Posted by Jamie Block on 5/27/08 10:57am
Msg #248816
What would you do.
Hello my fellow notaires I have already spoken to Sylvia about this and I must thank her. Now I want to explain it to all of you.
I am being sued by a company for having a date written on the TIL in a different shade of pen. They claim that the loan could not close due to this and they want be to pay the differnce in what they claim was lost in commission. So I did what any other notary would have donw and I went and saw that one of the docs (they claim that ALL docs had to be redone) was filed woth the court and yes it was my stamp on there. Now my problem besides me having to go to sue them for my fee is on this document magically appeared a witness that was not there when I noterized this. So shall I call the police and have them arrested for changing the document? Also I know that they are slandering my name due I sue for that as well?
Any ideas on what you would do and how would you handle this?
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/27/08 11:02am
Msg #248817
Jamie is in Florida not NY as her post appears to indicate n/m
|
Reply by Ernest__CT on 5/27/08 11:05am
Msg #248819
Get an attorney. Now. Nothing else matters. n/m
|
Reply by MistarellaFL on 5/27/08 11:06am
Msg #248820
I guarantee the police aren't going to do a thing about an added witness.
Probably not even the SOS or the county recording department, either.
The only time this will interest any of them, is if the brw decides to litigate for whatever reason
I have never heard of a loan not funding because of a different 'shade' of ink on the TIL, or any other document in the package. If the mtg/dot recorded with your stamp/signature on it, you can be assured that the loan closed.
http://plus.aol.com/aol/reference/libel/libel_and_slander
FWIW, and JMHO
|
Reply by ReneeK_MI on 5/27/08 11:14am
Msg #248823
Have they actually filed a lawsuit, and for what? The whole thing sounds ridiculous. I can appreciate anyone's desire to avoid the expense, but if I were truly being sued by someone for any reason, I would take the matter to my attorney. I would then 'arm' my attorney with all the various facts (such as the ones you're presenting here). I would NOT make a single phone call or speak to anyone involved except upon my attorney's advice.
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 11:16am
Msg #248824
Yes they have filed a lawsuit against my E&O. I will have to take this to small claims court to get paid.
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/27/08 11:23am
Msg #248826
Your E&O only covers notarial errors
unless you have that coverage as part of a professional liability policy...a different shade of ink on the date on the TIL is NOT a notarial error...were there other errors made in the package that would be covered?
Without more info, and providing all the info you provided is accurate and the entire picture, this claim by the company sounds kind of silly and sounds to me like someone on the other end dropped the ball and they're looking to cover and recover...JMO I wouldn't play with it - gather all your info and turn it over to your attorney. Your attorney can countersue for your outstanding invoice in addition to filing the correct defenses on your behalf. If you have a professional liability policy they may provide counsel for you as part of your claim.
In any event, Good Luck..and BTW, who is this company, if you don't mind saying. Might be good for the rest of us to be aware....
Again, JMHO
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 11:30am
Msg #248829
Re: Your E&O only covers notarial errors
Yes I know that the E&O onlyt cover notorial errors. The calim is not going to get paid this is just what they are trying to do. I would really prefer not to mention any names since I do not want to be accused of slander. I have to say that I have worked for this company quite a few times and have never had a problem with them. I actually used to like them. I do not have a lawyer and it would cost me more to get one then it would for me to just forget my fee. I do hae all of the letters back and forth from myself to this company as well as to my E&O
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 5/27/08 11:30am
Msg #248830
Call your E&O company. they have attorneys to fight for you. The TIL is not a notarized document and may not be covered under your E&O policy. Most E&O policies cover notarial errors and omissions and not signing agent E&O. After I got in contact with my E&O company, I would report the witness on the mtg incident to SOS. I do believe in consulting an attorney when necessary, only you can decide if now is the time. Me, I would do some investigation on my own to see what I could dig up before running to an atty for help, but that's just me.
Please tells us who the company is. This is just ridiculous.
|
Reply by Ernest__CT on 5/27/08 11:18am
Msg #248825
I'm with ReneeK. NO CONTACT. Except w/ your atty. n/m
|
Reply by desktopfull on 5/27/08 11:31am
Msg #248831
Sylvia indicates you are in FL-per the Governor's manual:
This is from the list of don't do's and the statute is posted at the end:
Change anything in a written instrument after it has been signed by anyone. §117.107(7).
I wouldn't contact them personally, only through an attorney. I would file a report concerning the altered document to the SOS and have them tell you how to proceed. JMO
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 11:34am
Msg #248832
Re: Sylvia indicates you are in FL-per the Governor's manual:
You guys are all so awesome. I do thank everyone for their responses. Does anyone have the link to the SOS?
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 5/27/08 11:39am
Msg #248834
Re: Sylvia indicates you are in FL-per the Governor's manual
http://www.flgov.com/notary
|
Reply by tinkie on 5/27/08 11:52am
Msg #248837
Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
but maybe a TC, (they fold too) trying to take advantage of little people and their liability policies. Times are hard, and brings the wickedness out of sleezeballs.
Ticks me off royally that folks trying to make gas/grocery money, (US), get picked on. A trivial thing like having a different shade of ink on one doc is how sick this world has become. This could have been handled in many other docile ways. But, they want a big settlement from your Insurance carrier.
Now, you have to try to come up with funds to pay an attorney, which would be very difficult for all of us, and try to fight off these sumbags. Even if you have an attorney friend it is COSTLY. Wish I were one. I'd take it on at no fee. I'd love it.
