Posted by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 9:11am
Msg #222759
disinterested party?
I see this mentioned over and over again and wonder if we could talk about it. Here's my opinion. I think a notary performing no other function in a transaction than a notarial act could be considered a disinterested party - mainly because your fees will be paid no matter what.
Signing agents, however, can't be a disinterested party because frankly your fee seems to be contingent on the successful closing of the transaction.
I am curious as to where you are getting the idea that you HAVE to be a disinterested party because I don't think you do.
If I am the title agent on a transaction and I am also the closer at the table, I will be notarizing the documents. I have duties as an agent as also as a fiduciary. I am not a wholly disinterested party.
I think the confusion may be comparing PERSONAL business versus your professional business.
If I were the SELLER or the BUYER in a transaction, I should not also act as title agent, closer or notary. Why? Because there is a conflict of interest.
I am interested in your thoughts and comments and whether you agree or disagree with my opinion.
| Reply by Sharon Taylor on 11/25/07 10:01am
Msg #222765
Fee should NOT be contingent on successful closing
The requirement of a successful closing before SOME signing agencies or title companies will pay the notary is THEIR error, which has unfortunately been made a requirement by SOME of them (not all). They are trying to make the notary an interested party, contrary to law.
The law states basically that the notary cannot have an interest in the documents. That means financial or other benefit. If payment to me is based on whether or not the closing is successful, then the signing agency or title company is putting me in an untenable position of having an interest in the signing, which I refuse to accept. SOME signing agencies and title companies DON'T CARE WHAT THE LAW SAYS!
I have had borrowers reluctant to accept changed or surprise terms and conditions of a loan, ask me if I will still get paid if they don't sign, and I always reply that it doesn't matter whether or not I get paid, all that matters is what they think and if they want to sign or not. Of course I always do my best to put them in touch with their L.O., the title company, the lender, the signing agency, anyone who can answer their questions. And I do show and read them the facts in the RTC. But I DO NOT push them to sign just so I can get paid. Grrrrrrr. And there are times I have not gotten paid because the borrowers refused to sign because the package was not what they had agreed to with their L.O. or there were errors that needed correcting before they would feel comfortable signing.
| Reply by Loretta Reed on 11/25/07 10:05am
Msg #222766
Re: Fee should NOT be contingent on successful closing
I do not accept closings where my pay is contingent on whether the borrowers sign. I think that any notary that will accept this type of agreement is becoming an interested party and is in violation of the law. I am not an interested party and I'm keeping it that way.
People that accept their fees this way need to wake up and do this the right way.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/25/07 12:01pm
Msg #222779
Re: Fee should NOT be contingent on successful closing
**I do not accept closings where my pay is contingent on whether the borrowers sign.**
Agreed, Loretta...however, I reserve the right to forego the fee if the client hiring me has been a good source of business to me. That's MY choice, not the choice of the hiring entity.
| Reply by Sylvia_FL on 11/25/07 12:10pm
Msg #222780
Re: Fee should NOT be contingent on successful closing
I agree!
And as anyone who has been hired by me will tell you, they get their full fee even if the borrower doesn't sign.
| Reply by Mia on 11/25/07 10:30am
Msg #222768
Disagree
Diane Cipa wrote>>>Signing agents, however, can't be a disinterested party because frankly your fee seems to be contingent on the successful closing of the transaction.
I am curious as to where you are getting the idea that you HAVE to be a disinterested party because I don't think you do.
I am interested in your thoughts and comments and whether you agree or disagree with my opinion.<<<<<
1. Fees are NOT contingent on the successful closing of the transaction.
2. You ask "where you are getting the idea that you HAVE to be a disinterested party".
First thing... these transactions need a Notary Public to be completed. Second,
State Laws have criteria... "In order for the notary public to ethically perform the duties of office, it is essential that the notary public be an impartial party or "disinterested" in the act or transaction. Therefore, you may not take your own acknowledgment or administer an oath or affirmation to yourself. You should neither gain nor lose from the result of the transaction. If you are a party to a transaction or have a financial interest in the transaction, you must decline to officiate."
So I DISAGREE with your opinion.
