Posted by LisaWI on 11/29/07 9:46am
Msg #223548

Sylvia, Tony Negrete, and DianeC

Sylvia and Tony, I am addressing you two because I feel you are thinking you are being targeted on this whole issue with Mark ups by Signing Services. Diane, I think you need to read this because it needs to be clarified and seperated on who is who.

Sylvia is undoubtadly one of my heros in this business as I believe she is for many. She has helped me repeatadly on Notarial issues, she keeps a level head in heated debates and overall is a ethical human being. Oh and lets not forget Trivia, you rock Sylvia. Tony has been in this business for years, has stood by his notaries and is great to work with. His reputation is outstanding in the notary community.

Yes we have been having discussions on Signing Services who mark up Settlement Statements but I feel there is a line inbetween and a thick one at that, that some Signing Services are going way over on what they are charging either directly on the HUD or indirectly through the TC to hire a SA. There has been talk about this before on here and you all know this. How about the SS who owns or owned a golf course or the one who opened a restaurant? There is a difference between greed and making a comfortable living. I dont think Sylvia or Tony fit into the greed catagorie. But do feel some SS's do.

Everyone has stated their case in this situation. We all have our opinions on what is going on with our industry and if changes are going to happen what will they be. I dont believe Diane has evil thoughts going thru her head on eliminating the SA entirely. Her opinion is the same when it comes to NSA's doing loan closings that just plain shouldnt be. Do I feel this needs to be addressed, yes I do. How, no idea.

With all the dialogue that has been going on, I am one who hopes it continues in a respectable manner. Im simplistic in thinking that all goals can be accomplished. And all will mantain their respectable reputations. I personally choose to keep an eye on what is going on beyond our little notary world. Why, because we are a part of the equation no matter how you look at it, and to me it would be naive to think they (the authorities) are not going to put us under the microscope eventually. Just my opinion and hey Ive been wrong on many things in life.

Times are tough right now for everyone, but I have been doing alot of soul searching and reading my little tutu off and have come to some personal choices I will be making in this business based on what I have learned. So with all this being said, Sylvia and Tony I hope you dont view this whole issue as a personal attack on you and your business's. From me, it is not.

Reply by Negrete on 11/29/07 9:59am
Msg #223550

Thanks Lisa for your kind words.

I don't feel as though anyone is targeting SS's at all Lisa. I do not worry to much about anything these days. ( life is to short ) My Co. is in very good financial condition to weather this storm till it is over. And yes you are 100% correct Lisa, I don't try to buy up the world with the profits that I have made over the years. I just try to live a comfortable life and not spend, spend, spend like there is no tomorrow.

Anthony J Negrete

Reply by Stamper_WI on 11/29/07 10:11am
Msg #223553

Well said Lisa!

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 11/29/07 10:15am
Msg #223554

Wow Lisa! Thank you for the kind words.

I know it is not a "personal" attack.

There are signing companies out there that are just plain greedy. You see on the HUD what they are charging the title companies, and yet they are paying the signing agent a pittance.
They won't pay - or only a portion of the fee - if the loan doesn't get signed or doesn't fund.
I hate that these companies give all signing services a bad name.

Reply by Les_CO on 11/29/07 10:45am
Msg #223559

It is my belief that if a “Title Company” that charges the borrower a “Notary Fee” and said fee is reflected on the HUD, then if the Title Company does not pay the “Notary” contracted, or pays the “Notary” a reduced fee (less than stated on the HUD) and ‘keeps’ the difference, or the entire fee, paid by the borrower, that Company is in violation of RESPA, and also noncompliant, with their respective State insurance laws. And perhaps committing fraud (in the case of deliberate non-payment)
If the Title Company charges the borrower a “Notary Fee”, then contracts a “Signing Service” to perform the ‘Notary Service,’ and that Signing Service, then contracts a “Notary” to perform that service. And A) the Title Company pays no one, but keeps the fee, or part of it, they are in violation. B) Title pays the SS the stated fee, but the SS pays the Notary less than the stated fee, that is perfectly legal, and proper. C) Title pays the SS, the SS pays the Notary nothing, then the SS is guilty of theft, and fraud.