Taking advantage of a little notary, and knowing they can be sued easily, over a stupid matter like this is LOWLIFE to say the least.
I wish you luck.
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 12:00pm
Msg #248838
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
OK Well here is what the letter to my E&O said:
To whom it may concern,
On (DATE) Jamie Block was sent to (client home) to perform a closing of their property. Jamie was handed clear instructions from (Title), (signing service) and (lender). Ms. Block completed the closing without fulfilling the requiremnts of the lender. The TIL form was not dated by the borrower at the closing table. After realizing the mistake, the closer proceeded to date it with her own pen and with out the client signing it. The lender does not allow this type of correction. Because of this , the file neede to be reclosed. The claim I am filing is for the aboumt of commission lost.
It then goes into detail a=on how the commision was lost.
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 5/27/08 12:06pm
Msg #248841
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
>>>It then goes into detail a=on how the commision was lost.<<<
Now THAT I would like to see especially since the company in question advertises on the their website that they charge a fee of $125 per closing. Please post the loss calculation so we can all have a good laugh. 
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 12:10pm
Msg #248845
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
How do you know what company I am talking about?
The original commissionable amount was set at 1.5% of the loan which equals $1290. Because the rate lock expired prior to the loan funding we needed to relock the loan with only .625% commissions being paid. I am looking to reclaim the $752.50 that ws lost due to the error of the closer. (when did I become the closer?)
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/27/08 12:17pm
Msg #248848
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
"How do you know what company I am talking about?"
I was talking to Becca about this company.
You are not the only one having a problem with this company, but the only one (AFAIK) with one of this magnitude.
It is ridiculous. They could have overnighted the document to the borrower,( if they wanted it redone), had them date and sign and overnight it back. It would have been done by the time the loan was due to fund.
|
Reply by Carole Breckbill on 5/27/08 1:39pm
Msg #248876
When did I become the Closer?
I've noticed that many docs refer to the Signing Agent as the "closer" or "Closing Agent" or another substitute for Representative of the Lender Company. If a document is truly to be signed by the Closing Agent, I don't do anything with it. If the document is meant for the NSA to sign, then I cross out "Closing" and add "Signing". It's often a source of confusion, however.
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/27/08 12:09pm
Msg #248844
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
"The TIL form was not dated by the borrower at the closing table. After realizing the mistake, the closer proceeded to date it with her own pen and with out the client signing it."
Umm..hello?? So instead of sending you back out to correct it, their closer does something inappropriate and it's on YOU?? Or am I missing something here?? Okay, so you were wrong - the TIL wasn't dated - you should have been given the opportunity to go back out (on your dime) to get it dated. Could have been accomplished well prior to the funding date with no repercussions.
Wonder if the closer is the mysteriously appearing witness...and was THAT ink shade the same..
I agree with Tinkie - wish I was an attorney - I'd have a ball with this one...
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 12:12pm
Msg #248846
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
OK to clarify the TIL was dated at the table. I was there sitting with him and I dated it for him because he forgot to. Isnt that out job? I was sitting next to him. Had it been the same pen none of this would be going on. Sheeeesh you can bet I went out and bout a ton of the same pen LOL
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 5/27/08 1:20pm
Msg #248871
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
>>>OK to clarify the TIL was dated at the table. I was there sitting with him and I dated it for him because he forgot to. Isnt that out job?<<<
No, it is our job to notice that the TIL was not dated and pass it back to the signer to date.
|
Reply by Gary_CA on 5/27/08 4:37pm
Msg #248922
Now Becca...
Yeah, pass it back to be dated is the best way to do it... but you've never dated anything for a signer????
I've had older signers or slow writers where I've dated just about everything... and I'm a southpaw, no doubt that the signer didn't date it. Never heard a peep.
I'm not saying passing back to them isn't the BEST practice, I'm just saying that the SA filling in a date isn't a capital crime.
|
Reply by Karen/OK on 5/27/08 7:34pm
Msg #248938
Re: Now Becca...
Not long ago I had a signer that had had a stroke. I could understand his speech just fine. But, it was a long and arduous task for him to sign his name and date the doc. After dating the first few docs he asked if I would put the dates in for him as writing was painful. I did. He would sign, I would date in front of him. As with your experience Gary, it was obvious I did the dating and there were no repercussions.
|
Reply by MistarellaFL on 5/27/08 8:01pm
Msg #248939
I think we all realize there are exceptions to the rule
But this doesn'r sound like one.
FWiW, when I run into a brw who has physical problems, like severe arthritis, parkinson's etc, I too will add dates if accepatable to the TC/lender. But if they are healthy and just lazy.... I won't be bothering the hiring party, they (the brw) has to do the deed.
|
Reply by Pat/IL on 5/27/08 8:14pm
Msg #248941
Re: I think we all realize there are exceptions to the rule
I am pretty sure that Provident specifically requires dates to be filled in by the borrowers. Unless I remember incorrectly, it is stated clearly and separate from the general closing instructions.
Underwriters accept liablility in the insured closing letter in the event their agents fail to follow lenders' instructions. I don't know if the indemnification would extend to a contracted notary.
|
Reply by Tish/CA on 5/27/08 4:31pm
Msg #248919
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
Jamie stated that she did date the document at the signing table in front of B.
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/27/08 12:13pm
Msg #248847
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
Linda
Companies often refer to us, erroneously, as the closers. So, the company meant Jamie.
