Posted by LarryTN on 9/7/07 12:05am
Msg #209738

Tn notaries need to take notice......

Folks I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the powers that be in the state of Tennessee are at it again! For those of you who live and work in TN, you might want to go on line and check out some pending ammendments to current legislation, namely HB 2131 and SB1712 at:

http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/laws/laws.html

I've been told this legislation comes before the legislature sometime in January 08.
The proposed law states "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule or regulation to the contrary, all loans for residential real property shall be closed only in the office of the lender or the agent of the lender" (attorney)

The second part of the legislation provides for limitations on prepayment penalties on home loans over $100,000...

When you go to the website, click on "search for legislation" and plug in the numbers...I do believe they're trying to make TN an attorney only state again!

If I can help you with this information please feel free to send me a private reply.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/7/07 7:20am
Msg #209746

EVERYONE should take notice ...

Rather than having this game played out state-by-state, it might be better served by a nationwide campaign to draw out the FACTS and lay the cards on the table. The thing that piques my interest is that I'm not seeing this issue presented to the general PUBLIC - am I just missing it?

Larry - as you know, Sue is working furiously on this in her State Rep capacity and using the 'tools' of combined voices through the group we belong to.

It might be easy to read this and move on, if you're not in TN - but what will you do when your legislature grabs onto this, as we're seeing this pop up in different states all the time.

Reply by NCLisa on 9/7/07 7:34am
Msg #209749

Re: EVERYONE should take notice ...

I didn't see the word attorney anywhere in that little blurb. I saw "Requires closings for all loans for residential real property to be held in the office of the lender or the lender’s agent." For some reason, they want these closed in offices, not homes. As a NSA, you are an agent for the lender. For that matter, you get get a minivan or RV and set up an office in it, and have the borrowers go out into their driveway and sign in your offce. Nothing in the proposed legislations states that the office can't be mobile!

Reply by SueW/Tn on 9/7/07 8:26am
Msg #209756

Re: EVERYONE should take notice ...

Whew...had a real problem posting on this thread, kept getting booted out of the forum!

Thank you Larry for posting this thread! Those of you that know the both of us knows that we've been working together TRYING to get SA's here in Tennessee involved. We've been fighting this battle since May of '06 when the original bill was introduced. At that time it had the same wording but was incorporated in HB3597 and was finally worded that we would not be able to close "high cost loans". The original authors again submitted this new bill this year during the headline grabbing mortgage downslide. I'm sure these two attorneys felt the time was right to push their failed legislation from the prior year. Yes the bill is vague and appears to have no substance, exactly like the statement that LO's make to BO's about PPP. I've personally heard "ahhhh, don't worry about that. As long as I'm the Mgr. here I promise to write a refi prior to the PPP date and won't charge you the penalty". Believe it or not that worked!

We can sit here and examine the wording all day long, it doesn't say this...it doesn't say that. What's important is how it will be imposed by the lawmakers 99% of which are attorneys. When this happened last year we got little to no support from other SA's and why? Because it wasn't happening in your state, wasn't threatening your living. The complexion of the situation has dramatically changed, there's a NATIONAL problem and TO's are quick to throw the blame on the SA. When something heavy gains speed it's very difficult to stop. Who's better equipped to get statewide notice? An independent SA or members of the bar association? Senator Dodd is drafting congressional legislation at this moment attempting to close the gaps within the lending industry. Do you honestly thing for one moment a signing agent isn't considered a gap? Can all of you tell me that your representatives KNOW exactly what it is you do?

As an SA we are not licensed, most states require zero training. You freely post on these boards the silly, stupid and moronic mistakes that you've had to clean up after an untrained SA. IF you're a lawmaker and you read these boards exactly what would you think? Now you're thinking "what lawmaker would waste their time reading a forum", let me tell you they have the budget to hire assistants and their only job is to find the leaks, find the problems.

Pretend for a moment you're the top dog, you're the man, you're the one that is going to save your state from this horrible mortgage mess. You discover an industry that doesn't require a license, doesn't require training, doesn't require testing. Hmmmm, this industry provides a service of convenience. HMMMMMM, without this convenience the client has to go into an office and work with an attorney in order to close the deal. In doing this you're able to confine damages to a licensed professional with a zillion dollar insurance umbrella who supposedly works under the guise of ethics. What would you do? Just follow the money folks, this is prime time for politicans to ride in on a white horse and save the voting public.

Reply by BrendaTx on 9/7/07 8:27am
Msg #209757

Re: EVERYONE should take notice ...

Sounds a lot like Texas Heloc rules.

Only...they added "no mobile offices" to their blurb.

Reply by DonR_NYC on 9/7/07 7:20am
Msg #209747

I just read the proposed bill and nowhere is the word "attorney" used. However, in a strict reading of the bill, this would also affect lenders and title/settlement companies that do not have an office in the state. Example: Indymac Bank or Quicken Loans do not have offices in the state. Are they now barred from offering loans in the state since they cannot close them anywhere but their office OR out of state title/settlement companies barred from doing business in the state because of no office there?? Sounds more of a protect our own businesses rather than the home owner bill.

