Posted by DianeCipa on 11/28/07 5:04pm
Msg #223412
OK, should a closer be licensed?
Is that the question? If not, let me know and I'll switch gears.
First, licensure is a state issue.
There are states that have clearly issued rules requiring an attorney for a closing.
There are states that have not.
There are states that have licensing available for other types of professionals who may close, such as title insurers, title agents, title producers - whatever. These forms of alternative licensing allow non-attorneys limited permission to engage in what otherwise would be UPL.
I see FOUR specific concerns with the NSA business as it currently exists.
1. Existing licensing requirements - whether attorney or non-attorney alternatives - in some states are ignored by NSAs who would like to argue that they are only performing notarial acts.
2. There is confusion about the definition of the word CLOSING which offers enough regulatory fog for the "under the radar" approach.
3. The consumer assumes that the person being sent to their home to perform their closing has met some kind of regulatory minimum standard for performance. It's a presumption of license.
4. The unlicensed NSA is disconnected from the liabilities and duties of the transaction in a material way and this disconnect allows an open gateway for other parties in the transaction to perform bad acts.
So, yes, it's no secret that I believe licensure is the appropriate fix. Will it lead to more attorney only states? I don't see why or how.
Take Pennsylvania for instance. Did you know that the business of title insurance was born in PA? We have a long tradition of non-attorneys performing closings. They were called conveyancers.
In PA, we have an insurance law which covers title insurance licensing. This law in its present form clearly indicates that you must be licensed as a title agent to perform settlements or closings so long as the closing is related to the issuance of a title insurance policy.
That means that I cannot as a licensed title insurance agent close HELOCs that have no title insurance. In PA, only attorneys or mortgage lenders may close those HELOCs. In PA, a mortgage lender may hire a mobile notary to procure signatures for those HELOCs, but a title company cannot because it's unrelated to the issuance of a title insurance policy.
Our state regulators are thoroughly confused by the NSA issue because they think that the NSA is not performing the closing.
There exists such a lack of clarity and as a licensee trying to run a professional law abiding practice, it's damn maddening.
Over these past months as I have read this forum I have come to understand much more clearly who I think you are and why you are doing what you are doing and I have come to respect the integrity I see demonstrated over and over again by so many who post here.
I have found myself on many evenings thinking, geez I wish title agents had the guts these folks have and the desire to learn and be top quality.
So, when the "Beware" post got circulated and I received a challenge to come in here an defend my positions I welcomed it because I think there is a real possibility to fix this. By fix this, I mean create credible, licensed independent closers out there over the radar.
If the lending community embraces the uniform closing instructions and I think they will, you have a structure - a base from which to create a new signing agent category, a place in the regulatory structure. The structure is there and it will take shape whether or not you openly engage and try to help form the end product. I am of the opinion that a pro-active position is better than hiding under a lampshade. If you are in the statehouse halls framing your place in a credible, quality way, attorneys won't have a void to fill. If you are not there advocating your position, someone will advocate against you and that someone is not me.
I advocate against UNLICENSED closers, not independent closers. That's an entirely different thing. I see a world of possibilities with over the radar truly independent closers clearly defined.
I'd like to help create that world and I intend to use the uniform closing instructions as a platform on which to advocate for the NEED FOR and not the elimination of independent closers.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 11/28/07 5:27pm
Msg #223422
NO!
Our role is just too simple to require licensing. (Tho' I do feel obligated to add that a familiarity with these documents via prior r.e. or title or bank/law/LO experience is very important.) I really do get the total impression that you are seeing us in the same way as you see yourself at a 'Closing'. We do not do what you do.
We are there to 1) ID the signers 2) Get signatures in all the right places. 3) POINT to the answers to any questions the B might have. For example: What is my interest rate? POINT to it on the Note. Why am I being charged this rate? I dunno...call your Lender.
| Reply by pan/nd on 11/28/07 5:55pm
Msg #223430
Re: NO!
I agree with Lee..completely.
Why stop with closers...let's license everybody: bank tellers, gas station attendants, grocery store checkout clerks, car salespeople, all customer service people at Wal-Mart and the like, I could go on and on.
With licensing comes bureaucracy...and we've got way more of that than we need already.
It's a bad idea whose time has not come and hopefully never will.
God forbid that you need to license someone to get somebody's ID, make sure things are signed correctly in the right places and respond to questions by pointing out applicable parts of documents.
I think Diane has come with a mission to stir up, cut up and make stew of us all.
She has come under the guise of "discussion"..but it's become apparent she has an agenda.
| Reply by Sylvia_FL on 11/28/07 6:03pm
Msg #223436
Re: NO!
"I think Diane has come with a mission to stir up, cut up and make stew of us all.
She has come under the guise of "discussion"..but it's become apparent she has an agenda"
Couldn't have said it better myself!
| Reply by Ernest__CT on 11/28/07 6:15pm
Msg #223440
Sorry, I don't think Diane has a hidden agenda. n/m
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/29/07 5:30am
Msg #223523
my view, point-by-point
*"Why stop with closers...let's license everybody: bank tellers, gas station attendants, grocery store checkout clerks, car salespeople, all customer service people at Wal-Mart and the like, I could go on and on."
---------------------
Ironic as it is, all the above that you're using to illustrate your point ARE ALREADY either licensed, or are employees of a licensed business.
Can you find any another unlicensed independent besides the NSA, that would involve having access to a consumer's private information, such as we do?
==========================================
*"With licensing comes bureaucracy...and we've got way more of that than we need already."
------------------------
No fake there! Doctors and medicine are the single greatest cause of death in the U.S., too - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have doctors or medicine. Licensing will come with it's own set of issues, but it will lay down the foundation from which to build a solid structure. It's not a perfect solution by any means - but the most logical place to begin, within a framework that has precedent.
===========================================
*"God forbid that you need to license someone to get somebody's ID, make sure things are signed correctly in the right places and respond to questions by pointing out applicable parts of documents."
----------------------------------
This is the 'dividing line' as I see it - the one between a Notary Public, and an Independent Signing Agent. Your description crosses the line with the "respond to questions" - and I would contend that there is a place on the planet for BOTH the Notary Public (as you find at the UPS counter, for example) and the Signing Agent (as I consider myself).
As some lenders have figured out a way around the middle by sending consumers their own documents and telling them to find a "Notary" - tell me what you think would happen to our NSA industry if this were to become the norm? How can anyone argue against it, if they are "just a notary"?
If there is a place for the NSA, and I believe there IS - then how is the role defined, who is defining it, and where is the mechanism for the consumer and the two industries we 'bridge' (the settlement agent and the lender) that assures compliance to the defined role?
