Posted by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 7/23/09 4:27pm
Msg #297141

Query

It is the essence of the job of a notary public that he/she is a disinterested party, with no stake in the transaction being notarized.

How, then, can a notary public/signing agent be paid beyond the normal notarization fees for services such as printing, explication, and post-closing handling of the documents? That gives the notary, wearing the signing agent hat, a direct stake in the execution of the transaction.

The question is not necessarily just an academic exercise. It appears to me to be excellent ammunition for advocates of attorney-only closings.

Reply by rengel/CA on 7/23/09 4:38pm
Msg #297146

1. Printing docs is just a service I give to expedite getting the docs to the borrower. Has nothing to do with the loan funding or not.

2. I, for one, don't do explication (i.e. give a detailed explanation of). I don't UPL

3. Placing the docs into a Fed Ex/UPS envelope in just another service I give to expedite getting the dosc back to the lender/title. Has nothing to do with the loan funding or not.

I do nothing that would even come close to UPL.

I provide a service for which I expect to paid. Whether the loans goes through or not is irrelevant to me, I expect to get paid for my services no matter what the outcome of the loan.
My .02

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/23/09 5:29pm
Msg #297156

Not only that...

I don't know about other states, but the state of CA specifically defines what is considered a "beneficial interest" as a guideline regarding what is and isn't appropriate for a notary. The guidelines are pretty broad and require the notary to be directly named in the document, etc. (I don't have time to look it up right now to get all the detail, but even notarizing for family members isn't prohibited.)

As for what is ethical and proper, I think the amount of "interest" we have relative to the whole transaction falls somewhere in between a direct beneficial interest (as in being named in the document being notarized) and limiting fees to the state allowed fee for notarizing a signature. I do agree that sometimes it can be a bit of a gray area, which is why I feel we should be paid regardless of the outcome of the signing, as long as we do our job properly.

Reply by jba/fl on 7/23/09 4:41pm
Msg #297149

Are you saying then that attorneys have no stake therefore they are ideal candidate for the job? That they are also not interested in being paid? That this activity is for the good of all concerned as they are so impartial as to do this out of the depths of their non-greedy little souls? This certainly flies in the face of many stories one has heard over the years.

The problem is that everyone wants to be paid. There probably is not complete impartiality no matter who does the facilitation of the signing. The SS scream deductions for each and every infraction or preceived infraction along the way, thereby forcing compliance to their agenda; the TC's want certain hoops jumped through and none other will work; the borrowers get to pay, but very little say beyond accept/decline of what is presented. Seems to me that the attorneys could botch more deals and get away with it as they can 'interpret' for the BO's, whereas I can only point to where they need to read more carefully and leave them to their own devices. Hmmmm...

Reply by Les_CO on 7/24/09 11:54pm
Msg #297359

I don’t think anyone said that Attorneys if involved in a closing have no stake. I believe that Attorneys hold themselves up to be a disinterested third party (in a witness only closing) because they bill in ¼ hour increments regardless of the outcome. Didn’t you see “The Firm”? That’s why the 18 Karat Gold Rolex ‘Daytona’ watch is so popular with Attorneys; it has a built in chronograph with stoppable sweep second hand. !

Reply by Susan Fischer on 7/23/09 4:43pm
Msg #297150

Seems there was a long discussion some years back on

your query.

I reconcile this by understanding that no part of this transaction is dependent upon *me* exclusively performing my service. It could be any notary choosing to do this work. If the loan does not fund for some reason, I'm still paid for my printing and travel. I'm a facilitator, I don't have a thing to do with the drafting of the docs, the numbers in the docs, or anything else to do with the docs - other than the clerical act of printing them. I don't have a "direct stake in the execution of the transaction." I do have a stake in performing my duty - to get paid by a third party to facilitate the signing.

Anyhoo, that's my rationale.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 7/23/09 5:21pm
Msg #297154

A I see it, the phrase....

