Posted by Karen ABOUNADER on 4/7/09 10:06am
Msg #283909

Not Legal to Loan Signing in Missouri anymore

I was just came out of a meeting with a group of lawyers. In the state of Missouri there is an on going class action suit against notaries doing loan signings. The process violates Missouri Law. I just call the state and it is the truth. We are not allowed to charge more that the book states or print paper doc or any other process not listed at a charge. The charges in the book is the only prices or prices you can charge for any notary service done in the state of Missouri that involves your signature. Who would have know. I was also told that the information on this law suit could be found online. I was told they are looking through information on this site for notaries who are doing loan signing in Missouri.

Reply by Philip Johnson on 4/7/09 10:17am
Msg #283911

Karen you called one person and listened to barristers

and you have deduced that it is over? Did this one person and or this group of lawyers direct you to the law/regulation that has decreed this? Before I retired my seal, I think I would want a bit more info in writing.

Reply by Karen ABOUNADER on 4/7/09 10:26am
Msg #283913

Re: Karen you called one person and listened to barristers

I called the state and it is true. I can only tell you I was as shocked.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 10:27am
Msg #283914

Who are the "Group of Lawyers"?

Where did this take place? Who exactly made the determination that the process of Notaries performing loan document signings violates MO law & what is their legal standing? Most importantly...WHO are you?

Reply by Karen ABOUNADER on 4/7/09 10:40am
Msg #283923

Re: Who are the "Group of Lawyers"?

I am a Missouri Notary.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 10:42am
Msg #283926

Would You Please Answer All My Questions...

...in both of my posts in this thread?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/09 10:49am
Msg #283936

Re: Who are the "Group of Lawyers"?

"I am a Missouri Notary."


Thanks. I think we figured that part out. Dennis was asking about this group of lawyers. Who are THEY? Was it a bar association meeting? Something else? And, why is a notary in a meeting with a group of lawyers? If you were a paralegal you'd know you'd better cite this case...and you'd know how to find it, and that's obviously not the case... so all we're asking for is more details.

Honestly, we're trying to help you out here... if thsi *IS* true, we'll find out, but we need more details and just a "group of lawyers" and "calling the state" isn't very helpful.

Reply by Lee/AR on 4/7/09 10:30am
Msg #283915

Taking your post apart... 'ongoing class action suit' means it ain't over 'til it's over. Which it isn't if it's ongoing. Can you--or did they--provide any info as to where online this info exists?
If it does--and it's 'ongoing', NOW would be the time to alert all MO notaries with solid info so that they can chime in on this and offer another viewpoint.

Reply by Karen ABOUNADER on 4/7/09 10:42am
Msg #283925

I agree. I am just putting it out there to see if anyone else knows anything about this. I do not know the Group of Lawyers.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 10:43am
Msg #283928

Do You Mean to Tell Us...

...you were just in a meeting with a group of lawyers, but you don't know who they are?

Reply by Karen ABOUNADER on 4/7/09 10:45am
Msg #283931

Re: Do You Mean to Tell Us...

The lawyers I spoke to are friends not involved with this suit but letting me know what was going on with the Notary Signing and were letting me know what was going on.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 10:47am
Msg #283933

Where Online...

...can this information be found?

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 10:49am
Msg #283935

And Who Did You Talk...

...to with the State of Missouri that verified this action was indeed taking place?

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 10:35am
Msg #283918

I Just Got Off the Phone...

...with our MO Secretary of State's Commission Division officer & she'd like to know where this "online" information can be found. Like me, she's not heard of this action & would like to know more. Please provide the URL to this online information if you have it at your disposal.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/7/09 10:38am
Msg #283920

"The charges in the book is the only prices or prices you can charge for any notary service done in the state of Missouri that involves your signature"

In most loan signings, for the notarizations you are probably receiving less than the allowed charges. The rest of the documents you are not acting as a notary. You are acting as a courier/agent of the title companies.

Of course if you call the state you will be told that you cannot charge more than Missouri law states for notary work.
I know if I called the Florida SOS I would be told I cannot charge more than $10 for any notarial act.
On loan signings the only time you are acting as a notary is when you notarize the signatures of the borrowers.