Just the humble opinion of an out of stater.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/7/07 7:27am
Msg #209748

Don - definitely agree that as far as Bills go, this one is pretty slim and could use some details. The way I read it - they want loans closed in "offices" - it's not hard to be placed in the capacity of "lender's agent", but if they're barring mobile closings ... that's really another way to throw things over to the title/settlement offices or atty offices.

Reply by DonR_NYC on 9/7/07 7:37am
Msg #209750

"that's really another way to throw things over to the title/settlement offices or atty offices."

I agree and it may be the only way to get around it is the mobile signing agent (acting as an "agent" for lender/title/settlement) have an "office" for borrowers to come to. And again the convenience for the borrower just goes right out the window.

I remember a while back a state trying to limit settlements to only firms having an office in the state; basically a protect our own bill. The national companies went nuts over it. Don't know if it ever made it into law. But this sure sounds very close to the same idea.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 9/7/07 9:23am
Msg #209766

Legislation such as this may be more of an opportunity to correct two long-standing problems for signing agents than it is a liability.

The single most frequently voiced complaint on this forum is the plethora of unqualified signing agents. Combating such restrictive proposed legislation with a counterproposal for state licensing and strict qualification standards would go a long way toward solving both the problem of unqualified signing agents and the excess of signing agents.

Reply by WDMD on 9/7/07 9:50am
Msg #209772

"Combating such restrictive proposed legislation with a counterproposal for state licensing and strict qualification standards would go a long way toward solving both the problem of unqualified signing agents and the excess of signing agents."

Yeah licensing really helps in Maryland. The state won't even enforce their own rules.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 9/7/07 1:19pm
Msg #209798

WDMD snipes:

***Yeah licensing really helps in Maryland. The state won't even enforce their own rules.***

You have to have standards before they can be enforced. Because 2 percent of the states -- i.e., Maryland, which we Texans of course regard as more of a township than a real state -- fail to follow through, doesn't mean that the other 98 percent will make the same mistake.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/7/07 1:39pm
Msg #209799

Excellent points, Hugh!! n/m

Reply by SueW/Tn on 9/7/07 2:03pm
Msg #209803

I completely agree Renee

Still having trouble posting in here and as usual you've beat me to it! I agree with Hugh, he's talking my language and repeating what I've already stated to our State Legislators.

Reply by WDMD on 9/7/07 2:20pm
Msg #209810

Hugh said: "Legislation such as this may be more of an opportunity to correct two long-standing problems for signing agents than it is a liability.

The single most frequently voiced complaint on this forum is the plethora of unqualified signing agents. Combating such restrictive proposed legislation with a counterproposal for state licensing and strict qualification standards would go a long way toward solving both the problem of unqualified signing agents and the excess of signing agents."

Since we all know how efficient government is at regulating and licensing different professions, this should be a piece of cake for them to enforce. Except for the township of Maryland. LOL

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 9/7/07 2:42pm
Msg #209813

WDMD chirps:

***Since we all know how efficient government is at regulating and licensing different professions, this should be a piece of cake for them to enforce.***

Everybody who would prefer that doctors, architects, engineers, accountants, real estate brokers and -- God forbid! -- lawyers be left to their own devices to regulate themselves and their professional practices, step right up here to the dunce stool to be assigned your headgear.

WD, I want you to know that out of respect for you as a fellow signing agent, I am resisting with every ounce of character I have the compulsion to point out that Maryland is best known for giving us crabs and Spiro T. Agnew...oops. Obviously, I didn't have all that much character to offer in the matter.

Reply by WDMD on 9/7/07 2:55pm
Msg #209822

Hugh grumbled:

"WD, I want you to know that out of respect for you as a fellow signing agent, I am resisting with every ounce of character I have the compulsion to point out that Maryland is best known for giving us crabs and Spiro T. Agnew...oops. Obviously, I didn't have all that much character to offer in the matter."

Of course Texas is known for supplying the nation with, how shall I say this,,, cheap labor.I have one Texan name for you Hugh........ George W. Bush. Nuff said.LOL

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 9/7/07 3:26pm
Msg #209829

I actually have some interesting, if not fond, memories of Spiro. He spoke at the dedication of the Stone Mountain carving outside Atlanta, and I was assigned to cover it for the Journal-Constitution. Somehow, I managed to split my pants from rear beltline to front zipper. Breeziest dedication I ever covered.

I was wearing the same suit -- repaired, I might add -- during a trial by jury when the same thing happened: Bent over, and riiiiiiip, there it goes again, from beltline to zipper. That time, I stapled the rip together, and continued with my argument to the jury. Don't remember whether I won or lost, but I do know the suit went into the trash that very night.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/8/07 3:15am
Msg #209898

Boy, I can see the NNA having a field day over this one! Can you imagine them convincing state regulatory folks that ithey can solve this problem by making it a requirement for NSAs to take their classes and have a current certification from them? They must be salivating over the possibilities. Sadly, I feel a lot of this problem falls squarely at their feet. Fortunately, I'd like to think that the powers that be would see this as a non-competitive situation and not allow it. (I certainly would hope so!)