"disinterested party, with no stake in the transaction being notarized"
refers to the subject matter of the transaction. (eg a NP may not notarize a
deed conveying property to the NP or close relative of the NP. Or NP may
not notarize the execution of a will of a party leaving assets to the NP.)
I do not believe that reasonable compensation to a NSA violates the purpose of
the prohibition.
The same argument has been made here as a reson why failure to make full
payment to a NSA in the event of a no-sign is illegal as a violation of the "disinterested
NP" rule. I believe that this is also incorrect.
Our function as a NP(or as a NSA )is not compromised by the agreed compensation.
Our NP function is to make sure that the parties are properly identified in accordance
with applicable law and that they are signing the dox of their own free will .
Our NSA compensation is for the purpose of printing (receiving dox) , getting them signed
in accordance with the instructions of the lender/TC/SS and returning them to the
proper party.
And BTW, who are you calling queer???

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/23/09 5:31pm
Msg #297157

The N/P Act in MI (and no doubt other states) ...

says:

"(10) For purposes of subsection (7), a notary public has no direct financial or beneficial interest in a transaction where the notary public acts in the capacity of an agent, employee, insurer, attorney, escrow, or lender for a person having a direct financial or beneficial interest in the transaction"

So ... if the notary has been deemed to have no direct interest ...then the notary has been deemed to have no direct interest regardless of what might follow by consequence, would you Mr. Nations not agree?? =)

Reply by Les_CO on 7/23/09 6:13pm
Msg #297160

Slow day in Texas?
Why would you care Hugh? Since is seems you are all of the above? An Attorney, a Loan Officer, a Notary Public, a Signing Agent, and uninteresting? (Whoops… Freudian slip…sorry meant to say “Disinterested” ) Please tell me, do you ‘close’ your own loans? Which hat do you wear? As I see it the ‘Signing Agent’ transports the documents, and gives the client the opportunity to sign some of them and see that they are returned. The Notary Public notarizes signatures on some of those documents. The Loan Officer helps the client apply for a loan, does their due diligence, and should generally help the client through the loan process from start to finish. The Attorney should advise the client of all applicable laws, their consequences, and see to it that none are violated. The Notary, and the Signing Agent have no ‘stake’ in the transaction, whether the loan closes, or is rescinded, or even if all the documents are signed. The LO and attorney on the other hand, may have a stake, and are not disinterested third parties. We all know why the LO is not ‘disinterested’. Does not the Attorneys fiduciary responsibility to the client make him anything but a disinterested third party?

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 7/23/09 6:55pm
Msg #297164

The question did not turn on whether the notary/signing agent should be paid regardless of whether the loan funds. That really is irrelevant. The question is whether, when a notary public is paid for signing agent services in a notarized transaction, it removes him/her from the category of a person who is disinterested in that transaction.

I think Bob probably put his finger on the crux of the matter, which is whether the notary/signing agent has an interest in the transaction memorialized by the document being notarized. In other words, there are actually two transactions in any notarization: The notarization itself, and the transaction reflected by the document.

If, for example, the HUD is notarized, the the notary who is included in the fees on that document would have an interest in its execution. Since HUDs typically aren't notarized, it poses no problem.

I could probably, if I put some thought into it, come up with several examples where Bob's logic has not been employed in other areas, but it's good enough for me to use as a counterargument.

Reply by PAW on 7/23/09 7:55pm
Msg #297168

Florida statutes specifically state that the interest must be in the **underlying transaction**, meaning, imo, the real estate transaction of buying/selling or refinancing where the transfer of property ownership may be at stake.

F.S. §117.107(12) -" A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document if the notary public has a financial interest in or is a party to the underlying transaction;..."

Payment for services places the notary/signing agent in an employee role (not a W-2 employee of a company, but hired service employed by the agent) which is addressed in the same statute: "... however, a notary public who is an employee may notarize a signature for his or her employer, and this employment does not constitute a financial interest in the transaction nor make the notary a party to the transaction under this subsection as long as he or she does not receive a benefit other than his or her salary and the fee for services as a notary public authorized by law."

Reply by MW/VA on 7/23/09 8:21pm
Msg #297176

Being paid to provide a service doesn't constitute "financial interest". That only applies if you have a financial interest in the particular transaction. In the same way, the broker, bank, etc., cannot close their own loan--because they have a financial motivation in the transaction. That is why the notary is considered a "disinterested third party"--some take that disinterested way too literally. If just means we aren't on either side of the matter. My .02

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/24/09 12:19am
Msg #297202

Golly, that seems to be a pretty obvious answer.