We have a long history of various attempts at self-policing our own, and it has YET to produce any reliable measure. We could certainly continue to make further attempts, but while we're talking, debating, and at times even arguing - there are Big Bucks lobbying for their OWN agendas, there are meetings going on and papers being drafted and bottom lines being scrutinized. There are political agendas going full guns as we head into an election year, on these horrific, long coat-tails of the loss of a stable economy resulting from the lending debacle. There's a lot of other worlds turning right now, besides our own.
Yes, I would agree - one way around the middle is to say we are JUST a notary, and then adhere to performing as strictly a notary - and then we can all get jobs at UPS, and the NNA can keep their machine running, because as we see - that's a very profitable stance. =O
=============================
Lastly, I want to address the skepticism about Diane Cipa's agenda - YES, she has an agenda, we ALL have an agenda. It used to be that Diane's agenda was to completely remove signing agents from the face of the earth. Through active dialog & effective communication, through the exchange of reason and willingness to actively listen & consider alternate and opposing views - her opinion has evolved.
Do not kid yourself into thinking Diane was a lone creature out there, wanting us removed - she was just one of the most visible. She is a crusader, and an incredibly astute one at that.
She is also representative of our CLIENT BASE. I guess I'm just old school there, but that ALONE gets her a place at my table. I want to know everything she thinks, what she wants, how she feels, and in a perfect world - we can enjoy a relationship that is beneficial to all, is Good and right, and that assumes mutual respect and effective communication.
To those who remain skeptical about Diane's agenda - what exactly is it that you're afraid she will do?? Go out there and tell the world that we eat our young? =)
To finish - my dear 'pan', I hope I didn't leave you (the person) feeling singled out, but your points were just representative of the majority of questions being posed, that I wanted to respond to. =)
| Reply by pan/nd on 11/29/07 9:21am
Msg #223540
Re: my view, point-by-point
You know what Renee,
you protest way too much and by the time anybody gets a third of the way through your
dissertation, they lose interest and fall asleep.
I stand pat, you stand pat...
Michigan has one of the highest rates of foreclosures in the nation....North Dakota one of the lowest..per capita.
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/29/07 11:41am
Msg #223571
Your point well taken, pan
One of my greatest vices, and I'll keep trying to curb it. On the plus side I guess is that I don't post very often.
You lost me with the comparison of foreclosure rates between our states, though.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/29/07 11:48am
Msg #223573
Re: Your point well taken, pan
Renee:
I read every word you write because your posts are so well written and well thought through. You even take the time to catch all of your typos - a trait I much admIre because I so often hit post way too soon. 
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 11/29/07 2:33pm
Msg #223609
Thank you so much, Renee. As always, well done! n/m
| Reply by NCLisa on 11/29/07 10:08am
Msg #223551
I was not licensed as a EO or a RE Paralegal.
I worked as an EO for 10 years at several different TC's, FATCO, ORT, FTC, PTC in Northern CA and was never licensed as an EO. In fact, I only knew of one EO that was certified. I recieved a certification as a Paralegal from the college I attended, but I have not applied for NC State certification and won't, as they grandfathered in paralegals with no education or experience as long as they were currently employed at a law firm. So that seemed to make state certification redundant as far as I was concerned, I spent $12,000 at the top ABA paralegal program in the US getting certified, and our state required no education, as long as you had a couple hundred hours in at a law firm.
So, as you can see, I don't feel that licensing is going to work either, as not all states licensing requirements will be up to par.
| Reply by Pat/IL on 11/29/07 1:54pm
Msg #223599
Re: I was not licensed as a EO or a RE Paralegal.
"So, as you can see, I don't feel that licensing is going to work either, as not all states licensing requirements will be up to par. "
I agree with you on this Lisa, and I would even go further to guess that most states would not create any meaningful standards for licensing. The legislatures would place the burden on the Land Title Association to write the rules and provide continuing education anyway.
The ALTA is pretty much under the control of the major underwriters. The underwriters have an interest in the existence of the NSA, as it allows their multi-state agents to conduct business with the multi-state lenders (for whom the one-stop-shop is a considerable asset) without the need to maintain thousands of staffed closing offices. Working with 5 or 6 underwriters would be considerably easier than promoting licensing in all of the states that don't currently require it. And I think the outcome would be more atractive to everyone than the patchwork of nonsense that would come from the state legislatures.
Just my guess, I don't really know what position the underwriters or the ALTA would take on the issue.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/29/07 2:05pm
Msg #223600
Pat IL - I have really been enjoying your posts. Lots of
good practical information and advice. Thank you!
| Reply by Pat/IL on 11/29/07 2:26pm
Msg #223607
Re: Back at you
Thanks Brenda,
That's a really nice complement coming from someone as knowledgable as you. I enjoy your posts also.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/29/07 2:43pm
Msg #223610
Re: I was not licensed as a EO or a RE Paralegal.
You are absolutely right about ALTA and the motivation of multi-state providers and the need and desire for NSAs. Don't forget they also would just LOVE to have remote closers with POAs in hand and eliminate NSAs, too. You do know that's where they - the title companies - hope to go eventually.
Two issues - the title insurers ignore laws and just hope they don't get caught. Witness all of the multi-million dollar fines and penalties that just keep on coming on.
The scofflaw attitude has hurt the mortgage industry in a big way and almost threatened the survival of many. The value of mortgage backed securities is zilch because the system and structure put in place by the scofflaws enabled fraud.
The uniform closing instructions - while they HAVE been in the works for a long time - mostly at the begging of title insurers looking for an easier job - are now a vehicle for lender enforcement of standards - including codified liability for the table. Lenders want a policeman at the table. The entire process will be scrutinized.
The MBA meeting is on Monday. I can't wait.
| Reply by Pat/IL on 11/29/07 5:32pm
Msg #223650
Re: I was not licensed as a EO or a RE Paralegal.
"Don't forget they also would just LOVE to have remote closers with POAs in hand and eliminate NSAs, too. You do know that's where they - the title companies - hope to go eventually."
I still have a lot to learn about the whole electronic closing process. I can hardly fathom a very large percentage of the borrowing population consenting to grant POA to strangers. I just don't see the growth potential in the short- or mid- term. I envison a closer with a laptop sitting with the borrower trying to unfreeze the computer.
| Reply by SheilaSJCA on 11/28/07 5:29pm
Msg #223423
I don't see why everyone is so scared of licensing. I believe it would give us the status and "title" to be recognized as an integral part of the closing process. Plus you need to know your stuff to pass a licensing test. Anything that promotes you as a professional, can only enhance your position. Sure, here in CA you have to take a test to be a notary, but that is not the case every where. I cannot see how being licensed leads to an attorney only state.
| Reply by Negrete on 11/28/07 5:45pm
Msg #223427
I am gonna get the crap beat outta me for this , but I can now see Diane's Point.