Reply by Karen ABOUNADER on 4/7/09 10:44am
Msg #283929

I don't know the total in and out of this just notaries were violating some law in Missouri thats all I know.

Reply by Lee/AR on 4/7/09 10:47am
Msg #283932

We're not picking on you, Karen, This is upsetting news

to any MO notary and it really needs to be explored and nipped in the bud. Many 'attorney-only' states started out with a lawsuit... some won/some didn't. This needs to be watched and addressed by MO notaries NOW. (I'm in AR...and this is too close for comfort, OK?)

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/09 10:54am
Msg #283939

If it is an ongoing case, then....

that means there is no decision yet. So how can it already be decided, yet ongoing? That reminds me of people who hear that a bill was introduced in Congress, then just assume it's law. Clearly... there's no understanding of the simple legislative and judicial processes involved.

Oh, and I'm a very good researcher, and I've been looking for this law since you posted and the closest actual decision I could find was:

=================
SC88761, SC88762 and SC88763: James A. Finnegan, Appellant v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, Inc., Respondent. (Consolidated with) Lisa L. Rokusek and Jennifer Human, Appellants v. Security Title Insurance Company and Security Title Insurance Agency, Respondents. (Consolidated with) Lisa L. Rokusek and Jennifer Human, Appellants v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Respondents.

Handdown Date: 03/18/2008
Author: Mary R. Russell, Judge
=================

But that is a group of consolidated cases about when the notary can collect fees (before or after the notarization and recording in the journal). It does support that you can only charge a certain amount per signature for notarizations, though. But that's not any big news.


HOWEVER... you're only acting as a notary when you notarize. Otherwise you are a document courier, etc.

In CA, we're not allowed to charge more than $10 per signature notarized. But we are allowed to charge for other services that we perform as well. That's why my invoices and receipts always separate the notarization from travel feesand other work performed. I keep them very distinct because I don't want the SoS coming back at me and accusing me of overcharging.




At any rate... here's the summary and opinion of the case I mentioned above. It's the only one I can find involving notaries in MO so far:



===================
===================

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Opinion
Supreme Court of Missouri

Case Style: James A. Finnegan, Appellant v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, Inc., Respondent. (Consolidated with) Lisa L. Rokusek and Jennifer Human, Appellants v. Security Title Insurance Company and Security Title Insurance Agency, Respondents. (Consolidated with) Lisa L. Rokusek and Jennifer Human, Appellants v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Respondents.

Case Number: SC88761, SC88762 and SC88763

Handdown Date: 03/18/2008

Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Steven H. Goldman, (No. SC88761), Hon. Melvyn W. Wiesman, (No. SC88762)
Hon. John F. Kintz, (No. SC88763)

Counsel for Appellant: Fernando Bermudez

Counsel for Respondent: Christopher O. Bauman and Robert D. Blitz

Opinion Summary:

This summary is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Communications Counsel for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court and should not be quoted or cited. The opinion of the Court, which may be quoted, follows the summary.


Overview: These cases, which have been consolidated for purposes of this opinion, involve individuals who alleged they were overcharged for notary public services in connection with real-estate transactions because the notaries failed to record the notarial acts in their notary journals. In a unanimous decision written by Judge Mary Rhodes Russell, the Supreme Court holds that the applicable statute required both that the signatures be notarized and that the notarial acts be recorded in the journals before the notaries public could charge $2 for the service, instead of $1.