If this wasn't an academic exercise, then it sure seems like a former attorney should have already grasped such a simple concept.

Reply by Les_CO on 7/23/09 11:01pm
Msg #297197


Yes, I liked Bob’s answer better that mine. Maybe living under, or near that bridge has its advantages?
And to clarify my post….. When wearing the “Attorney hat” I believe the attorney/client fiduciary relationship exists only if the Attorney is acting on the clients behalf. In most “attorney only” States the Attorney is not directly hired by the ‘signer(s)’ or directly representing them. The Attorney is simply doing a ‘witness closing’, hired by Title or SS, as a more highly paid ‘Notary Signing Agent’ with Juris Doctor after their name. (And a GOOD union…The Bar Assn.) Now before I get flamed here…please understand in some States the Attorney does more that a simple ‘witness closing.’ Sometimes as in SC, the Attorney supervises the closing, reviews the documents, reviews the title work, provides an opinion letter, and makes disbursements, or provides a disbursement authorization letter. In some States like Delaware, they prepare the docs, the HUD, close, disburse, record, and provide or review the Title work. In some States like Mass the Attorney “supervises’ ( Has his paralegal, or secretary Notary do it) the witness closing. The above are just some examples some of the things attorneys do, and I haven’t covered everything by along shot. Don’t get me wrong I have a great deal of respect the Attorneys, especially the ones that post here. Sometimes my feeble attempts at humor are lacking.
Please be advised that I am not an attorney, and the foregoing is not in any way to be construed as legal advice.

Reply by LKT/CA on 7/24/09 3:20am
Msg #297203

<<<The question is whether, when a notary public is paid for signing agent services in a notarized transaction, it removes him/her from the category of a person who is disinterested in that transaction.>>>

I believe, the Notary remains disinterested, even when paid for signing agent services because our signing agent status is a convenience and courtesy and not a requirement for the transaction to be completed. In other words, the final outcome of the transaction can and will be same, whether the Notary uses their own supplies and resources (print docs, consume gas to drive to borrower, present docs to borrower) or whether another entity uses its supplies and resources (overnights docs to Notary or borrower, has borrower meet Notary at Starbucks, or has borrower come to their office for signing). If the Notary IS to use their own supplies and resources, they should be reimbursed for those expenditures. But the use of such supplies does not change their 3rd party status. JMHO

Reply by Joanne Rezzino on 7/23/09 8:32pm
Msg #297180

Pompous

I have to agree with one of the posts answering your "pompous question" and say that we are facilitators. Since many of these lenders have no home offices in the areas we work, it is necessary that they hire someone (ie. us) to print their loan package, obtain return instructions, go to the borrowers' home, explain (not in grave detail) the document they are about to execute, notarize (if necessary) their signature, and page by page by page go through this loan package. Now, I ask, are we just "notaries" or just "signing agents" when without us, this loan company who is located out of state (ie. California) would never be able to get their borrowers' signatures where we live (ie. PA)? Oh, but they could contract an attorney, who for the right $$$ will do the same job we do. Maybe the lawyer can be all "legal" and say some of the things we say, but in "latin", but I believe that refinances, HELOCs, Reverse Mortgages, purchases, heck, any kind of real estate transaction can be done by just little ole us.... and for a lot less $$$$. I worked in a law firm for years and the lawyer I worked with would happily agree with me that little ole me, little ole paralegal/notary public me, closed a loan just as professionally as he ever did (and he was a darn good attorney)... BTW we are disinterested parties and have no so stake in the finalization of the transaction, but we are interested in doing our jobs and ensuring that the LO's, TC's, etc are receiving packages back in a professional, timely and mistake-free manner. My interest in that respect is that I did my job right, and they will call me again...
I may have ranted a bit, maybe even went off topic, maybe never really found the topic, but your "query" just made you sound pompous and theatrical. and BTW I am not an advocate of attorney-only closings...

Reply by Philip Johnson on 7/23/09 10:19pm
Msg #297194

You obviously have met Hugh,

or you are a good judge of character.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 7/23/09 10:59pm
Msg #297196

Re: Pompous

***I may have ranted a bit, maybe even went off topic***

Yes, you did rant, Joanne, and yes you did get off topic, which was never attorney-only closings. But if that's all it takes to make you feel superior by long distance, be my guest. Little minds require little fodder.