I say get a license and become a professional closer and we can all charge the Mortgage, Title and Escrow Co more money.
Anthony J Negrete
| Reply by Loretta Reed on 11/28/07 5:58pm
Msg #223431
Yeah right. Charge more money? That's what I thought when the title agents, attorneys, whoever decided that we need to be licensed. I was excited when the law finally went into effect and now, 2 years later, we are back to getting $65 calls instead of the $150-$200 I have been getting paid for a couple of years. So, you may charge more money for a while but there will be some **** that will still charge the lowball fees, even though we have to pay for licensing, bonds, e&o, etc.
It was a nice thought but it didn't work. I didn't agree with it in the first place because I am not responsible for preparing the hud, gettting the payoff, etc. I am only responsible for notarizing signatures.
| Reply by Alice/MD on 11/28/07 6:05pm
Msg #223437
Here in Maryland, we are required by law, to have a Title Insurance Producer license which requires, passing state test, a $100,000 surety bond and an unlimited amount of educational cost to get and keep license. Yet, when I get a call for a closing, the SA and even TC do not bother to ask if I have met these state requirement to close loans. There are all these laws, but no enforcement: including back grounding screening. Therefore, I feel I have wasted my money and time meeting the requirement that means absolutely nothing.
| Reply by SueW/Tn on 11/29/07 3:13am
Msg #223520
In my opinion Alice the time is right to blast these
companies who use SA's without their TPL within your state. Right now, during this meltdown when all eyes are on the legality of the document. If it is NOT following your state regulations to send out an unlicensed SA SHAKE UP THE SYSTEM. I'd send letters to the editors of all the big newspapers and notify all the "man on the street" reporters for the 6 o'clock news asking about the validity of the loans that have been closed WITHOUT the card carrying TPL licensed NP! I'd "strongly suggest" each borrower go to the TPL website to insure that their SA's name is listed there and if not speak with a MD DA about their loan that is slipping into foreclosure. I'd stir up a hornets nest, I'd MAKE the state do something about the closers working without the education required. There won't (I hope) ever be a time like this again when a mortgage is put under the microscope and even though it's an extremely sad time for all it's also the time to strike! It's an opportunity that shouldn't be ignored and I'd be screaming my head off to whoever would listen.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 5:58pm
Msg #223432
**There are states that have clearly issued rules requiring an attorney for a closing.
There are states that have not.
There are states that have licensing available for other types of professionals who may close, such as title insurers, title agents, title producers - whatever. These forms of alternative licensing allow non-attorneys limited permission to engage in what otherwise would be UPL.**
============
Why I think this is possibly the road to an end of the notary doing signings:
(1) The Shortest Route is the Most Likely Route
The shortest point between not having licensed "closers" and having licensed closers is to hand the responsibility in total over to those already holding licenses...lawyers and escrow officers...not to create a new office title or paid government employee to oversee those newly licensed notaries. Just create a law to put the notary signer out of work. Easy.
(2) Lawmaker Popularity
More licensing equals more bureaucracy and lawmakers do not like to be seen as promoters of layers of new licensed lawyers and escrow officers to use their notary stamp to carry and complete the signing of loan documents.
(3) Legislation against large groups with lobbyists
Licensing of notaries will *appear* to give the stamp of approval *against* lawyers and title officers...will *appear* to be giving out of state title companies to work in their own states by allowing notaries to be licensed to easily carry those packages...and at a reduced rate. (Lawyers would charge $350 per appointment, for instance--notaries take this out of their pockets and if it is brought to their attention...well...most lawmakers ARE lawyers...what state lawmaker will for that?)
====
**I advocate against UNLICENSED closers, not independent closers. **
There are already thousands and thousands of licensed "closers" in all states...they are called attorneys and escrow officers. With advocation AGAINST unlicensed closers...refer to (1). It benefits the local title company to see this through...no "closers" to carry the docs of the out of state title companies (nationals) and they are locked out...as well as the notary signer.
========
I don't do enough signing work any more to have a dog in this hunt...but I think this logic should be considered before deciding to suit up and go play the game without realizing who will be the referee...lawmakers...and what are lawmakers? They are lawyers. Who has large lobbying machines at state levels? Lawyers and Title Companies. Do we think they will agree to create cheap competition for themselves? I don't.
Don't get me wrong..licensing is a beautiful and ideal position. However, there is a big chasm that's long, deep and treacherous to cross before getting there.
Be very clear on this...I am not afraid, but I think this is a realistic concern to be considered and addressed before seeking the ideal.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 6:03pm
Msg #223435
Part of my post got snipped...correction. Point #2
(2) Lawmaker Popularity
More licensing equals more bureaucracy and lawmakers do not like to be seen as promoters of layers of new bureaucracy.
They will decide why not let licensed lawyers and escrow officers to use their notary stamp to carry and complete the signing of loan documents...no need to license a new sector and set up a new agency.
| Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 11/28/07 6:22pm
Msg #223444
Thank you, Brenda....
Once again, you've taken the time to eloquently and succinctly post my thoughts exactly.
Licensure for Notaries that facilitate loan signings would most surely put each and every closing back in the TC & Attorney's offices.
When faced with the possible implementation of new licensing and educational standards for those Notaries Public that choose to facilitate closings, most states will opt for the easy (cheap) way out, which will be to disallow anyone but Title Companies and Attorneys to oversee and perform said closings. (they wield great lobbying power in each and every state)
'nuff said.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 6:37pm
Msg #223447
Re: Thank you, Brenda....Now, let me say this...
I am interested in a well-thought out plan to achieve licensing which will not encounter guffaws and laughs from the legislatures...as they pull the plug.
Provide that to me, and I'll do my very best to see it your way. I want what it represents. I'm not too invested in my own ideas and not too invested in being right to see a credible plan for change and licensing.
Right now there's just a lot of fluff talk...but no real idea of how to get this accomplished.
| Reply by Lisa Prestegard on 11/28/07 7:07pm
Msg #223458
Re: Thank you, Brenda....Now, let me say this...
I am of the same opinion, Brenda, and unfortunately the closest this industry has come thusfar is the laughable attempt by the NNA to "Certify" Notaries Public to perform loan closings. We know how well that has worked, don't we? It is clearly worthless, as is evidenced by many of the questions posted on this forum, answers to which are found on SOS websites nationwide.