Facts: Three property owners sued Old Republic Title Company of St. Louis Inc.; Security Title Insurance Company, now known as Security Title Insurance Agency; and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, alleging the title companies overcharged them for notary public services provided in connection with real estate closings because the notaries did not record in their notary journals the notarizations for which they charged the property owners and seeking return of the monies they were charged improperly for the unrecorded notarizations. The property owners further alleged these overcharges resulted in unjust enrichments for the title companies. In addition, the property owners alleged the overcharges violated the state's merchandising practices act because they were a "deception" and "unfair practice." The trial courts entered summary judgments in the title companies' favor. The property owners appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Court en banc holds: The trial courts erred in finding that the title companies did not violate section 486.350, RSMo Supp. 2007. The failure of the title companies' notaries to record their notarizations of the property owners' signatures before charging them $2 violates the plain language of section 486.350.1, which provides that a notary cannot collect the maximum $2 fee per signature unless the notary both notarizes the signature and properly records the notarial act in the notary's journal. Although this is consistent with statements made in a handbook the Missouri secretary of state's office provides to notaries, this handbook information was not provided to the trial courts. The trial courts also erred in dismissing the property owners' unjust enrichments and merchandising practices act claims, predicated on the courts' erroneous conclusions about the requirements of section 487.350.1.


Citation:

Opinion Author: Mary R. Russell, Judge

Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. All concur.

Opinion:


This slip opinion is subject to modification until the Court has ruled on the parties' motions for rehearing, if any, and will become final only after the Court issues its mandate. To see when the Court issues its mandate, please check the docket entries for the case on Case.net.




These cases present the issue of whether section 486.350, RSMo Supp. 2007, (FN1) requires a notary public to both notarize a signature and record that act in a notary journal before charging a $2 fee.

Plaintiffs(FN2) appeal after judgment was entered against them on their claims against three title companies(FN3) (collectively "Defendants" for alleged overcharges of notary public fees under section 486.350. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Mo. Const. art. V sec. 10, as these cases were transferred after dispositions by the court of appeals. This Court reverses, and the causes are remanded.

A. Background

Section 486.350 sets the maximum fees that can be charged by notaries public. In relevant part, it states:

1. The maximum fee in this state for notarization of each signature and the proper recording thereof in the journal of notarial acts is two dollars for each signature notarized.

. . . .

3. The maximum fee in this state is one dollar for any other notarial act performed.

. . . .

5. A notary public who charges more than the maximum fee specified . . . is guilty of official misconduct.

. . . .

Sec. 486.350 (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, through their notary employees, violated section 486.350.1.(FN4) They contend that they were overcharged for notary services provided in connection with real estate closings because the notaries did not record in their notary journals the notarizations for which Plaintiffs were charged.(FN5) Plaintiffs' real estate transactions were unaffected by the notaries' failures to record the notarizations in their notary journals, but Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to return of the monies they were improperly charged for the unrecorded notarizations. They argue that the violations of section 486.350 resulted in unjust enrichment for the title companies. They also allege that the overcharges were violations of the Missouri merchandising practices act (MMPA) because they were a "deception" and "unfair practice."

Defendants moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims, and judgments were entered in their favor.(FN6) Plaintiffs appeal.

B. Standard of Review

Appellate review of summary judgment is de novo. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party has demonstrated, on the basis of facts as to which there is no genuine dispute, a right to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

C. Requirements of Section 486.350

Plaintiffs maintain that the trial courts' judgments were in error because, under the plain language of section 486.350.1, the title companies' notaries were not entitled to collect a $2 fee unless they (1) notarized a signature and (2) properly recorded the notarial act in their notary journal.

Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that this Court reviews de novo. State ex rel. Wolfrum v. Wiesman, 225 S.W.3d 409, 411 (Mo. banc 2007). The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly from the language used and to give effect to that intent. Cmty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dir. of Revenue, 752 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Mo. banc 1988). In determining legislative intent, this Court considers the language of the statute and words employed in their plain and ordinary meaning. Id.

Section 486.350.1 provides: "The maximum fee in this state for notarization of each signature and the proper recording thereof in the journal of notarial acts is two dollars for each signature notarized." This subsection's use of the word "and" indicates a legislative intent that recording of a notarial act be an additional requirement to a $2 charge under the statute.(FN7) As such, the failure of the notaries to record their notarizations of Plaintiffs' signatures before charging them was a violation of the plain language of section 486.350.1.

The trial courts' judgments in favor of Defendants were reliant on finding that there were no violations of section 486.350 and, therefore, the judgments are reversed.