Wish I was an attorney too.
|
Reply by SoCal Signing Co. on 5/27/08 12:58pm
Msg #248865
Re: Sounds like a Drowning Co. (probably some weak a$$ SS),
if its provident, then what is being said is true. They will reject a whole package for anything that looks dated by the notary.
Provident will not allow any cross outs, or errors of any type, goodness they make you print on letter size paper or you have to redraw.
But the SS should of let you fix this error.
The SS is also liable, and if she has Liability insurance this might cover the fee if E&O does not.
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/27/08 1:47pm
Msg #248884
I thought it was Provident that wanted the SA's
to have $500,000 in E&O....
|
Reply by desktopfull on 5/27/08 3:13pm
Msg #248902
The last one I did for them they wanted $1,000,000.00 E&O n/m
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/27/08 4:28pm
Msg #248918
Wow... n/m
|
Reply by Pat/IL on 5/27/08 8:29pm
Msg #248942
Re: The last one I did for them they wanted $1,000,000.00 E&O
My experience with this lender is that either a contractor carries $500,000.00 E&O or a title employee conducts the signing. They would allow a signing company to handle the signing as long as its notary was an employee.
In one case, where a signing was out of our normal traveling distance, we tried to have the signing conducted in the office of our underwriter. I think our underwriter, First American Title, has more money than many E&O carriers. But this lender would not permit them to conduct the signing because First American did not carry E&O insurance.
I think in our case, common sense never had a chance to prevail. I traveled a long distance for that one.
|
Reply by SLB SIGNING SERVICES, INC. - Sherry on 5/27/08 12:26pm
Msg #248853
I am going to be a woMAN about this....
I realize that I am the enemy here but I want to devulge that my company is the signing service that Jamie dealt with on this loan. I realize that I probably did not have to stick my nose in but I truly feel that some of things that are being stated that have led to this point with this loan are totally inaccurate and I feel that the portrayal of the events are misleading. I first want to start off by saying up until this point, Jamie was a closer that we utilized quite frequently (our go to person for that area) and I thought that we had a mutually respectful relationship. I would also like to satat that we only have knowledge of the events that transpired with Jamie and NOT any witness signatures, etc....If any of that did occur, we were not made privy to it and would never condone ANY ALTERATION OF DOCS. We assigned Jamie to close this loan for us on Thursday 4/24/08. On Friday, 4/25/08, our TC client calls us and says that the closer sent the package directly to the lender. Both our instructions and our clients stated that the docs needed to be overnighted to the TC NOT the lender. In addition, there was a lender instruction sheet which specifically that the borrower was to date ALL pages (not the notary). It is evident that 2 seperate people dated the docs because of the 2 seperate types of pens. Thirdly, on the Itemization of amount financed, the dates were changed when it stated specifically not to alter any of the docs....The instruction also stated that if any alterations were made, Provident would not accept docs
Both myself and my client personally asked Jamie to go out and correct the 2 minor errors but she refused to do so. Than the broker got involved and emailed me on 5/1 and said that he lost $700+ (yield spread lost) due to the fact that the loan couldnt fund on time because the docs were sent to the lender and the errors needed to be corrected.
Than I proceeded to explain the situation to Jamie and asked about her E&O and she refused to give it to me. I than had do some research and ended up finding it myself.
In all honesty, I have not heard a thing about this situation since May 1st and I have not been made aware of any action being taken against Jamie. In addition, I am not aware of any docs being altered whereas we do not ever have our hands on any of the docs pre or post closing.
Jamie...I appreciate the fact that you were not willing to divulge who the situation involved but I really felt it necessary to explain the situation in greater detail, not to bash you but the whole story was not being told. This is the first time in 6 years of business that I have EVER had to turn over E&O info. I was put in a position where the broker wanted me to responsible for the errors or oversights that you made to the tune of $700+ and per our contract, the notaries that we work for are liable for their own error due to the fact that we have no control over what happens in the field. Had the instructions (telling you where to send the docs) been followed, I am confident that this whole situation would have been avoided.
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 12:37pm
Msg #248855
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
Well lewt me start by saying yes I did have a business respect for your company prior to this, However you are a LIAR NOONE ever asked to go and correct any docs becuase i would have done so without any problem. As far as sending the packing I sent it to where the PFG instructions told me to do so. I have not put you or any other company involved out here with their name that was your choice and yours alone. As far as my E&O went i told you that i was in the middle of moving and that as soon as I located it I would send it to you. You chose to say that "i was stupid for not sending it to you" therefore you found it on your own. Well you should have had it before that because when we sign with companies that is pretty much a requirement to send it in. As far as the witness you may say you do not know about it but I am sure that you were aware of everything else that went on you would not know about this? Yea well I will see you in small calims court to get paid since it was MY notary stamp on the paper I guess that means that I did a job and my docs were used. Ball is in your court you brought it out here not me.