Whats more, I can certainly sympathize with Escrow Officers that have had to deal with recent graduates of their fantastic course. I have seen the havoc they've caused and subsequent fallout of their shoddy work, not to mention the potentially litigious situations they sometimes create. But I do not believe that State licensure is the answer.
Perhaps ALTA can devise a Certification Course of some sort, with a mandatory continuing education course every 2 years to be kept abreast of new laws, etc. Seems to me it would be the perfect compromise.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 7:11pm
Msg #223460
Right, Lisa...let the industry show it can regulate and
set standards for itself. Like Sourceoftitle folk have worked and created the Naltea (sp) certification...but NO not the playland NNA stuff...abstractors are taking care of their own...they didn't run for the legislative fix.
| Reply by Pat/IL on 11/28/07 8:07pm
Msg #223478
Re: Brenda, I'm glad your brought up NALTEA Certification
The National Association of Land Title Examiners and Abstractors (NALTEA) has been working for years to put together a test to certify abstractors. It's almost there. The next enormous job will be getting it recognized by the industry as something to be taken seriously. That will not be easy.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 8:24pm
Msg #223483
Re: Brenda, I'm glad your brought up NALTEA Certification
And at least they did not run to the government first!
Can you imagine how crazy that would be?
I can see it now..."The only abstractors which will be able to provide mortgage-related title searches will be those who have received licensing under our well established system of the Bar associations/licensing (attorneys) and those who are licensed title officers in their state. They must be employees of the title company issuing title. No abstractor will be able to move any further to search titles than they can physically drive a company car in one day and return in the same day."
Or something like that...keep all the local business IN the local title company, in other words...or in the attorney's office...who is, by the way...often a licensed title officer affiliated with the local title company.
| Reply by Becca_FL on 11/28/07 8:33pm
Msg #223485
Re: Thank you, Brenda....
#1 Common misconception: In the two states that I have worked, FL & CA, Escrow Officers are usually NOT licensed and are NOT required to be licensed. Case in point. After temporarily relocating to CA and accepting a processing position with a large, Nationwide TC, I was assigned to work for a gal that had no experience in the biz and used to work as an inbound telemarketing CSR at People PC. I had 3 years experience as a Real Estate Paralegal, EO, processor and post closer. This was my wake up call to assembly line escrow. Some of you may recall my comments about people I worked with in CA that were folding T-shirts at the Gap one day and EOs the next...this was no joke. I saw this first hand.
Florida does NOT require licensure to be an EO. The statutory definition of a title insurance agent in Florida is: a person appointed in writing by a title insurer (underwriter) to issue and countersign commitments or policies of title insurance on its behalf.
Title companies have unlicensed EOs closing loans everyday. They don't sign commitments or policies, but they work the file up and close the loans working under the license of the "agent" of record. When an "agent" calls to hire me for a closing, I am working under their license just as their EO employees are. I'm not an agent and I don't want to be an agent.
This $hit is REALLY getting OLD and I'm tired and bit@hy.
| Reply by Ernest Adams on 11/28/07 6:25pm
Msg #223445
Brenda & I were typing at the same time. Great, Brenda! n/m
| Reply by MichiganAl on 11/28/07 6:00pm
Msg #223434
First of all, heads up.
A certain someone is going to try to turn this conversation into a free for all. He's not a signing agent, and has stated many times that he thinks signing agents should be eliminated. He doesn't speak for any of us, only his own selfish interests.
Now, to the question you pose. I've discussed this a lot over the last few weeks, so I'm just going to paste part of an e-mail I sent to several of my colleagues/friends:
I just don't get the whole fear over licensing. Not one iota. I don't believe that educating myself, making myself more valuable, does anything other than help. This whole, "just leave it alone and no one will notice us" thing just isn't going to work any longer. It's way past that now. The mortgage crisis is the lead story every other day on the news. Everyone else in the process is licensed or going to be licensed. You don't think someone's going to look at that and say, "Well, who are these guys? Why are they part of this process without any regulation, any licensing, and any clear definition of role?" That's when the lawyers jump in and say, "get those unregulated, untrained idiots out of there." We're much less vulnerable with a clear definition of our role, and some sort of training, licensing, or universal standard. How can we not be?
That said, some of my signing agent colleagues disagree. I understand that. There was a time when I felt the same way. Stay under the radar, keep quiet, no one will notice. But that was never a long term plan for the survival of our careers. And it's gone out the window with the worst mortgage crisis our country has ever seen. It's not below the radar any longer. It's being talked about at every dinner table in America. And I don't feel that our job is just sign here, initial here. There's plenty that a quality signing agent does at a signing that isn't UPL that still makes the signing go smoothly and allows a borrower to feel comfortable that they understand the terms of their loan. Why not lay out a standard?
I think licensing of some kind is what will save signing agents. All of us? Heck no. Plenty have dropped like flies, plenty more will follow.
I've said my part, and as I know our resident broker will try to turn this into a brawl, for the sake of everyone else I'll say no more.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 6:17pm
Msg #223441
Re: First of all, heads up.
**Not one iota. I don't believe that educating myself, making myself more valuable, does anything other than help.**
I totally agree Al. However, it's always been my position that we'd be better served by asking NAMB to set the bar for us...promulgate standards, insurance requirements, and a test...PRIVATE setting of standards... determine that notaries who carry their docs are who/what they need to be. Then, to set theirs. That is...if you don't want to put legislation in place that makes it impossible for you to utilize notaries across the USA, then make it a requirement that your members utilize only NAMB has tested and certified. Prove that you can regulate us stringently.
Once that is done then there'd be no need for state licensing.
| Reply by Alice/MD on 11/28/07 6:21pm
Msg #223442
Re: First of all, heads up.
I always ask SA & TC if they don't want to pay my fee; what the attorney states charge, and if they rather have Maryland be an attorney only state. This should be the choice they should have when they decide what our fee should be, with the license we are required to have.
| Reply by SueW/Tn on 11/28/07 7:21pm
Msg #223462
Well stated Al, in total agreement with you n/m
| Reply by pan/nd on 11/28/07 8:01pm
Msg #223475
Re: First of all, heads up.
Gosh Al,
We've got a trillion dollar mortgage mess that threatens the entire economy..and you and
Diane and some others are talking about licensing notaries?
That makes as much sense as trying to stop an avalanche with a blowtorch.
Notaries didn't create the mess.
How about licensing borrowers so that they can't stumble, fumble and crumble into risky mortgages?