D. Unjust Enrichment and MMPA Claims

Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred in entering judgment against them on their unjust enrichment and MMPA claims.(FN8) The trial courts' dispositions of these claims were predicated on their erroneous conclusions about the requirements of section 486.350.1. Because the trial courts rejected these claims after finding that the notaries had properly collected fees from Plaintiffs, these judgments are reversed.

E. Conclusion

The trial courts' judgments in favor of Defendants are reversed, and the causes are remanded.

All concur.

Footnotes:

FN1. All references to section 486.350 are to RSMo Supp. 2007.

FN2. Plaintiffs in these three consolidated cases include James A. Finnegan, Lisa L. Rokusek, and Jennifer Human. They are collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs" throughout this opinion.

FN3. The defendant title companies were sued in the three separate cases now consolidated in this opinion. Defendants include: Old Republic Title Company of St. Louis, Inc.; Security Title Insurance Company, now known as Security Title Insurance Agency; and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company.

FN4. Section 486.360, RSMo 2000, provides:
The employer of a notary public is also liable to the persons involved for all damages proximately caused by the notary's official misconduct, if:
(1) The notary public was acting within the scope of his employment at the time he engaged in the official misconduct; and
(2) The employer consented to the notary public's official misconduct.
Defendants argue that they cannot be liable for their notaries' conduct under this statute because (1) there was no "official misconduct" and (2) even if there was misconduct, they did not consent to it. This is a factual dispute that is left for the trial courts on remand.

FN5. Plaintiff Finnegan alleges that defendant Old Republic wrongly charged him $10 for five signatures that were notarized, but not recorded in the notary's journal. Plaintiffs Rokusek and Human allege that Security Title wrongly charged them $12 for 10 signatures that were notarized, but not recorded in the notary's journal; and they contend that Commonwealth overcharged them $12 for notarizing six signatures that were notarized, but not recorded in the notary's journal.

FN6. Commonwealth moved to dismiss the claim against it relating to the MMPA. The motion to dismiss was granted, such that summary judgment in Commonwealth's favor related only to the section 486.350 and unjust enrichment claims against it.

FN7. Plaintiffs point out that this interpretation is consistent with the statements made in the "Document Certification Services" handbook provided to notaries by the Missouri Secretary of State's office. Plaintiffs concede, however, that this handbook information was not provided to the trial court.

FN8. Plaintiffs Rokusek and Human argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their MMPA claim against Commonwealth.


Separate Opinion:

None


This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

===========
===========

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 11:07am
Msg #283942

Thanks for the Research Work, Marian...

...& I'm not sure this is the suit being discussed by Karen either. At first glance (and I'm NOT an attorney, not giving legal advice, nor am I even making a legal speculation) this appears to be targeting 3 local title companies & the fees they included in certain loan closings as they relate to what the allowable Notary fee of $2.00 per signature is per statute. I don't see where this suit would shut down the loan document signing business for Notaries here in MO. Perhaps a "real" lawyer would care to step forward with an opinion?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/09 11:08am
Msg #283944

Re: Thanks for the Research Work, Marian...

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure that's involved, either. But I did find something else... see my other post for that.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/09 11:07am
Msg #283943

Here's something else that I found...

http://www.ustitlesettlement.com/casedoc/NRT_v_STLouis.pdf

Text:

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PURCHASERS, SELLERS, AND REFINANCERS OF RESIDENTIAL REAL
ESTATE IN MISSOURI WHO WERE CHARGED NOTARY FEES BY U.S. TITLE GUARANTY
COMPANY FROM OCTOBER 10, 2001 TO APRIL 4, 2006.

The St. Louis County Circuit Court (“Court”) has preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement
of a class action against NRT Settlement Services of Missouri Inc. d/b/a U.S. Title Guaranty Company (“U.S. Title”). Plaintiff alleges that U.S. Title violated the law by charging its customers a notary fee exceeding that allowed by the Notaries Public Act. U.S. Title denies those allegations. The Court has not ruled on the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted in the Lawsuit. Both parties believe that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court has approved this Class Notice.