.....
| Reply by Loretta Reed on 11/25/07 10:43am
Msg #222770
Re: Disagree
That is why you should never agree to have your fee met upon the borrowers signing the docs. You are there to witness a signature not talk them into anything so you will get paid.
| Reply by Brian Bluestein on 11/25/07 1:26pm
Msg #222801
Re: Disagree
I would have to agree with you on your comment. I think that you should except the job if you get paid even if the borrowers don't sign because that would be a waste of your time and efert if they don't sign ........now if they do sign thats great also how ever you would want to get paid if they don't sign as well.
| Reply by Sharon Taylor on 11/25/07 10:46am
Msg #222771
Thank you for quoting the law, Mia!
I know it's in the TN handbook, but was too lazy this morning to go get it. And it's in the handbooks for most if not all other states too. As public officials, we cannot have a financial interest in the transaction...and that includes having a financial interest in whether or not the parties sign the documents!
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 11:35am
Msg #222773
Re: Thank you for quoting the law, Mia!
Thank you and I am glad to hear that you are being paid even if the transaction does not close. I must have gotten the wrong impression. Though I believe ALL settlement service providers other than the real estate brokerage and mortgage lender SHOULD be paid, I wasn't aware you were so successful in that regard.
As for the uninterested party question, setting aside the payment for services, I am still not sure where the line is drawn. Many banks have on staff notaries as do title companies, law offices, and many other types of firms. These notaries perform their functions by notarizing documents related to company business. How do they get around the "disinterested" philosophy?
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/25/07 12:30pm
Msg #222784
Diane - you're right, and if you read the whole MI statute
You will reach this subsection defining "direct financial or beneficial interest":
Per MCL Act 238 of 2003:
"(10) For purposes of subsection (7), a notary public has no direct financial or beneficial interest in a transaction where the notary public acts in the capacity of an agent, employee, insurer, attorney, escrow, or lender for a person having a direct financial or beneficial interest in the transaction."
At least MI has this nailed down and spelled out - although that's not to imply their Notary Public Act doesn't have any holes left in it.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 12:39pm
Msg #222787
Re: Diane - you're right, and if you read the whole MI statu
Thanks, Renee. So we have clarity in CA, PA, and MI. That leaves just 47 more to go! LOL
| Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 11/25/07 11:34am
Msg #222772
Diane, I don't think you can function as both a title agent and a notary public in a real estate transaction. It is fundamental to the role you serve as a notary that you be disinterested; in performing another function in addition to that, you have racheted yourself out of the category of an uninvolved party. That rule may be observed more in the breach than in the observance, though. Witness the many institutional notaries who do closings for their employers.
You do raise an interesting question about whether a notary can simultaneously serve as both a notary and a signing agent, and still truly be a disinterested party. I would say that as long as the notary is explaining a document he is notarizing, he's on safe ground. However, that leaves the many docs that don't require notarization but often require explication.
I guess I'd take the position that as long as the signing agent is simply a conduit for information on the purpose of a document -- which is all he's supposed to be anyway -- he remains a disinterested participant in a closing. However, that may represent more rationalization of my continued employment as a signing agent than any real deep commitment to the idea.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 11:40am
Msg #222775
Hi, Hugh. That's why I am so interested in the intended meaning of the notarial law. Perhaps it does differ in each state, but here in PA we routinely have attorneys who are notaries witnessing the signature of their clients. All banks and financial institutions have notaries on staff. The on-staff notaries witness signatures by bank officers on mortgage satisfactions and all sorts of documents.
I really have to believe the disinterest speaks to a personal interest in the transaction beyond the professional function being performed. Otherwise, you'd have to have a notary beside you at every transaction who could perform no acts other than notarial acts. That doesn't make sense.
| Reply by Mia on 11/25/07 11:52am
Msg #222778
Diane Cipa - Are you saying that you don't?
Diane Cipa - are you saying that you don't have a Notary Public beside you at every
transaction?
... If you don't -- I would bet you are breaking PA Notary Public Law. AND YES IT DOES
MAKE SENSE... eventho you don't think it does.
Diane Cipa, are we doing your research for you? This question is really a VERY ELEMENTARY
QUESTION.
| Reply by Lucinda Sweet on 11/25/07 12:13pm
Msg #222781
I view the term “disinterested party” in a different light. I consider myself a *neutral* party to the transaction. I represent neither the lender nor the borrower. I have never considered my neutrality in terms of whether or not I receive payment for the appointment.