Reply by Philip Johnson on 7/24/09 9:38am
Msg #297224

That's right Hugh, go for the kill or at least

head for the low road. It seems your car always finds the drive a little easier on the low road. Motor on.

"Little minds require little fodder."

Reply by Joanne Rezzino on 7/24/09 9:55am
Msg #297230

Re: Pompous

Hugh, mine was not a "character" attack. My comments were directed at the fact that your "query" sounded pompous. If you want to try to demean me "long distance", have at it. My "little mind" probably won't comprehend. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this subject... I have many, many witness closings today.

Reply by SharonMN on 7/24/09 11:35am
Msg #297250

Interested party?

You do not have an interest by virtue of charging fees for the notarizations, any more than a notary at UPS does when they charge somebody that walks in off the street. (Note that the UPS guy, wanting to earn his $1 fee, also has a chance to pressure the signer into signing and loses his fee if the signer decides not to sign after all.)

Any other services provided by a signing agent are properly considered clerical or courier services and can be charged at the going rate, the same as a secretary that works for a corporation and is also a notary is entitled to be paid for her secretarial work and not just the notarial acts she performs. These services are similar to those performed by other non-interested service providers the title company may use, such as FedEx for document delivery or Kinko's for printing. Legal couriers often pick up and deliver documents and get them signed and notarized and would never be considered interested parties.

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/24/09 7:02am
Msg #297206

Re: Pompous

I don't think Hugh's query is pompous at all...it's a good query imho.

The answer is to simply never regress to allowing anything but full fee to be paid sign/ or / no-sign.

I think this is a good discussion...no a great discussion. You require full fee as the signing agent no matter what the outcome and there's no way your position is tainted by having a financial interest in the transaction. Where am I wrong?

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/24/09 10:52am
Msg #297238

Not "wrong" wrong, but ...

how do we allow the industry to deal with rescinds or no-signs w/out becoming a detriment? It's long been my (unpopular) opinion that we need to be an added value to our client - and my primary clients are T/C's. That's not really a regressive stance, since that's how they've been doing business for ...like, ever.

I know with my regular T/C's, if I were to *try* to insist on full pay regardless of funding, I'd most definitely be the one to lose on that. It doesn't seem quite fair to me, to be THE single entity involved in the whole settlement/closing process that would get paid regardless. The abstractors are trying to pull this off, but they exist in a gray area - they provide a service needed prior to settlement (just as the appraiser and credit bureau), but we don't.

So what if? What if we somehow demand and GET full pymt across the board, regardless of funding. What would happen first? The fees would HAVE to come down, to absorb the losses. Now, that being said - I really don't get but the very rare no-sign and have NEVER been told of a rescind on something I've closed. Surely it's happened, but is it then a moot point if it's not a problem?

I'm also of the opinion that this straying off the beaten path of tradition, and demanding full pymt regardless of funding, is one very large reason we have signing brokers (SS). It became a pretty simple solution for the T/C's, rather than dealing with SA's.

And ... AND ....lol ...and then there's the camp that wants to be named/paid off the Hud, AND be paid regardless of funding. How does one accomplish that accounting?

Reply by Les_CO on 7/24/09 3:57pm
Msg #297314

Re: Not "wrong" wrong, but ...