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 12:42pm
Msg #248858
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
FYI the only thing that is stated that is wrong on my lawsuit (LOL) is the date in the TIL so nothing else is really realative anyway.
|
Reply by SoCal Signing Co. on 5/27/08 12:44pm
Msg #248859
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
is the lender provident?
|
Reply by SLB SIGNING SERVICES, INC. - Sherry on 5/27/08 1:01pm
Msg #248867
Re: yes the lender is provident. n/m
|
Reply by SLB SIGNING SERVICES, INC. - Sherry on 5/27/08 12:58pm
Msg #248866
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
Jamie, I have nothing to do with the lawsuit because if it were up to me, this wouldn't be happening. Do you honestly think that I would voluntarily post all of this on a board full of notaries where I am totally outnumbered (and as a ss considered by some, the enemy) if there wasn't some validity to what I am saying. I felt the need to address the situation due to the fact that I feel that there were some key details that were being withheld that are detramental as to how this all came about. Again, I have not been involved with this situation since may 1st and I have no knowledge of anything that transpired since than. I am no doing this to be malicious...but it was really bothering me that only half of the story was being told.
|
Reply by SoCal Signing Co. on 5/27/08 1:10pm
Msg #248869
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
Why would Jamie refuse to fix this?
|
Reply by Jack Tri on 5/28/08 12:31am
Msg #248964
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
Keep in mine The Signing company should have E&O too 
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 5/27/08 12:50pm
Msg #248862
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
Sherry, there are still a lot of moving parts to this. I hope it gets straightened out.
I don't think I'd say any more from a legal angle if I were involved in it.
Notary E&O doesn't cover the TIL, does it?
I have "heard" that docs do get altered with witnesses sometimes after the fact.
If a notary makes an error, the notary should correct the error.
If signing services are involved in a transaction my guess is that they can also be tested for liability no matter what the contract says...i.e., called as a party to a lawsuit. Lots of people are sued for things that they aren't responsible for...don't have any control over...the appearance of liability (being a party to the transaction) gets people into situations all the time. It's not fair, but when the subpoenas go out, and depositions are taken it's like a fishing expedition. It's costly. That's why people settle out of court all the time. It's cheaper to settle than to defend their position--no matter how right they are.
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 5/27/08 1:30pm
Msg #248874
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
You know, Sherry, there was a very easy fix for this problem that would have cost you a bit, but could have saved the entire deal. So I ask you, why the heck didn't you get a copy of the TIL, overnight it to the borrower with a pen, instructions and a return envelope to the lender or TC or where ever the darn doc needed to go? Much of our business is problem solving and customer service. If your contractor could not or would not perform, doesn't the responsibility to mitigate damages fall on your shoulders?
Something to think about...BTW, where is my check for the closing I completed on 4/4/08. I have left messages with your accounting guy, but he apparently does not return phone calls. Again, customer service is such an important part of our business.
|
Reply by SLB SIGNING SERVICES, INC. - Sherry on 5/27/08 2:10pm
Msg #248894
BECCA Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
Docs apparently did end up getting fixed but with the docs being sent to the lender versus the TC (per instructions), that also delayed funding..anyway that is what I am gathering.
Regarding your check, It was mailed to you on the 16th and returned not deliverable. I emailed you a few times about getting your correct address but have never heard anything back...If you want to go ahead and forward me the correct address, I will drop it in the mail immediately along with the copies of the emails that I sent. Sorry for the mix-up
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 5/27/08 2:20pm
Msg #248895
Sherry, Have your fingers been broken?
Are you unable to pick up a phone or click on my profile? I have received no emails from you. When I accepted the assignment your assistant said that your server doesn't like yahoo addresses and that is why I never got the CO when it was sent multiple times. Are you unaware of this? Why would I not respond to email about my payment? My address is easily found by logging into NotRot and clicking on my profile. Again, sometimes this business is about solving problems efficiently.
I have so much to say about your PM to me, but fortunately I must go to work.
|
Reply by MistarellaFL on 5/27/08 2:24pm
Msg #248896
Re: BECCA Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
Oh come on....that is the oldest and lamest excuse for non-payment we have all heard over and over again.
Let's see, you could reach her via email/mail and phone before the closing?
But can't after the closing regarding payment?
Puh-leez. Give us a break. Most of us didn't fall off the turnip truck this morning.
|
Reply by SLB SIGNING SERVICES, INC. - Sherry on 5/27/08 2:39pm
Msg #248898
Re: BECCA Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
I am working with Becca (via direct email) regarding getting this situation resolved. Considering this is a private matter posted on a thread that has nothing to do with payment/non-payment, I think its best if we let Becca and I deal with this. Thanks for your understanding!
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 5/27/08 2:55pm
Msg #248899
SHERRY - Then DEAL with it. I don't have your email
address on hand, I left a message last Friday for your so called accounting department and now, I believe, the ball is in your court. My contact information can be found HERE! This is not rocket science.
|
Reply by SLB SIGNING SERVICES, INC. - Sherry on 5/27/08 3:01pm
Msg #248900
Re: SHERRY - Then DEAL with it. I don't have your email
First off..YOUR ADDRESS IS NOT IN YOUR PROFILE...it says provided upon request! Secondly, I am not exactly sure as to why you are so hostile towards me when just 3 weeks ago I voluntarily called you up to try and assist you with giving you closers names for your FL NSA network because I work with some top notch closers that I felt would be beneficial to the areas you did not have coverage in....This is all a bit baffling to me Becca. I dont know if you have to act like this because this is the "notary board" or what but boy you were a lot nicer a few weeks ago!
|
Reply by Loretta on 5/27/08 3:22pm
Msg #248907
Becca's address
Just go to her profile and click on her website, her address is there.
|
Reply by SLB SIGNING SERVICES, INC. - Sherry on 5/27/08 3:26pm
Msg #248908
Re: Becca's address - Thank you Loretta - didnt see it
on the actual profile. I appreciate your help!
|
Reply by Loretta on 5/27/08 3:29pm
Msg #248909
Re: Becca's address - Thank you Loretta - didnt see it
No problem. Just want to see us all get along.