I have been in this business a long time. I set my own fees. I have worked for Title Companies, and Signing Services. I work when I chose, and charge what I feel is a just fee for my services. No SS has ever ‘forced’ me to work for them. If I agree to do a job for a stated fee and they charge more than that fee, and pay me the difference, good for them. If they don’t pay me, they are criminals.

This has been a problem, as long as there have been “closings” contracted out from Title Companies to people other that their employees. In my opinion, this can ONLY be solved by stating the exact fees paid by the borrower on the HUD. For example: If a SS is in the loupe, then a “Remote Closing Fee” (or some such name) to them, and then a “Notary Fee” to the Notary that does the actual signing. All fees paid by the borrower, all fees disclosed, and all fees distributed by the Title Company.

There should be room for all honest companies/people in this business. We DO offer and perform a valuable service to the borrower, the title companies, and the lenders, and deserve to be treated in a honest and respectable manner. Just the way Tony and Sylvia treat 'their' Notaries.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 11/29/07 11:01am
Msg #223560

This Will Reflect My Anti-SS Bias...

...(with apologies to Sylvia & a select FEW other SS's) but the only appropriate HUD description of payment to a SS should be "pimp fee", along with all the associated negative connotations. JMHO!

Reply by LisaWI on 11/29/07 11:08am
Msg #223562

Re: This Will Reflect My Anti-SS Bias...Oh My Dennis

still laughing..............

Reply by Les_CO on 11/29/07 11:32am
Msg #223565

Re: This Will Reflect My Anti-SS Bias... n/m

Reply by Les_CO on 11/29/07 11:33am
Msg #223567

Re: This Will Reflect My Anti-SS Bias...

Dennis I think your “synonym” for the SS fee to be inappropriate. Please understand that I am no expert on the workings of the “pleasure for hire” business. But if my understanding is correct the fee paid to the “pimp” is usually paid by the contractor, directly, after receiving payment from the person requesting/using the service. In our case the Title Company would pay us (notaries) directly, and then we would pay our “pimp” (SS). I think most of us would WELCOME such an arraignment! Wouldn’t it be nice to for once say to the SS, “Your Check is in the mail”, or “I have to call accounting”, or “Did you telegraph your invoice in code to our Philippine Office?”

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 11/29/07 11:44am
Msg #223572

Technically I Stand Corrected...

...as I'm not an expert on the workings of the "pleasure for hire" business either. I still think it's "appropriate".

Reply by Les_CO on 11/29/07 12:03pm
Msg #223575

Re: Technically I Stand Corrected...

"Appropriate" was not the best word, a mistake on my part.
However, If we’re going to rename fees, wouldn’t “Pimp” fee be more appropriate for the YSP. That’s where the borrower usually really gets scr*w*d!

Reply by Vince/KS on 11/29/07 11:33am
Msg #223566

Re: This Will Reflect My Anti-SS Bias... "Pimp" a bit strong

Dennis, wouldn't it be better to consider the SS as a "broker" (being in insurance - assume you get the drift)? The connotation would certainly sound better wouldn’t it? Or do you really want the full impact of word differential between “pimp” and “broker” here?

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 11/29/07 11:40am
Msg #223570

Sure It's a Bit Strong...

...but it was also said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Lisa had the response I intended to invoke.

Reply by CaliNotary on 11/29/07 3:25pm
Msg #223621

It's completely inaccurate

Pimps pay their ho's cash on the spot, they don't put them on a net 30 payment plan.

Reply by NCLisa on 11/29/07 11:21am
Msg #223563

When preparing a HUD either for a TC or a law firm, I never put anything other than actual notary fees on line 1106 and the name of the notary they are paid to, if they are charged. If a signing service is being used, the fee goes onto line 1111 or the 1300 section of the hud as a "Signing Service Fee" or if an NSA is being used I charge a "notary signing agent" fee.

Reply by DianeCipa on 11/29/07 11:40am
Msg #223569

Lisa, thank you for this post. This is not personal. It's an industry debate.