How about cracking down on the lending industry which decided to ride down the waterslide of subprime mortgages?
How about taking the goverment (the regulators) to task which didn't regulate and, instead,
opened the floodgates of lower lending standards. This allowed said stumbling, fumbling and crumbling borrowers to get into risky mortgages in the first place.
But, forget all of the above.
Let's go after the smallest leak in the ship...while the icebergs of greed, stupidity, payoffs and corruption sink the Titanic.
Licensing notaries is simply like asking the band on the Titanic to play a different tune.
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/29/07 5:48am
Msg #223524
Furthering Alex's points ...
Almost every counter to Alex's points (to which I fully agree) is based on this single assumption:
If we don't see them, they don't see us.
This is the single point that just totally baffles me - this assumption that if WE don't seek licensing or some viable alternative, if WE don't take some kind of control, NOBODY ELSE WILL BOTHER US. They won't know we're here.
The MBA doesn't KNOW?
The Bar Associations are truly ignorant?
ALTA is clueless?
State Representatives aren't being hounded by PAC's representing everyone BUT us?
Consumer watch-groups will excuse us for some reason from their lists?
The RESPA reform microscope can only see things that see it?
??"Flying under the radar"???
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/29/07 7:18am
Msg #223529
Re: Furthering Alex's points ...
No, they do see the notary biz, Renee.
Personally, I just think that things operate better when no one gets in their face about it all.
MHO....not afraid, not worried, not afraid of change...but just believe that others have gone before us who had a degree of smarts which should be considered...and considered why this has not happened before. History can often be a good teacher.
If I can get my head around how licensing and recognition will benefit anyone but the mobile notary's position, maybe I can get my head around how this will work. At present, I don't see licensing as benefitting any sector of the business except the notary biz.
As Diane said, the notary biz needs a trade association...what she didn't say is it needs that in place before its got a snowball's chance in the hot place.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/29/07 9:23am
Msg #223542
Re: Furthering Alex's points ...
"that others have gone before us who had a degree of smarts which should be considered...and considered why this has not happened before. History can often be a good teacher."
I may be wrong, but I believe the NSA business really took off with the rise of subprime and Alt-A originations during which vendor management and far-reaching title agencies took root. The practices that were born and evolved during that period are all suspect at this point and there is no safe historical base on which to stand.
The uniform closing instruction wave is moving too fast for the creation of a single trade association. I would suggest a coalition of existing groups.
| Reply by Ernest Adams on 11/28/07 6:12pm
Msg #223438
There will be no NSA licensing. It will be "Attorneys Only"
Think about these factors:
Who makes the laws and rules?r Lawyers. (And a very, very few legislators who are not legal professionals or career politicians.)
The legal profession is a club that has a very high set of obsticles to membership. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe not. Attorneys earn large fees, even for simple work. Attorneys have to receive high fees because they have made huge investments in time, money, and effort in order to get through college plus law school, and then do extra work to pass the bar in one or more states. Insurance premiums alone keep most people who pass the bar from operating a private practice. Does anyone really believe that attorneys are going to give up any closings happily? Loan closings can be done relatively quickly, at the attorneys' choice of time, and without an attorney leaving her or his office.
There are several Notary Signing Agents of my acquaintance who try their best to keep a low profile so that they won't draw the attention of attorneys who do closings. Remember, there are current law suits that seek to shut down witness closings entirely and force all closings to be performed only by lawyers.
Maryland is, to the best of my knowledge (and I'm _not_ knowledgable!), a great example of a state that has tried to greatly restrict closings. MD requires a Title Producer's License, if I've read correctly, in order to do a simple loan closing. What is the cost to the closer for yearly insurance?r Is there an exam?r Must one be under the supervision of a title company?r (No, I don't want answers. I just want people to think about these types of questions.)
I'm guessing that all of us who have been doing loan signings for a while (years) and have done a few (few hundred, that is) would like to see some official recognition and some kind of control. The inexperienced people would like to have zero or very low barriers to entry into the field. People with a thousand closings or more would certainly like to be grandfathered in, one assumes.
What form will licensing take?r Will it be a simple take-an-exam-and-pay-a-fee thing?r True / false, multiple choice test?r Conduct a sample closing in front of a committee _of attorneys_ who, by definition, want the applicant to fail?r What will the fee be?r About the same as for a Notary Public?r ($60.00 for 5 years in CT.) $1,000 per year?r How much Errors and Omissions Insurance will we each need?r A million dollars?r Will be be required to have an attorney "supervise" us?r
Will states be even willing to establish another license?r Won't the legislatures simply say "Nope. Attorneys only." just to make it easy?r
| Reply by Teresa Kutz on 11/28/07 6:21pm
Msg #223443
Re: You said it better then I ever could have!!! Thank you!! n/m
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/28/07 6:49pm
Msg #223450
what is the end goal for the mortgage industry?
They want to restore their reputation. They need to restore confidence in the paper they originate. The restoration of reputation and confidence for the public and Wall Street will be built upon a foundation of "proven" quality providers in some kind of uniform system that can be monitored and tested.
The proposed uniform instructions contain a blueprint that if followed leads to a defined role for whoever sits at the closing table. That role is BIGGER than simply a notary and so the business of just being a notary at the table will be caput, gonzo, fini, whatever. That is reality.
So, then we are forced to look at the newly defined role.
I've already told my staff that we'll be having a meeting very soon to revise our procedures for remote closings. I intend to change our procedures to match the role defined in the uniform instructions and see if I can work with an independent closer in another state. This is new for me and entirely unforeseen just a few short months ago, but I am a survivor, and I'm not afraid of change.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 7:00pm
Msg #223453
Re: what is the end goal for the mortgage industry?
**They need to restore confidence in the paper they originate. The restoration of reputation and confidence for the public and Wall Street will be built upon a foundation of "proven" quality providers in some kind of uniform system that can be monitored and tested.**
I am so glad you said that. I was afraid that my post about NAMB or some other well-established professional association setting our standards would sound outlandish. If they really want improvement without "walls" around their closers then this might be an option.
| Reply by OR on 11/28/07 9:10pm
Msg #223493
Re: I have a question
"They want to restore their reputation. They need to restore confidence in the paper they originate. The restoration of reputation and confidence for the public and Wall Street will be built upon a foundation of "proven" quality providers in some kind of uniform system that can be monitored and tested.
The proposed uniform instructions contain a blueprint that if followed leads to a defined role for whoever sits at the closing table. That role is BIGGER than simply a notary and so the business of just being a notary at the table will be caput, gonzo, fini, whatever. That is reality."