Renee, you scare me! For someone that has worked in the Title Insurance business in the past, you don’t really seem to really understand how it works, and the profits involved.
First “Title Insurance” is mostly a legal scam and not necessary. Something pushed on the lending industry, by the Title Insurance companies, one because it’s EASY, and 2 because it’s FREE. (To the lending company) The bank is insured, but the borrower pays for it. If the examiners at the Title Company can read, they need NEVER pay a claim. Title Insurance is the only “insurance” that insures NOT against future happenings, such as death, sickness, accidents, floods, storm damage, etc. the things other insurance companies insure against, but insures against things that have already happened! (Sort of like taking out a life insurance policy on a dead guy, and the only way to collect is if he comes back to life.) They make MONEY! Lots of it! They can afford to and most do pay the NSA, or Notary, or Attorney, or Closer, or Escrow Officer for their services if the loan closes or not. (Ever wonder why Title, or SS doesn’t balk at paying an Attorney say… $300 for a “witness closing” in an attorney State, regardless of the outcome when they will turn you down if you ask say…$150 for the exact same job? Or offer you half if the loan doesn’t close?) Sometimes these costs are absorbed by the lender, sometimes not. (The lenders make big bucks too!) WE should be paid for our services regardless. Most of this “we pay half” or nothing” crap is from SS’s that get paid by Title, but want to make a bit extra. The good SS’s (like Silvia, Tony, Susan, and many others) pay our full fee. When I work for say United Recovery, and go get a couple of docs signed, and notarized, and courier them back… they always pay (in front…regardless of the outcome) When I go to some MD’s office and pick up some medical records, from the custodian, and send them back…. I always get paid! When I do other notary, courier, delivery boy, or whatever work…. I always get paid. I only work for my FULL fee. The only time I don’t get it is when I foolishly work for some deadbeat SS, or fly-by night Title Co. or if in my sole discretion I decide to wave my fee altogether. (I’ve done this sometimes in nursing / continuing care / hospice situations) Ours is the most underpaid ‘profession’ that I know where one must have vast knowledge of a myriad of diverse subjects, and be liable, for (God help us) any mistakes and to so many people, and have such a direct effect on their lives. Please don’t make it worse by suggesting that “the fees would HAVE to come down”
JMO!

Reply by Pat/IL on 7/25/09 2:24am
Msg #297371

Les, your opinion of title insurance shocks me.

You accuse Renee of not knowing how it works and you proceed to demonstrate your own ignorance of the industry. Honestly, there is too much to address in your huge paragraph above, so I will address none of it (it's very late). There is plenty of information available to you and anyone else interested to learn the value of title insurance.

I have read Renee's posts over a number of years and I am pretty confident that she knows of what she speaks. As for myself, I am now suffering my twentieth year in the title industry.

Reply by Les_CO on 7/26/09 1:52pm
Msg #297432

Re: Les, your opinion of title insurance shocks me.

It was meant to.

I apologize to Renee if she took offence to my remarks. It was not my intention to offend, nor to “accuse” her of anything. I was just trying to state some of the reasons that I did not agree with everything she posted.

I too have read her posts, and I too agree that she knows of what she speaks…In this case I think her opinion and mine are different.

I do not hold myself up to be expert in ANY field, especially Title Insurance, just posting my opinions, flawed as they may be.

As for your 20 years in Title….You have my sympathies…and my respect.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/25/09 4:53am
Msg #297372

Please don't be scared, Les! =)

Seriously, if you want to engage me in a healthy debate – lose the personal affronts, I don’t play that way.

You state: “If the examiners at the Title Company can read, they need NEVER pay a claim. Title Insurance is the only “insurance” that insures NOT against future happenings…”

Ok, here is just ONE example off the top of my head, from my own experience, contradicting both of those claims: Borrower closes a cash-out with Lender A & Title A – then an hour later, closes ANOTHER cash-out on same property with Lender B & Title B. Since this was an INSURED closing – when Lender A’s mortgage hits the record AFTER Lender B’s, it gets recorded in Second Lien position and Title A can do NOTHING to remedy that. Result? Title A pays Lender A entire loan amount (in this instance it was near 300,000). This is so cut/dry that Lender A did not have to file a claim or even fill out any paperwork – simply demanded funds returned, they were back in our bank on 3rd day AND TITLE A had to shut their doors while attempting to remain viable after shelling 300,000 out of operating funds. Oh, and good luck to them getting the money back from the borrower ...

This has absolutely nothing to do with accurate reading – there was nothing to read. This had nothing to do with anything that had happened in the past, and there was no way anyone but the borrower could know about the risk of this happening. Lender A doesn't even get involved in litigation over the fraud by borrower, they just get their dollars back. Anyway, this is just one of countless risks taken by T/C’s.

I don’t think comparing general notarial services with signing services is exactly apples-to-apples. Signing services are business-to-business engagements; general notarial services are usually consumer-to-business. Whole other world, IMO. I’m also not seeing the logic in comparing attorney settlement fees in an atty-only state, to non-atty fees in a non-atty state.