As a former escrow officer and a notary public handling thousands of closings over the years, neutrality was one of the most important aspects, along with confidentiality of the transaction (and other aspects) to my job and key to the ability to maintain and enlarge my customer base.
The California 2007 Handbook has this to say about conflict of interest:
“A notary public is not prohibited from notarizing for relatives or others, unless doing so would provide a direct financial or beneficial interest to the notary public. With California’s community property law, care should be exercised if notarizing for a spouse or a domestic partner.
A notary public would have a direct financial or beneficial interest to a transaction in the following situations: (Government Code section 8224)
• If a notary public is named, individually, as a principal to a financial transaction.
• If a notary public is named, individually, as any of the following to a real property transaction: beneficiary, grantor, grantee, mortgagor, mortgagee, trustor, trustee, vendor, vendee, lessor, or lessee.
A notary public does not have a direct financial or beneficial interest in a transaction if a notary public is acting in the capacity of an agent, employee, insurer, attorney, escrow, or lender for a person having a direct financial or beneficial interest in the transaction.”
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 12:17pm
Msg #222782
[A notary public would have a direct financial or beneficial interest to a transaction in the following situations: (Government Code section 8224)
• If a notary public is named, individually, as a principal to a financial transaction.
• If a notary public is named, individually, as any of the following to a real property transaction: beneficiary, grantor, grantee, mortgagor, mortgagee, trustor, trustee, vendor, vendee, lessor, or lessee.
A notary public does not have a direct financial or beneficial interest in a transaction if a notary public is acting in the capacity of an agent, employee, insurer, attorney, escrow, or lender for a person having a direct financial or beneficial interest in the transaction.”]
Thank you, Lucinda. That's precisely the point.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 12:34pm
Msg #222785
Here's the PA language:
[(e) No notary public may act as such in any transaction in which he is a party directly or pecuniarily
interested. For the purpose of this section, none of the following shall constitute a direct or pecuniary interest:
(1) being a shareholder in a publicly traded company that is a party to the notarized transaction;
(2) being an officer, director or employe of a company that is a party to the notarized transaction,
unless the director, officer or employe personally benefits from the transaction other than as provided
in clause (3); or
(3) receiving a fee that is not contingent upon the completion of the notarized transaction.]
Hmmm, that's interesting. Item #3 seems to suggest that receiving a fee that IS contingent upon completion of the notarized transaction DOES constitute direct interest.
Mia - We have notaries on staff who perform our closings. I allowed my notary commission to expire. I am not asking you to do my research. I'm trying to find out where some of the participants on this forum draw the line on being a disinterested party. Lucinda's line is drawn where mine would be.
The proposed uniform closing instructions have the potential to change the way EVERYONE is doing business. I think clarifying the "disinterested party" question would help lay a base for understanding a new role as Signing Agent if these instructions are adopted.
Clearly, the actual role of the Signing Agent as set forth in these proposals goes beyond what I am hearing many of you say you think is allowable practice by a notary. If you take the position that acting as a fiduciary for the lender at the table violates your role as a notary, then you might have difficulty adhering to the terms of the proposed instructions.
When we have an important new proposal out for comment, we need to think through all aspects so concerns can be addressed. If the industry moves forward without regard to your perceived concern, you'll have a hard time changing it later.
I am trying to help by assuaging the fear of crossing the line into a bigger role than simply notary, the proposed role of Signing Agent.
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 11/25/07 12:22pm
Msg #222783
The (in my opinion, unethical) practice of 'trip' fees in lieu of the negotiated signing fee when a loan fails to fund is the culprit of this dilemma because it places the notary signing person in the position of being a party to the transaction which, clearly, is contrary to the disinterested party rule.
I suspect that, if push came to shove, a court may find the practice in violation of states' laws with respect to those at laws. Practically speaking, the reasoning behind the 'trip' fee is purely self-serving, since the contracting parties (TCs, SSs, Brokers, whomever) claim that since they don't get paid, they will not assume the signing fee at a loss. Other entities do not accept that premise; witness the appraisers, who are paid up-front. Had our business started out with the up-front model, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Until very recently, some Reverse Mtg companies werre hiring us as 'employees' so we could sign the application docs as LOs. This has stopped, for many reasons, at least here in Oregon - one reason being that if we took the applicaiton, we could not return to signing table for the actual loan because we had become a party to the transaction as LOs.