My question? How can the proposed Notary Uniform Instructions improve any any Loan Company-Brokers reputation?
If I understand what you just have said then...
IMO: The" Notary Uniform Instructions," is a way for the "Mortgage Industry" to use Notary at the table as an escape goat. Thus making the "Mortgage Industry" look like they did something when infact they really did nothing to fix their own problems. Which has greatly harmed our economy. If any thing the Mortgage Industry need look in there own back yard and fix their own problems and unethical practices rather then trying to fix the Notary which takes the time to let the borrower read their docs, notarizes a few signature and ID's the borrower at the signing table. But again this is only my opinion
| Reply by Pat/IL on 11/28/07 9:58pm
Msg #223498
Re: I have a question
The uniform closing instructions are only a way devised by several trade associations to condense a bunch of information into one document that no one will ever have to read again. It's brilliant! If it is adopted widely enough, it will save a whole bunch of trees (assuming it is not included with every loan package.
In those instructions, I believe, may lie the answer to...uh...er...the question. If the underwriter, via the insured closing letter, assumes responsibility for the conduct of the signing agent, maybe the following will happen:
* The underwriter will require that its agent ensure that the signing agent is qualified to do the job as it would be performed by a trained employee in the title agent's office.
* The independent signing agents who have made the effort to qualify to a higher standard, and have learned the whys as well as the whats, will be verified and registered as business partners. The rest will seek alternate employment.
This could result in a less saturated pool of competition, a much more knowledgable group of colleagues. I really don't think you need licensure to accomplish it. Let the onus fall upon the title underwriters to protect their assets.
I had more to say, but I am tired of typing and I need to get out of here. Has anyone seen my escape goat?
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/28/07 10:52pm
Msg #223505
Re: I have a question
You are spot on, Pat, and if licensing does not become an issue under those circumstances I'll stand corrected.
We have very few states in which independent closers who are not specifically licensed beyond being a notary can fly above the radar. That is because the definition of a closer and the duties of the person "procuring signatures" has not been made crystal clear. Granted, even if the uniform instructions are adopted, states can still say they don't give a damn and ignore the definitions, hoever, if the lending community and the title insurance community embrace these definitions, the fog is lifted.
So, if the definition of the word CLOSING includes "procuring signatures" and the duties of the CLOSING EMPLOYEE clearly include functions beyond notarial duties as outlined in the proposal, then independent closers aka the new SIGNING AGENTS will have to fly above the radar. So, if people are afraid of the licensing issue because they are afraid that they will be noticed, well guess what, notice is coming anyway.
Nothing has to be done until it has to be done. I just like to blab about the business and I have learned over these 30+ years that having a finger on the pulse of the business is good but having a finger in the pie that's cooking up the rules is better.
| Reply by OR on 11/29/07 2:05am
Msg #223516
Re: That changed things around
The whole reason why I address the issue of adopting The Uniform Closing Instructions, from because Diane said it was to "to restore the reputation of..... what we have now to.....
Pat/IL : I think I understand you to be saying.....
We do want to adopt the NEW Standard UCI which include all branches of the Mortgage Industry not with holding: Associations-Title-Bankers-Loan Officer-Brokers-Notary Singing Services-Notary Singing Agents- to adhere to a standard that the a higher standard then we have in place today. Even if that take having to test everyone in this business.
That is a big job but it has been done before. Look at how hard it was for the Massage industry to improve their image. 2 Massage Associations set out to change the standard and the image of Massage in the 50's.
In Oregon we are Massage Therapist. The American Massage Association and the Massage Association has been hard at working sense 60's in my state.
In Oregon you have to go to Collage or a State approved Massage School for a year 500 hours of trained massage. 2 state board (tests) to take before you get an License. Every 2 years you need 30 hrs of CEU's. It is recognized as part of the health care system and you have to be licensed to massage in Oregon. You can bill massage to you health insurance via CPT codes. There are rules to follow and standards to adhere to. It has been 57 years of hard work to improve image of Massage here in America, by 2 Associations. Today less then 1/2 of all States have adopted any standard or have any testing. That has only been a requirement sense the early 80's. That only took them 20 years to come as far as they did in my state. We have a state board that regulates us not in the State Capital. Some states still have not standards.
As I understand it a License is issued by a Governing agency after a government approved education requirement is meet and you pass a government test and/or you meet all the government requirements.
Certification is issued when all standard are met by some other then the government.
Diana I wish you blessing on your undertaking. After reading all of your post lately I think that I have learned that a lot of people think that you are the person who can get it done. I did print a copy of the UCI. I like them personally they are easy to understand and look like they would be easy to follow.
Standards are important if they are for the right reason. So often they are set in place after we find ourselves in of trouble...as to Pat/IL who posted to "my question". That is IMO the right reason to have UCI
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/29/07 9:27am
Msg #223544
Re: That changed things around
Thank you, OR. Your words are very kind.
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 11/28/07 7:01pm
Msg #223454
"Loan closings can be done relatively quickly, at the
attorneys' choice of time, and without an attorney leaving her or his office."
Then signings will no longer conform to the In-Home Closing model. For many borrowers, getting to an attorney's office is just as difficult as getting to any one else's office. (Personally, I'd rather have two root canals and a spinal tap than sit for an hour with most lawyers.) Ever had to wait for an attorney who's gotten stuck in court? We have all accomodated borrowers on their breaks at work, in parking lots, restaurants, hospitals, all kinds of places. Point is, people love that we come to them.
Another impediment is that billable hours are the attorney's bread and butter, not set-fee activities that don't pigeonhole nicely into a 15 minute time slot. The attendant clerical work we do that would fall on the support staff of attorneys would likewise not be billable, and would not take priority over the myriad deadlines support staff face every day. Maybe there are hungry lawyers willing to do what we do, but I can't imagine it's the kind of 'law' they would prefer to practice for long. But, I sure could be wrong about that.
I guess my point is, that changes are coming and they won't be made on places like this forum. The fears are natural, but shooting the messenger won't help.
Ernest brought up insurances. If the risks are never defined, we just won't know what kind or how much insurance is logical. If the liabilities aren't defined, the risks can't be calculated.
If there is a good faith effort by our industry to self-regulate, then the legislatures may defer to the industry rather than muck up the whole In-Home Closing model altogether with an attorney-only rule.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 7:06pm
Msg #223457
Re: "Loan closings can be done relatively quickly, at the
**Maybe there are hungry lawyers willing to do what we do**
Oh yes, Susan, there are. There are too many lawyers...and there are a good many successful ones who'd enjoy the heck out of a $350-$450 trip outside of their office.