It wasn’t a *suggestion* on my part that fees would have to come down, if pymt is demanded regardless of funding – it’s a mathematical observation, and it’s what HAPPENED once SS’s came into play in a big way. The real question is – why did this happen? What tilled the rows for SS’s to grow so lush in? It’s simple math – if you insert an additional profit-making business into this mix (the SS), where will that profit COME FROM? It came from our pocket, by and large. How can we circumvent that? We can work direct. How can we present ourselves (directly) as being a better choice? The answer to THAT question is my entire point.

Perhaps one of our SS’s will speak to this, but I imagine the largest pitch they make to T/C’s is “you won’t have to deal with SA’s and all the consequential headaches they cause you, and you won’t have to pay out on files that don’t fund. We’ll take care of all of that.”

Again – it’s never been a problem in MY business, no-signs are extremely rare and I do not KNOW if a single loan I’ve closed has ever rescinded, I’ve never NOT been paid if I turned in a signed pkg. So, in my business, my “added value” of not demanding to be paid for a no-sign is profit-making for ME. Others who know me can vouch, I am as busy as I want or care to be (could probably double my work-load, if I wanted to), have no pymt issues with any clients and I do not work cheap.

Reply by Les_CO on 7/26/09 1:33pm
Msg #297430

Re: Please don't be scared, Les/ Sorry Renee!


I meant no “Personal Affront” or anything derogatory. If offence was taken, I apologize, none was meant. As for your knowledge of the Title business…I believe that you have vast experience, and knowledge….I was just being ‘dramatic’ for want of a better word. Please remember just about everything I post here is an ‘opinion’ and not necessary a ‘fact’. And I KNOW that there are occasions where Title companies have claims where their liability comes through no fault of theirs, or their examiners. Especially where fraud or theft is involved. I stand corrected! I should have prefaced my comment about “never” having to pay claims with the words such as, generally do not, or rarely or, usually don’t. “Never” was a poor choice of words. Even I know of an incident that happened here where rather than ‘pay off’ the old lender the ‘escrow officer’ working at a Title Company wired the funds to her ‘friends’ account. She did this on several loans, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Escrow officer and her friend are now in prison. Luckily the Title Company recovered most, but not all of the funds. However these are not everyday occurrences.
I guess it would have been better to have said that: It scares me to think someone with years of Title Company experience thinks that NSA’s asking for full fees on the small percentage of no-signs, or rescissions, is the cause of the trend toward to lower fees. Or in such cases, the Lenders, or Title Companies can’t afford to pay those fees.
I do disagree with your opinion that if we all demand full payment for our services the fees would have to come down. And no, I don’t directly blame the SS’s. They do a job, as we do, and they should get paid for it. Not a Notary out there ‘must’ to work for a SS. Yes, the (some) SS’s make a profit, but does it come from our pocket? I don’t believe so. I do think that SS’s did have an indirect effect on fees. When the Title Companies found that (some) Notary’s would take a lot less, many offered less. IMO, It really costs smaller Title Companies less to use a SS than to do it themselves. The larger Companies either do it (schedule/pay for the mobile closing) themselves or own a SS. And most SS’s demand payment for their services, regardless of whether or not the loan closes. Title bills the lender, or absorbs these costs as part of their overhead, just as they do if the borrower rescinds on a loan that was signed in their office, by one of their notary employees.
I believe the reason that we have seen fees dropping lately are:
1) The NNA
2) Because there are many, many Notaries willing to work for lower or low fees.
4) With the slowdown in the Real Estate, Lending, and the Title Insurance industry, Title Companies are looking for ways to increase their profits.
5) Competition, Not only in the “Notary” business, but in the Title business. The borrower (Again IMO….in most cases) pays for the Notary/ NSA/ closer/ closing/ /notary fee/ whatever. It costs Title nothing. (Sometimes these fees come ‘out’ of Title’s bundled services, or closing, or escrow fees so we don’t see them) So if the Title sales rep says to the lender “We’ll pay the ‘Mobile Closing’ fees out of our ‘closing fee’ your borrower won’t have to ‘pay extra’ (on the HUD)” it’s a ‘selling point’.
6) Some years ago some smart guys at (say… First American?) a Title Company, thought that if WE start our own SS, and charge the borrower “X $” put pay “Y$,” that could become a ‘profit center’ for us.
7) In addition some others got to thinking “Gee, we pay (say… Nations Direct?) $150 per closing, and they pay $45! They also say they have thousands of Notaries to choose from. Things are slow now…why don’t we just do it ourselves and pay a lot less?
I’ll try and clarify my ‘example’ about Attorneys, and fees. The Title Companies, and the SS’s don’t balk at paying an Attorney more money for a ‘witness closing’ than a ‘Notary Signing Agent’ for the same job is because they MUST. They don’t WANT to, they HAVE to. Not because Attorneys will only work for ‘full fees’, and some Notaries will accept half fees, or nothing for a no sign, or cancellation, or if the borrowers rescind. But most Attorneys don’t run around cutting each other’s throats, doing the jobs, for a pittance. They stick together (more or less), also they don’t have some ‘Notary Signing Agent mill’ churning out thousands of “make thousands of dollars, from home in your spare time” Signing Agents. They have their Bar Association. People expect to have to pay Attorneys (and everyone else) for the work they do. Why do some feel they don’t have to pay Notary Signing Agents? Because some of us LET them! Does FedEx charge half if the borrower rescinds? Do the appraisers? This is ONLY OUR fault!
If the Title Companies wanted to be honest, they would put the fee for the “mobile closing” on the HUD. The borrower would pay the fee that we charge. Not a penny more or a penny less. They would deduct that portion of what we do from their ‘closing’ or escrow fee. They would not make anything extra on us. If there is a no-sign, or the borrower rescinds, the lender absorbs most of these costs, mistakes on Titles part would be absorbed in overhead. We would be paid for our work as attorneys, appraisers, doc prep companies, couriers, etc., are now.
To use us directly, or to use a SS, I believe is a ‘cost per unit’ and ‘customer service’ decision. I don’t think we can individually effect that decision.
We can advertise, always do our best, or (as a selling point) say…. By the way, if this loan rescinds you can keep my fee…just a little perk I’m offering this week…. or, two for one?
Again all this JMO!