Perhaps it will take a lawsuit somewhere to put a stop to the practice of paying 'trip fees' by hiring entities which, seems to me, creates the 'party to' the signing transactions which, flies in the face of the 'disinterested' party rule. And, isn't that practice also placing the SS middlemen in an 'interested' position if THEIR fees are dependent upon the loan's funding?
As it stands, with some paying regardless of funding and others not, there is no industry standard, and so each NSA is left to grapple with the question on a personal level.
It may prove interesting to put the question to our state legislatures rather than wait for a court decision (that may never come) to settle the matter.
| Reply by Mia on 11/25/07 12:34pm
Msg #222786
Folks
Let Diane Cipa do her own research (let her find this info without asking us).
The question that she is asking now is very basic / elementary. She doesn't
want to put in the effort that is needed. jmho
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 12:45pm
Msg #222788
sharing ideas and thrashing out issues is a good thing
Witness the clarification of MI law by Renee:
[Per MCL Act 238 of 2003:
"(10) For purposes of subsection (7), a notary public has no direct financial or beneficial interest in a transaction where the notary public acts in the capacity of an agent, employee, insurer, attorney, escrow, or lender for a person having a direct financial or beneficial interest in the transaction."]
| Reply by Mia on 11/25/07 1:22pm
Msg #222799
Re: sharing ideas and thrashing out issues is a good thing
I have to question your motives with these types of questions.
Diane Cipa wrote >>here in PA we routinely have attorneys who are notaries witnessing the signature of their clients. All banks and financial institutions have notaries on staff. The on-staff notaries witness signatures by bank officers on mortgage satisfactions and all sorts of documents<<.
The answer to that is very basic. Anyone that has been a Notary Public for at least 2 1/2 years or less should be able to give the answer quickly (and it doesn't involve the Laws).
| Reply by PA_Notary_II on 11/25/07 1:17pm
Msg #222794
Mia...are you just being testy?
From what I know of Ms Cipa, she has all the knowledge she needs to effectively operate in her capacity, but is only looking to share outlooks and opinions. In reality, IMO we all have a pecuniary interest in the signing transaction. If we did not, we would be charging $5 per seal plus actual expenses and nothing more. The position of Notary Public is a public SERVICE position. In the purest sense, we are only here to serve the general public, not our own interests. Having said that, I have been making my living entirely in this business for the last 11 years. I believe we are the end result of the needs of the mortgage business in whatever form it takes, and our continued existence is dependent on our ability to reconcile, in our own minds, the Notary Public's responsibilities and our ability to turn it into a viable livlihood.
| Reply by Renee Kovacs on 11/25/07 12:46pm
Msg #222789
I think it has more to do with the TILA & RESPA
I have long been one of a rather lonely club (me, and ?) of SA's who do NOT believe that there is any intrinsic 'right' to be paid for my services based solely on the nifty stamp I have, regardless of any other party to the transaction that foregoes payment on unfunded or rescinded loans.
You just can't have it both ways. Either you WANT to be recognized and paid inside the walls of RESPA like everyone else, or you give UP that protection (in place for you as well as the consumer) and go for the whole 'trip fee' ideology.
While it is extremely courteous and gracious of those of our clients (like Sylvia) who do choose to pay regardless, I have to contend with all my respect that simple math tells me it's costing me in the long run.
It is separate from the financial risks taken by abstractors - whose search services belong more to the 'processing' end of a loan transaction (just like appraisers) than the settlement end. Those of us whose services are part of the settlement procedures should be treated equally, and equitably, relative to the service we provide. RESPA and the TILA have this sewed-up, and I do not understand the 'special' loophole that SA's want to make for themselves here.
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 1:51pm
Msg #222808
Re: I think it has more to do with the TILA & RESPA
On the issue of payment for services rendered, I truly believe that there are numerous transaction costs that consumers should pay when a transaction doesn't close. It would be different if people were working for big commissions like real estate agents or mortgage originators. It's a "for service" fee - not a contingency fee - not a commission.
The RTC rules do allow for payment of third party services provided they are disclosed by the lender up front.
I'd like to find some way to work into the closing instructions the disclosure of who pays upon cancelation. Afterall, there is a whole lot more work and responsibility being placed on the Settlement Agent and Signing Agent in the proposal. All the lender has to do is include in their disclosures that third parties are performing services which will be billable in the event of a cancelation. This way invoices can go directly to the consumers. You could even be paid at the door like so many appraisers are.