Still waiting on my 4pm closing package so I'm bored.
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 5/28/08 5:28pm
Msg #249084
Re: SHERRY - Then DEAL with it. I don't have your email
Sherry, my apologies if I am coming off hostile, I am sick for the first time in over seven years and I am not dealing with it well. While I did appreciate the fact that you called to offer up some names, the names of the NSAs you gave up all proved to be marketing duds. I could not find many of them doing simple searches in multiple NSA databases and the ones I did find had incomplete profiles indicating to me that they were either not serious about the business or lacked any marketing sense. The Florida NSA Network is, after all, a marketing network and we are only interested in NSAs that know how to promote themselves and not accept paltry SS fees.
After investigating the NSAs you gave me I decided to check out your site. It was then that I got angry. I suppose can attribute my “hostility” to what I saw on your website.
Competitive Rates and Pricing
In an industry where cost is the bottom line, our fees are among the best.
EMAIL DOCS: $150.00 (includes reception, travel, printing & signing)
OVERNIGHT DOCS: $125.00 (includes travel & signing)
ADDITIONAL LOANS: Half Price
VOLUME DISCOUNTS MAY APPLY
Sherry, it is signing services like yours that are contributing to the downfall of our industry and cheapening the value of the SERVICE we NSAs provide. Because of your greed and lack of sales and marketing skills you MUST rely on price alone to sell your services and that is nothing more than inexperience, poor planning and lack of basic business skills.
Furthermore, the comment that you made to me in a PM “I appreciate your comments becca but I do not feel like it is my resposibility when the notary screws up.” just leaves me shaking my head. How can you not take responsibility for YOUR BUSINESS? This is absurd! I’m sure you do not disclose this to your clients or potential clients…if you did, you’d be out of business in no time. One of the networks biggest selling points is the fact that we all absolutely guarantee our work and stand by our promise.
To add insult to injury, after purchasing the field inspection company list, you decide that brokering notaries is not enough and you have now decided to broker field inspectors as well.
I have lost all respect for you.
|
Reply by BobbiCT on 5/27/08 1:46pm
Msg #248880
The LEGAL question I have ...
Under federal lending laws, could the lender LEGALLY without funding of the loan because of these so-called errors?
Has the borrower been informed of the pending lawsuit; i.e., brought in as a party defendent for using a different color/shade of pen on some of the documents?
After all, if the loan did not fund on time, that effected the payoff amount of any existing mortgages and the borrower would have had to have been informed of the change to the HUD-1 and why his/her existing mortgage payoff increased and pre-paid interest decreased; i.e., a revised HUD-1 would need to be signed by the borrowers and escrow agent because the "checks written" are now changed.
Just speculating that this suit by the mortgage broker may lead down a very dark and ugly multi-lawsuit, cross complaint path if any of these documents were altered after the fact. Not to mention the borrowers are NOT going to be happy with the mortgage broker (and, as a result, the lender) for being dragged into this lawsuit that the borrower did not initiate because the broker "lost" $700 - which will be far less than the resulting legal fees and costs for all parties involved. Heck - I bet it's even less than the costs and legal fee just to have the Sheriff serve papers and file the complaint in the correct Court.
|
Reply by Les_CO on 5/27/08 1:46pm
Msg #248882
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
In my opinion, as a SS if I were you I’d tell Provident to go elsewhere. They aren’t worth the trouble. I’ve a friend here that had one done for them, and they rejected perfectly executed, and notarized doc’s because the notary did not have more than $100,000 in E&O insurance. Provident asked to see her policy, they sent it, and they rejected the doc’s. Had an attorney in Boulder redo the signing. Cost my friends (the SS, just because they wanted the Title companies business) about $500, for redraw of docs, and notary, etc.
In this case if Provident rejected these properly, and legally executed, and notarized documents, they caused THEMSELVES the damage! We as Notaries, and NSA’s can’t and don’t have to live by their concocted rules. If Title or Provident, didn’t like the date, or color ink, why did they not just fax /send the borrower another one for their signature? The notary needn’t be involved. All any Judge would have to do is ask the notary under oath is did you tell the borrower about their RTC, and the time limits involved ( Forget signatures, dates, ink color) and if they say yes, out goes the case. Now if the notary forgets, refuses, or for some reason doesn’t send the docs back, or sends then to the wrong place, and this time delay can be proven to have damaged the lender, that’s a different story.
|
Reply by Jack Tri on 5/28/08 12:52am
Msg #248965
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
Posted by Teresa/FL of FL on 5/28/08 12:03am Msg #248955
Title should be picking the notary, but there are not many notaries who carry the $500K insurance coverage that Provident requires. That requirement alone forces many TCs to use a SS because most of the larger SSs carry coverage in that amount or more and the nature of their business means that they are covering their subcontractors.
^^^ Do you see what she is saying SIGNING CO. TOLD TITLE THE HAVE 500,000 E&O TO Cover the notary..... Bankserv does the too.. So its the signing co. E&O Get his E&O #
|
Reply by Jack Tri on 5/28/08 1:24am
Msg #248969
Re: I am going to be a woMAN about this....
SLB SIGNING SERVICES You Have told the title co. or Provident You have 500k e&o to cover your Notary.Because Provident requires this To get this job.So it should be your e&o that is used if you have a problem with your notary you sent out.