Billable hours at $175 an hour averaging about 5 to 6.5 hours a day working inside the office 9 hours...you cannot charge for every single joke you crack, break you take, etc. At $350 a trip, in a mere four trips they would quickly increase their billable hours by 25%-40%, ka-ching...and these trips PAY...not all clients do. But real estate closing work pays, baby!
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 11/28/07 7:39pm
Msg #223465
But, Brenda! No attorney could stay alive billing out
25-40 hours a week! New associates are putting in 70 -80 hours a week; guess how many they bill? It's not 25.
I'm not saying there isn't any money in it, it could be a cash cow. (Most attys in my area are so slammed, a two-hour trip (say, 1/2 hr drive each way and an hour at the table) would be impossible. And the idle lawyers? Well, I guess there's a reason for that - but then, maybe this would be a good fit. <snort snort>
If the industry can self-regulate, elevating the accountability of actors in the lending process, I think the public is better served. And, if a uniform code can accomplish that, then I don't see states just leaping on the lawyer's only bandwagon as a given.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 9:02pm
Msg #223492
Re: But, Brenda! No attorney could stay alive billing out
Susie, my experience has always been with established attorneys who are very honest about the time they put in...right down to the .1 of an hour=6 minutes. The other thing is that sometimes in addition to that they make, ah ha, $$$$ for turn key jobs which is what closings are. I have never worked for a huge lawfirm where billables are more important than people.
I have put some thought into this...one of these days if this were to happen, I would go to work as a consultant for them...show them how to get the business. That's one place they are not real clear on...lawyers aren't generally good marketers.
Someone mentioned the ease of having home closings and needing to accommodate that. Well...the Texas Finance Committee has ruled on that for equity lines (which must be closed in a tc or a law office or lender branch)...they say that the borrower can simply provide a power of attorney to a representative to sign the loans for them. Yeah, I swear they did.
What makes sense to us doesn't necessarily make good sense to the legislative bodies. 
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 11/28/07 10:25pm
Msg #223499
You couldn't be more right about that, Brenda...care for an
eggnog?
Just finished up a fresh trout dinner. Last signing today (we had a hoot) - loaded me up with trout from the Lake - he goes fishing every day. Dad's in fish heaven...pan fried fish heaven with jasmine rice and salad.
I get it about the billing...but just like everywhere, there are some real snakes out there. I worked for this old coot here for a while...patent atty...worked out of his house. When he needed money (every week,) he'd jot down "time" on stickies for a few clients so the bookkeeper could get money out of the trust acc't. He hadn't looked at those files in months. It was disgusting, and didn't take long for me to walk out.
So glad you worked for good folks.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/28/07 7:44pm
Msg #223466
Re: "Loan closings can be done relatively quickly, at the
Consumer life styles demand a flexibility of service that it outside the mentality of typical law offices. Mortgage lenders demand a speed and adherence to instructions that is beyond the willing compliance threshhold of most law offices.
I'm not telling you anything you don't already know but faced with a real likelihood of change it behooves everyone to consider how best to guide the changing forces.
I suspect attorney only states of being afraid of the unlicensed unprofessional taking advantage of citizens. Perhaps when a successful structure is in place, door may be opened for dialogue.
Market forces can't be ignored and consumer shopping preferences play a key role because afterall consumers are voters. Give politicians a quality shingleaka license to hang their hat on and they might just go for it.
Closers need their own trade association.
| Reply by Loretta Reed on 11/28/07 7:58pm
Msg #223473
Re: "Loan closings can be done relatively quickly, at the
You have good ideas but they are not realistic. We, as notary/signing agent, whatever you want to call it, are going to be pushed out. It is easier to make an attorney responsible for the closing process than regulating and compliance. The MIA can't do it here in Maryland.
The government doesn't have a clue what "successful structure" is. There are unprofessional loan officers and settlment agents and attorneys.
I've been in the business for 12 years, we get treated like dirt while the rest of the people involved get treated like royalty. JMHO. Take it or leave it.
I am also an abstractor in Maryland and Virginia. I, when I put my "abstractor hat" on get treated about the same as I do when I am a notary/signing agent. Low pay, title company keeps the bulk of the money and offer me a crumb of $35-$50 for a title search on a $3million piece of property and expect to hold me accountable if I miss a mortgage (which I haven't in 12 years of being in business). Pay me what that title is really worth (and that is not $35).
GAC being one of the worse title companies as far as pay.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/07 8:17pm
Msg #223482
Re: "Loan closings can be done relatively quickly, at the
Okay, Diane. I do love to repeat myself as all my cohorts here can attest...however, tonight I'll just sit on my hands...I've done enough of that. I will call it a stalemate and move along.
I appreciate your thoughts but must respectfully disagree with your logic on this subject.
I'll be listening and if you peak my interest I will post...but to dissect the above is to repeat what I have already stated quite enough. It would be redundant.
Besides, if one "listens" without mentally formulating their own response to support their own view...sometimes they learn.
| Reply by WDMD on 11/28/07 7:04pm
Msg #223455
Re: There will be no NSA licensing. It will be "Attorneys Only"
As far as attorneys only states goes I seem to recall that Georgia, which is an attorney only state, had one of the highest rates of real estate fraud in the country. So much for attorneys being the way to go. Wasn't there another state that went from being attorney only back to allowing witness signings? Or maybe it was title producer back to witness signings, seems like I remember something about that.
| Reply by Rachel Harvey on 11/28/07 6:56pm
Msg #223452
I'm undecided, but I'll throw this out there:
One would think a person would have to know their state notary laws in order to get a notary commission (which is, after all, a license, of sorts), but this is not the case, at least in my state. I foresee licensed, commissioned NSAs who STILL don't know what they're doing.
If you could persuade TCs and lenders to care about the quality of work enough to stop shopping the dollar store, a change might come.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 11/28/07 7:52pm
Msg #223471
Rachel has an excellent point.
"If you could persuade TCs and lenders to care about the quality of work enough to stop shopping the dollar store, a change might come."
And one that will be a major stumbling block for all of our lofty goals talk. Keep raising the bar while lowering the fees... That won't work.
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 11/28/07 7:46pm
Msg #223468
I hate to sound like Bill Clinton, but
it depends on your definition of "closer".
In NY, a title closer is very different from an NSA - title closers handle purchases as a rep of the TC. Decisions have to be made on the spot at the closing table in order to clear exceptions to title - what docs to require, affidavits to be signed, etc. They probably should be licensed given the responsibility they have, but they're not.