Who is Included?
----------------------
The Plaintiffs Class includes all purchasers, sellers, and refi nancers of residential real estate in Missouri who were charged Notary Fees by U.S. Title from October 10, 2001, to April 4, 2006. If you do not meet all of these criteria, you are not a Plaintiffs Class member, and this proposed Settlement does not affect you in any way. If you are uncertain whether you are a Plaintiffs Class member, you may file a claim as explained below and a determination will be made whether you are a Plaintiffs Class member.

What Does the Settlement Provide?
---------------------------------------------
Under the proposed Settlement, U.S. Title shall refund all Plaintiffs Class members who submit valid Claim Forms a portion of the $10 Notary Fee they were charged. The proposed Settlement provides for the payment of up to $576,637.00 to Plaintiffs Class members. The parties estimate that for each residential real estate transaction for which a claim or claims are submitted, whether jointly or separately, approximately 50% of the $10 Notary Fee paid to U.S. Title for that transaction will be refunded. No more than $5.32 will be paid for any single transaction, and where more than one claim has been submitted for a particular transaction, that amount will be prorated among the verified Plaintiffs Class members.

What are Your Options Concerning the Settlement?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(1) You may remain in the Plaintiffs Class and be represented by Class Counsel at no cost to you. To choose this option, you do not need to do anything.
(2) You may remain in the Plaintiffs Class and hire your own attorney to represent you at your own cost. If you want your own attorney to represent you in this Lawsuit, your attorney must fi le an Entry of Appearance in Smith v. NRT Settlement Services of Missouri Inc., No. 06CC-004039 with the St. Louis County Circuit Clerk.
(3) You may object to the Settlement. If you wish to object to any part of the proposed Settlement, you should submit a written objection to Defendant’s Counsel listed below. Your objection must state your name, address and phone number, and provide proof of membership in the Plaintiffs Class, as well as a detailed statement of each objection you wish to assert. Any such objection must be postmarked or delivered no later than March 31, 2009. Any objector may also appear at the Final Approval Hearing.
(4) You may request exclusion from the Plaintiffs Class by submitting a written request stating your name, address and phone number and your desire to be excluded from the Plaintiffs Class. It must be sent to Defendant’s Counsel listed below and postmarked by March 31, 2009. If you seek to be excluded, you will not be entitled to any settlement benefits.

A hearing to determine whether the Settlement should be granted final approval will be held before Judge Ross, in Division 15, at the St. Louis County Courthouse, 7900 Carondelet Ave., St. Louis, MO 63105, at 11:00 a.m. on April 13, 2009. The purpose of the hearing is to determine the fairness of the Settlement and whether to enter a final judgment approving the Settlement. The Court will also consider an award of attorney’s fees to Class Counsel, as well as payment of a fee to Plaintiff Gabriel Smith who filed this Lawsuit. A free copy of the Class Action Settlement Agreement may be requested from either Class Counsel or Defendant’s Counsel listed below or can be found at www.ustitlesettlement.com. You may also review the entire court fi le at the St. Louis County Courthouse.

How to Request Payment?
---------------------------------
All Plaintiffs Class members who want their share of the settlement proceeds must file a claim. Claim Forms are available from:
Class Counsel, Fernando Bermudez, Green Jacobson, P.C., 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 700, St. Louis, MO 63105, (314) 862-6800 or Defendant’s Counsel, Lisa M. Wood, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600, St. Louis, MO 63102-2740, (314) 621-5070. Claim
Forms are also available at www.ustitlesettlement.com, or by calling 1-866-890-4859. All Claim Forms must be submitted by April 6, 2009. Plaintiffs Class members will be bound by the Settlement whether or not they file a claim unless they request exclusion as explained above.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE
DATED: February 6, 2009
================================

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/09 11:10am
Msg #283946

Forg ot this part....

Here's the whole website:

http://www.ustitlesettlement.com/index.html

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 11:13am
Msg #283947

Thanks AGAIN for the Research Work, Marian...

...as this appears to be slightly different than the other suit in that the language of is saying the amount charged or shown at closings by US Title reflected a Notary fee of $10.00. The most a Notary can charge per signature in the State of MO is $2.00.