Title should be picking the notary, but there are not many notaries who carry the $500K insurance coverage that Provident requires. That requirement alone forces many TCs to use a SS because most of the larger SSs carry coverage in that amount or more and the nature of their business means that they are covering their subcontractors. be careful if you get a call from a signing company on Provident doc s the signing company is telling the title co. they have 500k of E&O thats covers their notary....bankserv does this..But most notary s only have 100k E&O so say you have a problem signing co does not care they lay it on you...........so be careful dont get trapped into this.This is a big problem the signing company gets paid big bucks on provident doc they what the money..they wont care what happens to you at all. If you get a provident docs Let them know you only have 100 k of e&o
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/27/08 11:45am
Msg #248836
Re: Sylvia indicates you are in FL-per the Governor's manual:
I had a company alter a notary certificate. It was a split signing and a notary in PA had notarized the signature of the first signer (she had lined through the names on the notary certificate of the signers who were not in front of her and initialed the change)
I notarized the signature of the other two signers here in Florida, adding a loose certificate.
When the mortgage was recorded, the company had added the two signers names back on to the first notary's certificate, so she had, by the look of it, notarized all signers signatures.
My certificate was no longer on the document.
I reported the fraudulent certificate and was told I needed to file a police report so it could be acted on. But when I went to file the police report I was told by the local police that I would have to file it in the location where the incident occurred - and that was not in Florida.
I was not traveling out of state to file a police report - so nothing happened!
|
Reply by SoCal Signing Co. on 5/27/08 12:23pm
Msg #248850
Sylvia and poster
My father is a retired Sheriff; we have had this discussion a few times. The 2 times I have had to go to local polics/Sheriff to report fraud I am met with an attitude of indifference. They are more concerned with jurisdiction than fraud. Seems passing the buck is how it’s often handled.
In the case of this original poster, I would send a registered letter to the ones suing you with copies of the recorded document, highlighting the witness signatures. I would then call the borrower and get a notarized statement that there were no witnesses present at the time of signing the Deed.
as far as the law suit,
When there is a lender who questions the TIL (or othere document)
they might of had to get the TIL resigned due to a suspicious lender, it sometimes even requires a new right to cancel being executed it could of delayed the funding and it could of cost money. Some lenders are pickier than others.
They might of had to pay for a rate lock extention in this case, you might be asked to pay this amount. However, they have to prove its your error, and I doubt that they can. Its a prespective thing, and most lenders dont question ink color change on loan docs.
But once they know you have proof they changed a cert, it might make this whole thing go away.
but the two issues are seperate, and have to be treated seperate in court.
|
Reply by Les_CO on 5/27/08 1:01pm
Msg #248868
Re: Sylvia and poster
If as you say your contract employee (the notary) did not follow your, or the lenders written instructions,( did not send the doc’s back, etc.) and you can PROVE that, you may have a case. However if your contract lender (Provident) requires something that is not THE LAW, it is my opinion that you will have trouble finding legal representation. Same goes for them. It is my opinion that since you hired the (your contract employee, by virtue of your written confirmation) notary, and you claim actions by that notary caused this deal to go south; YOU may be responsible to Provident, or the TC. So IF you pay her, and then you pay Title, and Provident, you MAY have cause to obtain damages from her...IF you can prove all this to be true, and prove she knowingly acted with intent to do you damage. As far as I know Provident requires their vendors to carry $500.000 in liability insurance. So why not just turn it over to your insurance company?
|
Reply by PAW on 5/27/08 12:53pm
Msg #248864
Re: Sylvia indicates you are in FL-per the Governor's manual
That list only pertains to the notary. i.e., a notary cannot change anything in a written instrument after is has been signed. That statute doesn't stop anyone else from changing anything.
I doubt very seriously if the FL SOS would even consider looking at the incident (witness added after the fact). But, as others have said, contact an attorney.
|
Reply by Les_CO on 5/27/08 12:22pm
Msg #248849
How would I handle it? I’d LAUGH!!
This it total BS!
Did you notarize the TIL? No? …No Case!
Did you sign the TIL? No?...No Case!
Can they PROVE the loan did not close because on the color of ink on the TIL? No? No Case!
Can they PROVE you changed anything on the TIL? Even so can they SHOW where it is the LAW that any WRITTEN notice even be giver the borrower, and where it specifies by law what color ink be used in said written document? No? No Case!
You may never get paid, But I’d LAUGH at them, and tell then they will be contacted my your attorney, and you are filing complaints with ALL the entities that have some jurisdiction over loan closings, notarial law, and consumer protection, as well as all authorities that may have jurisdiction, over computer, mail, or any kind of fraud..
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 12:23pm
Msg #248851
Les u are a riot!!!!! I like the way u think.......
|
Reply by OR on 5/27/08 12:39pm
Msg #248856
Re: Where did the doc's get sent to? n/m
|
Reply by MistarellaFL on 5/27/08 1:32pm
Msg #248875
I think what stands out on this particular post to me
is that these companies are relying on the notarial E & O insurance.
This insurance only covers notarial errors! Since this was not a notarial error, I would think that the only insurance to be utilized in this case would be a general liability policy, held by either the notary, SS or TC.
But I know that Provident is a real stickler for $500K E & O, no one can close for them without it, or being under the umbrella of a company (they are subcontracted with) who does.