These new procedures open up loads of possibilities.
| Reply by Stamper_WI on 11/25/07 2:06pm
Msg #222815
Re: I think it has more to do with the TILA & RESPA
Perhaps because we are out of the loop. I do not pretend to know the ins and outs of the title industry and their agreements with their clients, but we operate under the assumption that the loan documents we receive are to the expectations of the borrower and the title docs are accurate. I have no doubt that the employees that processed the loan are not docked their expected wages when the loan does not fund whether it was their error or not. Thats the comfort of being an employee.
Given that we are asked to perform a service, incur expense and time I don't see what our fees have to do with funding whether or not our hiring enity gets paid or not. We have no input into what happens before or after us. We do what we are hired to do.
The allowed notary fees in WI is $.50 PER DOCUMENT. I guess what you have to ask yourself is if what we do has no value, whay are you not sticking little pos it's on a loan package one color for signitures and another for those pages they take to a notary for witnessing. Let it rest on the borrowers and the TC's and LO's talking them through it on the phone.
| Reply by Pat/IL on 11/25/07 9:51pm
Msg #222868
Re: I think it has more to do with the TILA & RESPA
Stamper, what the notary does has value. What the title company has value. What the broker does has value. Each of us values our services. The challenge is seeing that others value our services enough to pay us for our services. The problem for the notaries is that you are being paid, ultimately, from the title company that is already taking a net loss from the transaction that does not close. This does not detract fom you value, it only adds another equation to the larger picture.
The title company needs to adjust so that the successful loans subsidize the fall-throughs. Maybe, untill you get some respect in the industry you should do the same. On the other hand, maybe the notaries can make a better effort. Talk to the appraisers.
| Reply by MichiganAl on 11/25/07 1:53pm
Msg #222809
I think you're spot on Susan
The trip fee puts us in a very precarious position. Even for the most ethical signing agent, this at least has the appearance of interest. I keep waiting for that lawsuit. But I'll bet if the trip fee gets abolished, it will just be an excuse to lower overall fees again. "Dear Valued Notary Signing Agent, due to the recent ruling banning trip fees, we've been forced to reduce your fee from $50 to $35. Thank you for your understanding."
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 2:56pm
Msg #222821
Re: I think you're spot on Susan
I may be reading too much into the proposed uniform instructions but I believe that by creating a uniform structure of roles - Settlement Agent and Signing Agent - from the lender and title insurer perspective - you have an umbrella over the NSA which didn't previously exist in a defined way.
I see this as very hopeful and a beginning towards creating stability of quality and fees along with giving states something to look at and understand when they consider licensure.
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 11/25/07 3:12pm
Msg #222822
The only part of the transaction in which you act
as a notary is the part where you ID the signers and notarize their signatures on the documents. The rest of it - printing, traveling, time at the table, returning the docs - has nothing to do with being a notary.
I'm not so sure that making the full fee contingent on closing and funding creates an "interest" in the transaction; you're entitled to charge the state-mandated fees for the notarial acts (note the difference between "charge" and "receive" - I don't think the state would step in and help you collect), but it all gets fuzzy after that. For instance, if the borrower takes one look at the HUD1 and refuses to sign, what notarial act has been performed? If the borrower meets you at the door and says they changed their mind, what notarial act has been performed? If they sign and later choose to rescind, what interest did you have in the mortgage or the other docs at the time they signed them?
I certainly don't believe the fee should be contingent on the loan closing and funding, but I think the whole "disinterested party" argument is kind of weak. We are signing agents who act in a notarial capacity as part of that function, not the other way around. I absolutely believe we should be paid the agreed upon fee for services rendered, and that someone who refuses to pay without disclosing a "no fund/no pay" policy should be sued for theft of services or breach of contract. But it would be really tough to show that they violated state law by making you a "party to the transaction" - in reality, they stiffed you for your notary fee, and the rest of it is contract law.