Once again I'm NOT an attorney, nor have I ever harbored any secret desires to become one & this isn't legal advice on my part.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/09 11:22am
Msg #283950

Re: Thanks AGAIN for the Research Work, Marian...

Yeah, I'm guessing this might be the case. I'm no attorney either, obviously, but reading through the case documents on the site all I can see here is that some guy got peeved that he was charged $10 on his HUD-1 for notary services, and was thus overcharged. The Title Compnay is totally denying it and insists that it did not overcharge, but they're just settling the case anyway because of the expense. Makes sense to me.

The court has not, and it does not look as if it will rule on the merits of the case itself... just the settlement agreement.


Still, from both cases... it's clear that it involves maximum fees for notarial services only. It has nothing to do with additional work performed. Unless I'm missing something?

But yeah... it's stuff like this that make me very careful to record in my journal and invoices/receipts itemized charges...always separating out the notarial acts from other stuff.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 11:40am
Msg #283958

"always separating out the notarial acts from other stuff"

Amen!

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/7/09 11:24am
Msg #283951

Re: Thanks AGAIN for the Research Work, Marian...

From what I have understood over the years the notary fee listed on the HUD is not just for the notary/signing agent, but other docs that may need notarizing on the lenders/title companies end.

Reply by ikando on 4/7/09 11:36am
Msg #283956

Re: If it is an ongoing case, then....

In reading the content of this research Marian did, it appears to me that this case is over a total of $34 for three complaints by persons who signed at the title company table with notarization by an employee, not by a mobile notary. Did these complainants check out the other discretionary fees they were charged by the title companies?

Just shows how anyone can file a lawsuit over anything!!

Reply by LynnNC on 4/8/09 8:37am
Msg #284056

What is this lawsuit REALLY about?

"FN5. Plaintiff Finnegan alleges that defendant Old Republic wrongly charged him $10 for five signatures that were notarized, but not recorded in the notary's journal. Plaintiffs Rokusek and Human allege that Security Title wrongly charged them $12 for 10 signatures that were notarized, but not recorded in the notary's journal; and they contend that Commonwealth overcharged them $12 for notarizing six signatures that were notarized, but not recorded in the notary's journal. "

As I understand this, the plantiffs are suing over the fact that notary fees of $10,
$12 and $12 were not recorded in the notary's journal. What is this lawsuit REALLY about?

Reply by jba/fl on 4/8/09 9:38am
Msg #284060

Re: What is this lawsuit REALLY about?

Control, or lack of it.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 4/7/09 11:33am
Msg #283954

Have not studied court papers, as I have enough, to

worry about keeping track of IL rules, but it seems to me , that
problem arose by title co calling charges "notary fee" on HUD.
May not have had a problem if they had called it "settlement fee" as most do.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 11:36am
Msg #283955

That's My Take as Well, Bob...

...& this whole thread may end up meaning nothing as it relates to the average Notary performing loan document signings.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/09 11:46am
Msg #283961

I agree with both of you. n/m

Reply by jba/fl on 4/7/09 12:05pm
Msg #283968

Re: That's My Take as Well, Bob...

This sure will put a damper on those who charge $350 for notary fee and then pay the notary $150 or less.

I have to admit, I don't see many HUDs with Notary Fee line anymore.

Reply by NCLisa on 4/7/09 1:17pm
Msg #283986

Notary Fees and Charges

I, as a notary, do not do closings. I am a signing agent and a notary public. I need to be one to do the other. I have a company that charges a closing fee, not a notary fee, so I am not violating and NC Notary laws. That closing fee covers my costs to do business.

If a company wants to put me on the HUD, they may do so, but not under "notary fee" as the fee may be higher than I'm permitted by NC standards, put me on there under "signing fee" or "mobile agent fee".

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 4/7/09 1:34pm
Msg #283994

Re: Notary Fees and Charges

Additionally - "notary fees" are not APR fees, providing the amount is strictly for notarial service. Our additional fees as signing agents ARE APR fees - and should be parted out.