And BTW, I do agree with Becca about handing the docs back to the signer when a date is missed. We are there in the capacity of making sure all docs are signed and dated appropriately, not to do any of that for them. THAT is what we do....and I have had more than one brw give me the evil eye when I pass a doc back to them and ask for them to date it.
|
Reply by Loretta on 5/27/08 1:53pm
Msg #248888
Re: I think what stands out on this particular post to me
I would understand if they didn't pay me for the closing but this lawsuit is ridiculous.
|
Reply by Les_CO on 5/27/08 2:02pm
Msg #248892
Re: I think what stands out on this particular post to me
In most cases "consideration" has to happen before there is a contract. no consideration, no contract, no danmage. Maybe these people do need legal advise? But unless there is more than stated here, it's all hooey.
|
Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 5/27/08 5:14pm
Msg #248926
I'd Like to Correct...
...your comment "I would think that the only insurance to be utilized in this case would be a general liability policy" is factually incorrect from an insurance perspective. General Liability insurance policies differ from Errors & Omission (E&O) in that they only pay for bodily injury & property damage losses while E&O does cover errors & omissions but excludes bodily injury/property damage liability. For any "professional error or omission" to be covered under an insurance policy it must be written to include this specific type of "monetary loss" liability exposure. You're correct in stating Notary E&O Insurance only covers Notary Public errors or omissions, but incorrect in calling a policy that WOULD cover this type of loss (the one being discussed in this thread) a General Liability policy. It would have to be an insurance contract taking the form of a professional E&O policy which includes coverage for non-notarial acts (in other words a Signing Agent E&O Professional Liability policy). I don't mean to nitpick but when commenting on legal matters involving insurance it's important to use the proper terminology.
BTW, as usual my comments are not intended to be considered legal OR insurance advice. They're based on my 30+ years in the property & casualty insurance business & on my knowledge of Missouri insurance statutes. Do your own homework (& I'm not referring to you, MistarellaFL, this caution is for anyone reading a message board for advice) on these types of questions before proceeding & don't depend on the words of a perfect stranger to direct you.
|
Reply by Sharon Taylor on 5/27/08 4:23pm
Msg #248917
So did you, Jamie, write in the date...or did someone else
Sorry, but I've just waded through the responses and don't see where you, Jamie, say that you did indeed do what the company claims you did. Was it you who actually did write in the date on the TIL in the diffeerent shade of pen, or did someone at the title company do it when the docs got back to them but that someone is now not willing to come forward and admit it.
It is idiotic for them to claim that ALL docs had to be redone because of a date that may or may not have been added after leaving the closing table.
I recall someone on here once talking about a conflict she/he had with a lender or title company that accused her/him of some error and was trying to use the supposed error as an excuse to have the notary go out for a complete resign...except a comparison of the old docs with the new docs showed that the new docs had different terms and conditions than the old docs, and the lender/title company was trying to pull a fast one on the notary.
Also, Sylvia has had experience with docs that were altered by the title company or lender without her knowledge or permission before they were filed in the courthouse, so maybe she would have the best advice on that issue.
What about the borrower(s)? Did the loan go through? Did it have to be rewritten and resigned just because of that infinitesimally minor "date in a different shade of pen"? I can just see a judge listening to that nonsense from the lender and title company and throwing it out of court.
And if it were me, I'd get a Affidavit from the borrower(s) and prepare another one from you as Notary stating that no witness was present at the closing although one magically appears on the paperwork. Surely the suing company's insurance carriers would be interested hearing that their insured is altering documents without the borrower(s)' knowledge or permission.
|
Reply by Tish/CA on 5/27/08 4:33pm
Msg #248920
Re: So did you, Jamie, write in the date...or did someone else
...meant to post this at the bottom not the middle of thread - anyway, Jamie stated that she did date the document herself in front of B.
|
Reply by Sharon Taylor on 5/27/08 4:43pm
Msg #248924
Ahhh, so Jamie dated it WITH borrower's permission at table
Agreed, she should have passed it back to the borrower for him to date himself, but the FACT is that the borrower personally saw and approved of Jamie's dating it in his place and stead, so there is absolutely and clearly NO intent to defraud or alter or change in any way the date of signing as entered on the document.
I have dated documents for a borrower myself at the table (or hospital bedside) in the borrower's presence after calling the title company and letting them know the borrower was having great difficulty writing (severe arthritis in one case, in the hospital undergoing cancer treatments in another), and neither the title company nor the lender had any problem at all whatsoever in any way shape or manner with the documents. The loans processed and funded just like any other loan.
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/27/08 4:52pm
Msg #248925
In all honesty - I've done closings for Provident
in my prior life as a paralegal at a law firm - I processed the docs both pre and post closing and NEVER had this type of experience with them - in fact I loved processing their packages and was thrilled when our buyers were getting a Provident loan - packages were always clean and the company was easy to work with ... again, that was as a paralegal...not a SA..just makes me wonder where the glitch really is here...JMHO
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/27/08 4:34pm
Msg #248921
Re: So did you, Jamie, write in the date...or did someone else
Jamie dated it - she said "OK to clarify the TIL was dated at the table. I was there sitting with him and I dated it for him because he forgot to. Isnt that out job? I was sitting next to him."
|
Reply by Les_CO on 5/27/08 5:17pm
Msg #248928
Re: So did you, Jamie, write in the date...or did someone else
So far as I see it the only person that may have been damaged is the notary. Only because her credibility/job performance may have come into question? Whether unproven accusations on a chat board are libelous, I don’t know, but would think not. After all she brought it up here, and this is still only a chat board, with no individuals particularly named, or identified. If this SS that as stated has used her before (easy to prove) and she did an acceptable job, fine. Did they ‘especially notify’ her that this particular lender makes up their own rules? That they have different and special requirements? That she must meet these very “special" and unusual requirements, or not be paid, or could be held liable? Or did they just send her a “signing request/confirmation” like last time? I believe the court would look at an “industry standard” here. If the notary did her job (legally, and to “industry standard”) and some minion at the Title Company or Lender “rejected it” out of hand, who is at fault? Certainly not the notary! As for the SS… Well, it may just be an expensive lesson. In future look carefully at those you do business with. Do you have Provident’s required liability insurance, did the notary? Did you ask? Would they have rejected this ‘job’ regardless because of this? Sorry, but in your position as middle man you are responsible (legally) to both parties, so you MUST get it right. However after all this “chat” if I were either party I would “chat” no more, and see what happens.