The bottom line is that accepting a "no fund/no pay" policy is a business decision, not a legal or ethical one. As with any other business decision, you have to weigh the risk. The overwhelming majority of loans fund without a problem. Refusing to take ANY assignment that is "no fund/no pay" just doesn't make business sense, because the risk is so small. Even if it was as high as 1 out of 20, I'd rather have 100% of 19 than 0% of 20...
| Reply by Stamper_WI on 11/25/07 3:24pm
Msg #222825
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
Add to that the fact that our classification as independent contractors. One of the criteria is the ability to make a profit or loss. While those that contract with us have the right to control how we perform some degree, by the nature of our profession required. In no way are we employees in any shape or form and this needs to be adressed by the uniform act,
Below is a portion of an IRS publication which can be seen at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/emporind.pdf
Its a long one but very informative. Its a training maual.
"Although the presence and extent of instructions is important in reaching a
conclusion as to whether a business retains the right to direct and control the
methods by which a worker performs a job, it is also important to consider
the weight to be given those instructions if they are imposed by the business
only in compliance with governmental or governing body regulations. If a
business requires its workers to comply with rules established by a third
party (for example, municipal building codes related to construction), the
fact that such rules are imposed by the business should be given little weight
in determining the worker’s status.
| Reply by Stamper_WI on 11/25/07 3:28pm
Msg #222826
"It's required" Sorry
Must be time to step away from the computer.
| Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 11/25/07 3:38pm
Msg #222827
Re: "It's required" Sorry
Sorry to have to bail out of this discussion, which I have found to be one of the most productive I've encountered on NotRot. However, I have a platinum blonde on the way over with a steaming caldron of tortilla soup and one of those delectable Cental Market tamales the size of a breadloaf.
Granted, that's not a bass boat, liquor store or trust fund, but in the absence of any of those, I'll take what I can get. Especially considering the delivery service.
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 11/25/07 4:19pm
Msg #222833
Boy, wish I had a nickle for every time I heard *that*
excuse.
No trust fund? Sheesh!
<salivating...> Bon apetite!
| Reply by Mia on 11/25/07 5:16pm
Msg #222837
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
Mike -- I guess it all depends on how your State SOS defines what a Notary Public
can charge for. In my State, a Notary Public can charge a "Travel Fee", when traveling
to perform the Notarial Act.
I believe this whole thread started out as "fact finding". I believe this gathering of information is going to be used for a workshop. (jmho).
| Reply by Tess on 11/25/07 6:16pm
Msg #222840
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
Mia,
Diane has her own agenda, and a workshop is not one of them.
Oh, what a web we weave!!!
| Reply by DianeCipa on 11/25/07 6:22pm
Msg #222841
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
MWAH HA HA HA.... and your little dog, too!
just kiddin..... 
| Reply by JK/TX on 11/25/07 6:57pm
Msg #222847
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
What are these instructions stating for the notary (that never sees these instructions) when the lender feels the notary is at fault when a R.E. transaction goes bad.
I am not looking to debate the notary signing issue but instead..... how do notaries pay to defend themselves. What kind of insurance is available..... ?... when it's a “closing employee " issue and not a notary error/omission?
I smell a rat !
| Reply by Tess on 11/25/07 7:11pm
Msg #222848
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
If this plays out the way some people want it to, we will have to be licensed, and will have to pay for your own liability insurance(cost will be high). This will leave about (in my best guess) 50 % of you, out of the business! We will also be on the HUD and if the loan does not close, like the TC, we will not be paid!
| Reply by JK/TX on 11/25/07 7:41pm
Msg #222852
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
If this plays out the way some people want it to........ a notary will no longer be allowed to notarize loan docs............ and in my opinion, this is the ultimate objective.... I don't give a damn what pretense they use.
That being said, I can understand the lender's concern. There are plenty of notaries out there being recruited and armed w/their stamp and cert and not a clue.... some, could not fight their way out of a wet paper sack. But whose fault is that........ hmmmmm ... xyz.......ic....do you... do they....as they review their contributions at the end of every year?
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/25/07 7:55pm
Msg #222857
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
Ditto, to all your post, JK.
The thing is that in the greater good it might be better, boost the business of the notary who is able to be licensed...boost the biz enough to weed out the bad, gather up the good ones and go on.
However, in Texas...in Texas I think there will be a path that will remove the NSA completely and the logical conclusion will be to eliminate the notary without the license...and, looking into my crystal ball, it will be determined that there are escrow licenses and attorney licenses, now why license notaries to sign up loans? Just make a law to put a stop to anyone but licensed attorneys and escrow officers doing signings in Texas period and call it a day.
