they get a nationwide format in place that all the talk is just that, talk. SA's running out and purchasing equipment from one particular source is NOT the way I'm going to go at the moment. Running scared never did a thing but put one on a faulty course, that's expensive. I venture to say there are a ton of electronics sitting on the shelves acting as dust collectors.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 11/6/07 1:01pm
Msg #219911

Excellent comments Sue, that should be a must read...

I agree completely that anyone jumping in and buying equipment (which the NNA would dearly love you to do) is a big mistake. If anyone has filed an income tax retrun electronically through a tax preparer knows there is a trememdous amount of personal information being exchanged around the internet already. Frankly the stuff in you income tax returns would make buying a home seem like child's play when compared to the sensitivity of the infomration included. Yet e-filings have become very commonplace and to many even a necessity. How many people do you know who anxiously anticipate getting their refund: almost like its a gift from the IRS but that is a whole 'nuther conversation.

Reply by Sharon Taylor on 11/6/07 9:56am
Msg #219874

You didn't mention that we pay employer/employee taxes too!

Since we are Independent Contractors, we are responsible for all of our income taxes, even the part that would normally be paid by a employer, so we get a double whammy there too.

Reply by Sharon Taylor on 11/6/07 10:04am
Msg #219876

And upkeep, repair and replacement of office equipment

Another big expense is office equipment - printers, copiers and computers need upgrading and/or repair and/or replacement from time to time...and they ain't cheap, not if we are to provide the quality our clients expect and deserve. And software also needs upgrading - anti-virus and protection programs have to be renewed every year, moving from an older version of, for example, MS Office and/or your OS operating system to a newer one...

Reply by Sharon Taylor on 11/6/07 10:08am
Msg #219878

AND don't forget registration fees on sites like this

If you are registered on sites like this, especially as a Premium member, the total cost also reduces your total net income and should be calculated as part of your business expenses.

Reply by MichiganAl on 11/6/07 12:14pm
Msg #219903

My question to Harry - How does CD&C have a profile?

Now, someone individually there may be a notary, but CD&C Business & Legal Forms sure doesn't sound like a notary signing agent business to me.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 11/6/07 1:16pm
Msg #219915

ROTLMAO, if you check it they really don't :) n/m

Reply by CDandC Business and Legal Form on 11/6/07 2:07pm
Msg #219921

Ms. Cipa’s comments to CD&C - I agree with this comment


Ms. Diane Cipa responded to my post with the following and I have to say I agree with her comments below. We have to work together to come to some solutions. We, NSAs have many problems/complaints that are valid but there are no plans in place to solve them.

Ms. Cipa’s comments to CD&C - The NSA community should get together and form a coalition to embrace licensure of some kind because without it, your thoughts, concerns and comments have no basis.

The mirage of signing agent credentials created and fed by organizations like NNA produces a nice cash flow for them but no protection for the public. If the NNA truly believed they were creating legal specialized notary functions, they'd attempt to codify it in law. They can't because they know that if the states really took a close look at the issue, the likely bonding requirements and testing requirements might cause them to lose membership and that's their ONLY interest

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/6/07 2:23pm
Msg #219922

Regarding "we have to work together"

There are organizations doing just that. I am not a part of those but others in this thread are. If you really care about this issue, contact Renee' or Sue.

Your tempest in a teacup regarding Diane Cipa isn't impressive.

Again, I agree with Renee' that you are merely here in order to generate interesting in yourself.

Reply by DianeCipa on 11/8/07 6:42am
Msg #220166

Re: Ms. Cipa’s comments to CD&C - I agree with this comment

I forgot to say thanks Cordina. Your reaction to my post and distribution were, I believe, a heart felt attempt to defend your profession. I never saw it as anything but that. Thanks also for posting my reply from Active Rain. Eventually we'll all figure this stuff out. If I can leave you with one thought. I have learned the hard way that trade associations are normally pushing for their own interests and not necessarily those of their members. I was very disappointed in ALTA and so now those of us in the title end are trying to work out another way of communicating with regulators and lawmakers and other segments of the industry. The Internet is a terrific tool and I appreciate the full and free use of it including spreading the news as you did. Take care and good luck with your newsletter.