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/27/08 5:40pm
Msg #248929
Re: So did you, Jamie, write in the date...or did someone else
I would like to thank all of these answers there really is an array of different opinions. I never came on here with the intent to "out" anyone I was just asking for opinions and or advice SLB decided to that part of it on her own. I have to say that I have been a NSA for over 10 years and I have never ever come across anything like this before in my life. Everyone makes a mistake here or there at least i have and I have always, ALWAYS fixed on my dime. I would never try not to fix it and hurt by business. I used to work with them alot and now I will no longer do so. Why would I want to hurt my pocket and fix a problem if I was asked?
Anyway this can go on forever I will just see where the courts take it as I will be sueing for at least my fee. And yes I do have a copy of the altered docs and just so you know the docs not only had a witness added there also was added next to the borrowers name "and as to life estate" on his and his wife signature line as well as their address.
Once again thank you everyone who has given their opinions I do take them with respect and knowledge.
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/27/08 5:50pm
Msg #248931
Re: So did you, Jamie, write in the date...or did someone else
Jamie
One problem is, unless the borrower confirms it, you would have to prove the witness was not there.
Actually, as I told you on the phone the other day the Quit Claim deed in Florida does require two witnesses otherwise it will not record.
But, the title company (whoever you sent the docs to) and not the signing service would have been the ones adding the witnesses - which of course they should not have done.
|
Reply by Vince/KS on 5/27/08 8:07pm
Msg #248940
Witness questions
So, if witnesses are required in Florida, and Jamie did the closing in Florida, and Jamie has ten years of experience doing signings, she likely had a witness or two? Why would the company add one later? Would Jamie’s witness(es) state that whoever is now on the form was not there? Or was it resigned and dated with a new witness(es)? I’m missing something here.
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/27/08 9:51pm
Msg #248945
Re: Witness questions
Jamie does not have 10 years experience in Florida. The state she moved from has no witness requirements, and obviously Jamie wasn't aware that deeds in Florida require witnesses. Mortgages don't but deeds do.
I have had companies add witnesses to mortgages after the docs have been returned as I didn't get witnesses as mortgages don't require them, and I guess the company was under the impression that mortgages did require them. So, unfortunately it is not uncommon for title companies to add witnesses after the fact. Strange thing is the "witnesses" were employees of the title companies and not even located in Florida. I wouldn't mind betting the witnesses on the document Jamie is talking about were not in Florida either.
|
Reply by JamieFL on 5/28/08 7:06am
Msg #248976
Re: Witness questions
Thanks Sylvia yes let me clarify I did come from NY I was a NSA there for 7 years and a FL one for 3. I was aware that there needed to me a witness but no I was not aware of the Quit claim deed needing 2.
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/28/08 9:30am
Msg #248985
Re: Witness questions
And although we, as signing agents, ought to know the recording requirements for deeds and mortgages, it really is up to the company to let the SA know that witnesses are required.
|
Reply by Les_CO on 5/27/08 6:42pm
Msg #248936
Re: So did you, Jamie, write in the date...or did someone else
I'd hire you in a New York Second!
Don't worry!
Good luck!
|
Reply by MistarellaFL on 5/27/08 7:02pm
Msg #248937
Jamie I'd save a copy of the unexecuted edocs
<<<the docs not only had a witness added there also was added next to the borrowers name "and as to life estate" on his and his wife signature line as well as their address>>>
Those can help you prove additional information was added after the signatures.
JMHO
|
Reply by Jack Tri on 5/28/08 12:16am
Msg #248956
The TIL is Not a Notarized document Notary has not done nothing wrong if all the notary papers are done correct.If you date problem ck the date on the notarize docs should me ok.
Note they are getting very picky they sent a paper back that didn't have date.FHA Docs they are very very picky.Sounds like you have a mad upset broker call him see what his problem is?Ok Good Luck.....
|
Reply by Terri_CA on 5/28/08 6:11pm
Msg #249089
Sounds like the broker/loan officer is out $700 or so and wants to recoup it from someone and found someone to sue.
As everyone else has stated, the SS has the $500K in E&O which should be claimed against first, then the SS would then sue the SA to recoup their losses, their E & O Attornies may do this as a matter of course.
However, the claim against the Notary's E&O will most probably be denied, and they'll have to either drop the case, sue the Notary individually, or make the claim against the SS, etc.. Dollars to donuts, the Broker/LO is doing this on their own and doesn't understand the pecking order of where/how to make a claim for damages.
FYI to Jamie - If you've been doing this for 10 years, I stumped as to why you don't use the same pen that your borrower's do. I make it a point to be sure that we're all using the same color and type of pen, so that there isn't an issue with pen differences.
Good Luck to you!
|