Les said:

"It is my belief that if a “Title Company” that charges the borrower a “Notary Fee” and said fee is reflected on the HUD, then if the Title Company does not pay the “Notary” contracted, or pays the “Notary” a reduced fee (less than stated on the HUD) and ‘keeps’ the difference, or the entire fee, paid by the borrower, that Company is in violation of RESPA, and also noncompliant, with their respective State insurance laws."

I agree 100%.

When Tony posted the functions he performs, I stopped, paused and thought about it. The RESPA compliance mark up issue is all about whether or not the added cost is payment for material services not already provided by another party in the transaction.

For instance, a title agent cannot mark up the cost of lien letters just because they "ordered" the letters. The function of ordering lien letters is their job and they are being paid otherwise in the transaction.

Maybe it is better to say many - not all - signing services violate RESPA. I base this conclusion on the observation that many simply "keep a lists, find a notary and schedule". Those functions are part of the job of the title company and in my opinion it would be hard to argue that there is a reasonable basis for which to charge the consumer the markup. I may be wrong but that's my opinion.

The bigger issue really is the definitions moving forward of the uniform closing instructions are adopted.

The CLOSING EMPLOYEE - the person "procuring signatures" at the table - is an employee of either the SETTLEMENT AGENT or SIGNING AGENT. I would not ignore the word employee.

It is apparent that the SIGNING AGENT may be an independent contractor but it is not likely that the SIGNING AGENT may have independent contractor working for it at the table.

This - if adopted - is likely going to either force signing services to hire closers as employees or become full blown SETTLEMENT AGENTS or leave the business.

The likely outcome will be that today's NSAs change their name to SIGNING AGENT and work directly for SETTLEMENT AGENTS.

Reply by Negrete on 11/29/07 12:56pm
Msg #223585

Re: DianeC comments.

Just a quick question Diane.

Would you prefer that all Title Companies only be allowed to do work in there state ?

Anthony J Negrete

Reply by DianeCipa on 11/29/07 2:30pm
Msg #223608

Re: DianeC comments.

Hi, Tony. Not at all. I only ask that they respect the rules and laws of the states in which they do business. Back in my wholesale mortgage lending days, we did thorough investigation into the procedures and laws of a state before attempting to enter their market. You know - "when in Rome..."

Reply by Lee/AR on 11/29/07 4:16pm
Msg #223635

I just broke my promise to myself. The one about staying out of this discussion.
OK, employee. Think TC, SS will provide benefits--pay the 7+% taxes that I now pay as a self-employed person, give me sick days, provide the paper, toner, equipment, gas, etc.?
That's why we're Independent Contractors and not employees. Personally, I'd love to always be listed on the HUD, get paid in a week, not have to wait for hiring entities to pay me, have half my taxes paid by 'my employer'....

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/29/07 6:25pm
Msg #223656

**The one about staying out of this discussion.**

Yeah...good advice for me also. H3ll, I sound like a broken record.

I'll take my own advice...my opinion has been stated four ways from Sunday...unless I've got something new to add, I think I'm done...yes, I am...surely I am, indeed...well...I hope!

Reply by JerryhFL on 11/29/07 12:14pm
Msg #223580

Les CO

Excellent.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 11/29/07 2:13pm
Msg #223601

ROFL.....If SS are pimps...

That would make those who work for them notary 'hoes.

I needed that comedic relief today.

Reply by Les_CO on 11/29/07 7:53pm
Msg #223668

Re: ROFL.....If SS are pimps...

We have all lost business lately. Please, let us not lose our sense of humor. Something we all need to keep in these unsettled times.

Reply by CaliNotary on 11/29/07 8:31pm
Msg #223676

Re: ROFL.....If SS are pimps...

"Please, let us not lose our sense of humor. Something we all need to keep in these unsettled times."

And we'll definitely need it when business gets so bad that we really will have to resort to turning tricks to pay the rent.

I wonder if Brenda has a marketing ebook on that?

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 11/29/07 9:32pm
Msg #223680

Re: ROFL.....If SS are pimps...

"I wonder if Brenda has a marketing ebook on that?"

Hmm, there's an idea for Brenda