OTOH, an NSA here handles re-fi's, HELOCs, reverse mortgages, etc. There is no "closing" involved; we're verifying ID, presenting docs, and gathering signatures. Exceptions to title are already handled by the TC - it's just another affidavit they want us to get signed. Whatever "closing" is required is dealt with back on the mother ship; other than understanding what the docs are and being able to point out the relevant parts, the NSA here doesn't actually DO anything that could be improved by being licensed.
I guess my point is that we really can't take a broad-brush approach to licensing - it has to be dealt with on a state by state basis, because every state has different requirements.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 11/28/07 7:55pm
Msg #223472
You don't. Yours is a well-reasoned statement of facts.
That model works the same in AR.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/28/07 7:58pm
Msg #223474
Re: I hate to sound like Bill Clinton, but
good one
Absolutely, agreed, but it will be very interesting to see what, if any, changes are driven in each state as mortgage lenders adopt uniformity in their instructions. They have very specifically stated their intentions to, let's say, homogenize the closing process for both purchase and refinancing.
Though they leave the onus on the Settlement Agent and Signing Agent to follow state laws and regulations, they are still defining what the person at the table "procuring signatures" is expected to do.
Hopefully the upcoming MBA phone meeting will really help clarify where this is all going.
| Reply by Gerry_VT on 11/28/07 8:10pm
Msg #223480
Granted that legislatures can sometimes be selfish, influenced by lobbyists, or just stupid; if they are doing their jobs right, they will only pass licensure legislation if it protects a vulnerable group, or the public at large. So, who will benefit from properly licensed NSAs? Lenders and title companies will benefit, but legislatures will not perceive them as vulnerable. NSAs? They don't count; licensure exists to serve the public, not create priviliged groups of people. Borrowers? They'll benefit from fewer screwups and delays, but licensed NSAs won't slap them upside the head and tell them the interest rate is too high, or they are foolish to use their house as security for a vacation, like a lawyer could.
The questions that the legislatures should ask themselves are who are we protecting, do they need protection, and will it work?
| Reply by JK/TX on 11/28/07 8:38pm
Msg #223486
Re: OK, should a closer be licensed? Loretta I'm w/you.....
And with all these expenses..... comes a liability some cannot imagine, whether you are liable or not! Everyone should read Inman News online... you can read day to day and see what you will be a part of....
Another thought, we have ALTA, CLTA and TLTA. What happens when you have a loan signing on property out of your state... or out of the ALTA states..... just a thought.
| Reply by sue_pa on 11/28/07 8:26pm
Msg #223484
alternative
rather than license us, why don't lenders require that companies not send out idiots - yes, I called a lot of our 'peers' idiots. We see it every day on these boards - people with no idea what they're doing or what our job really is or what it entails - trying their best. Thinking they can go into lender docs and change PRINTED dates so it's neater, practicing law by thinking they should draw up a form synopsizing an entire set of loan docs, determining in their own minds it's a bad loan, spending 3 hours at a closing (second time around) because figures aren't right and a 'financial advisor' must be beckoned, etc........ I remember a young lady in the midwest who posted here several years ago worked at a signing service. She actually said they called funeral homes when they couldn't locate a notary because they often had one on staff - the title company that permits this is the one at fault, not the poor notary who is told what an easy job this is - even though they deal with insurance papers and state documents - not real estate paperwork. A novel idea would be that companies interview us and have us provide references. I guarantee that the majority of my clients would never use many of the people that I see posting on this board more than one time. And some other sites - oh my - filled with new people giving TERRIBLE advice to each other. Some companies, like DiTech, are worried about bottom line only - hence the fee they offer. If they were truly concerned about quality, not saying that EVERYONE doing a $45 DiTech doesn't know what they're doing, they would be willing to pay for an experienced closer.
| Reply by Becca_FL on 11/28/07 8:52pm
Msg #223487
Thank you, Sue, I applaud you. n/m
| Reply by Sylvia_FL on 11/28/07 9:39pm
Msg #223497
Re: alternative - Well said, Sue. I agree wholeheartedly n/m
| Reply by JK/TX on 11/28/07 10:37pm
Msg #223502
Re: alternative - Well said, Sue. I agree wholeheartedly....
I have had only one SS call me for an interview as they said they would (online appl)..... what a joke....we talked and she seemed interested... then the question "what is your fee".....her reply "Ohhh,....." you get the pic.... well, I think I failed the interview/test....
It is amazing to me that a title co would call an unknown SS and turn the docs over to ... who only knows.... what a creepy thought! Or a title co that also has a SS, does not interview and "offers" even less than the independent SS Co, ....... s--t...!
| Reply by JK/TX on 11/28/07 11:43pm
Msg #223506
Re: alternative - Well said, Sue. I agree wholeheartedly..:(
I wanted to add....(sorry, long day)...... that there are also lenders that want title co's to run title, issue a commitment and issue the policy after "they" close the loan. and the lender "wants to handle everything in between".... hmmm... this is also a big problem in the industry. I have rec'd numerous calls requesting this... no can do!
ok, i'm done...
| Reply by BBuchler/CA on 11/29/07 12:13pm
Msg #223579
Re: alternative
I think we have the wrong end of the dog in the hunt on this one. If you don't want nincompoops in the biz, then start with quality education. I had to take a MANDATED 6 hour course to be a notary (CA). I then took a test by the SOS, not the "school." I then took a lousy 3 hour, non-mandated course for SA and got a certificate.
As for the notarizations involved in a loan doc they're simple (due to my notary training). As a "closer" the information is much more complex (or can be) and I had very little training to go over the majority of the docs. But I got a certificate, how hard can it be.
Anybody can get a license - just drive the road to see that. If you want quality SA's, start by having a NATIONWIDE mandated class, 8, 16, 24 hours. Then have a 100 question test administered by a neutral 3rd party. Then require a passing grade of B, not C, B. Oh, and charge $300 for the class, $100 for the test. And require the training every 3 years, at a reduced fee of course.
What this will do is weed out the "fly by night", "get rich quick" people, they don't pay that kind of money. Nor will they sit in a class for 8-24 hours (3 days). And they certainly will not take a test. And should they? Well, then they're probably serious about getting into the field.
And lastly, make it so that "trade" organizations (XYZ) CANNOT participate in the schooling of SAs. Or if they can, they too have to give the mandated classes.
Then you are addressing the right end of the dog, the one that can bite us all.
| Reply by Ernest__CT on 12/1/07 5:42pm
Msg #223911
Bravo, BBuchler/CA! Very well said! n/m
|
|