Reply by jnew on 4/7/09 3:10pm
Msg #284016

Re: Notary Fees and Charges

This is a crucial point. When I did closings for a title company, we were advised by our state counsel not to show notary fees on the Hud One. The maximum fee for notarizing a signature in Wisconsin is $0.50 per notarial act ( no, you can't make a dollar on a married couple). Even though you are performing a notarial service, it would be better if you keep the notary part off of your invoices and bill your job out as a witness closing service. As far as I know, there is no legal constraint against establishing any maximum amount for that service. You will get what the market establishes as a fair amount. The title/escrow company is indeed the only closing agent. Any work done in facilitating the closing is done as a third party vendor.

Reply by MW/VA on 4/7/09 4:27pm
Msg #284023

Re: Notary Fees and Charges

IMO this is why there needs to be a change in our title. Some companies refer to us as settlement coordinators, facilitators, etc. A new title needs to be developed. There have been many issues raised about hundreds of dollars for "notary fees", instead of say "Settlement Facilitator Fee". We have too much responsiblity in the process to be referred to as "just the notary".

Reply by MW/VA on 4/7/09 1:46pm
Msg #284000

The legal eagles in NC tried to get it turned back to an "attorney only" state, but did not succeed. No matter how you feel about the NNA, contact them to see if they're working on it. They did actively help in NC.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/7/09 2:08pm
Msg #284002

"No matter how you feel about the NNA"

Personally, I'd rather...be poked in the eye with a sharp stick...burned at the stake...OR be forced to listen to rap music till the day I die...than have anything to do with the NNA. Did I tell you I have an aversion to those letters of the alphabet...in that order?

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/7/09 2:13pm
Msg #284004

Re: "No matter how you feel about the NNA"

When the Massachusetts governor signed the bill that made Massachusetts an attorney only state, wasn't that Milt Valera that was smiling at his side? I vaguely remember the NNA having something to do with that bill.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 4/7/09 2:41pm
Msg #284009

I don't know Dennis "Rap Music" That would be a hard one n/m

Reply by Todd/OH on 4/7/09 3:33pm
Msg #284018

Forgive me, but aren't a few points overlooked?

A few attorneys packed in a room have no authority to change law. They can start litigation and have a judge make a ruling, but that still doesn't change the law. Legislation must be introduced for debate and must be voted on. THAT can potentially change the law.

Feel free to correct me anywhere you like, but that's my take on the law changing. I didn't research the state law and am speaking in generalities.

I can't say that panic is necessary.

Reply by Lee/AR on 4/7/09 4:10pm
Msg #284020

Exactly right, Todd... but this story came out in bits.

A little at a time. Original post was coached in 'this has happened' terms which would, ya' gotta admit--be panic time. Now--not so much, but bears getting more info,

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 4/7/09 6:15pm
Msg #284026

Bottom Line

Whenever you hear something like this, get off the rumor treadmill and check with your state authority. If I had a dollar for every rumor I have heard that had to do with notary signing agents and then was discounted by the SOS's office, I could probably book and entire cruise ship and take everyone on NR on a cruise ....

Reply by notaryinmo on 4/7/09 8:56pm
Msg #284039

Re: Bottom Line

According to the lawsuit that I've read, there are three title companies being sued, not individual notaries, right?

If this site is being looked at for notary who perform closing assignments in Missouri, the only reason that I can come up with is to make sure that the notary is performing the journal entries properly. I would think that any notary who is acting as either an employee of or a sub-contractor of a title company would fall under the auspices of the title company(ies) employing said notaries.

I would wonder if the entire lawsuit is based on how the title companies are listing the notary services, for example - one line for the actual number of notarizations performed and entered in the journal, another for documentation printing services, travel charges, etc.

Since I'm a Missouri notary, I will be extremely careful (as always) about entering notarial transactions in my journal. I'd also appreciate any possible insight received so I can still perform closing assignments without having to fear about getting embroiled in a lawsuit.

I love NotRot - this place has the most awesome people who seem to have the best possible solutions to problems. I've thanked the mainstays of NotRot many times for the assistance they've provided, and I do so again.

Reply by Cari on 4/8/09 10:47am
Msg #284069

Karen, check your PM... n/m