I feel in order to fully discuss this subject there must be a realistic look at all the possible paths this will take.
From hearing the legislature address reps of the NNA with my own ears it is my personal opinion that the members of the legislature do not think their agenda of pushing memberships and educational products is necessarily something that the State of Texas will embrace...this will be an opportunity to legislate them right out of their state.
The NNA is taking a huge amount of bonding/insurance money out of Texas by manufacturing notaries through their marketing programs. Est'd notaries renew through them...the Tx insurance bizman doesn't get that renewal biz. The day I heard the legislature's remarks the insurance reps of Texas were there letting themselves be heard LOUDLY.
The signing agent thing is not a favorite topic anywhere among lawmakers in Texas as best I can tell.
| Reply by Tess on 11/25/07 7:57pm
Msg #222858
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
Then think about what the difference will be, with what a Title Agent that does signings is, and a Singing Agent that will be????
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/25/07 7:31pm
Msg #222850
JK, sorry...I should have stated I was sort of
announced a digression off of your topic. I saw ya and just wanted to give you a shout to ask you what you thought. You're welcome to PM me if you'd like. I'm just thinking that while licensing might be good in the larger, it might be the end of the Texas signing biz.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 11/25/07 7:51pm
Msg #222856
Re: JK, sorry...I should have stated I was sort of
Not just TX.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/25/07 7:59pm
Msg #222859
Re: JK, sorry...I should have stated I was sort of
**Not just TX. **
It will be interesting to watch this unfold. It will not be a critical situation for me no matter how it rolls, but licensing will bring significant changes to the notary signing biz of all shapes and sizes.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/25/07 7:39pm
Msg #222851
Should have been "larger picture" in my previous post.
JK, check your PM.
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 11/25/07 7:24pm
Msg #222849
Re: The only part of the transaction in which you act
<<Mike -- I guess it all depends on how your State SOS defines what a Notary Public
can charge for. In my State, a Notary Public can charge a "Travel Fee", when traveling
to perform the Notarial Act. >>
True enough; here in NY, there's nothing about a travel fee, so it doesn't apply. Even if it did, there's a difference between what the law says you can CHARGE and what you must COLLECT; I'm not aware of any state law that REQUIRES payment of notary fees or notary travel fees, but it would be great if anyone could to post a citation (including penalties for noncompliance) to prove me wrong.
The point is that not all of what we do (in fact, very little of what we do) on a signing has anything to do with being a notary, so it's difficult to claim that they've made us an "interested party" by not paying for a loan that doesn't fund. And it's REALLY difficult to claim this when the borrower refuses to sign before we even notarize a signature, because in that case there is no notarial act.
I think the "disinterested party" argument is really weak, and if anything we should rely on the contract. You have a confirmation that promises to pay you $XXX.XX in return for performing the closing. If you fulfill your part, they should pay you, period. They can't tell you after the fact that they don't pay if the loan doesn't fund - that has to be disclosed before you agree to take the assignment. The whole "I'm a Notary Public and a disinterested party" thing just muddies the water in these cases - it's basic contract law, and that's how we should deal with it.
<< I believe this whole thread started out as "fact finding". I believe this gathering of information is going to be used for a workshop. (jmho).>>
I think Diane was just trying to get a dialog going, and I don't have a problem with that at all. It's an issue we all have dealt with or will deal with at some point. Different voices, different opinions - what's so bad about that?
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 11/25/07 8:03pm
Msg #222860
Mia - I quite disagree with your limited take on Mike's
post, and, find your personal attacks on someone who is presenting interesting and timely topics for discussion to be utterly childish.
One might surmise that because you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation, you post contentious remarks to draw attention to yourself - an unbecoming activity that only serves to underscore your lack of understanding of the subject matter or perhaps the general point of community discussions. Whatever your agenda, your posts are merely interruptions in an otherwise interesting conversation among adult professionals.
That said, I'm sure a thoughtful and considered post would be most welcome.
| Reply by Pat/IL on 11/26/07 12:06am
Msg #222888
Re: Well said, Susan. n/m
| Reply by Tess on 11/25/07 11:12pm
Msg #222879
Re: Mia, Sorry! If you mean the MBA workshop, your right! n/m
|
|