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/25/09 11:08am
Msg #297404

Re: Not "wrong" wrong, but ...

You lost me after "you don't really understand how it works." Anything after that was just blah blah blah. I happened to know a lot about Renee's extensive and wide ranging background and experience in the title industry. I consider her to be an expert in the field, as do many many others. Disagree with her? Have a different opinion? Fine. But to say she doesn't understand how it works? That might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Reply by Les_CO on 7/26/09 2:34pm
Msg #297435

Re: Not "wrong" wrong, but ...

Again….Semantics.
I believe I posted: “you don’t SEEM (here I should have added “to me, or in my opinion”?) to understand how it works, and the PROFITS involved.”

My point being (briefly) that (IMO) Title Insurance Companies really CAN afford to pay NSA’s their full fee for no-signs, or rescissions. Sorry I didn’t state that more clearly.

Most of my post was “blah, blah, blah.” I was posting my opinions. In this case, just differing with SOME of what Renee said in her post.

I find it tiring to post IMO every other sentence. PLEASE, in future take ALL my posts as “my opinion”. If I’M stating FACTS I’ll put it in quotes, or as Paul does, quote or link to the statue, or law.

I’m gratified to know that you consider her to be an expert in the field.

If you don’t like my posts…so be it, however if you are going to chide me for my remarks, try and get them right.

Reply by BobbiCT on 7/24/09 6:44am
Msg #297205

Question without good precedent yet ...

It is a very good query ... and one that hasn't gotten a black-and-white caselaw answer yet. The attorneys do pose this issue and, as you know, rightly so.

I haven't heard of any major inter-state "financial institutions" wanting to ask this question. I know of only one title insurance company that asks and points this out. Financial institutions and "lenders" are forced (for lack of a politer word) to pay appraisers, credit reporting companies and attorneys for the work the perform, even if the financial institution is unable to collect the funds from the borrower. Not so with non-attorneys, which is what makes the use of us so popular with them.

The answer: Payment of the non-attorney's contracted services performed as a "signing agent," including notarizations, should NOT be predicated on the "borrowers signing the documents and the loan funding." Did the job as contracted; get paid. There's the contract-changing piece of a lawsuit we are all waiting for ... and I predict it will be a very long wait.

Reply by BobbiCT on 7/24/09 8:49am
Msg #297214

my answer is ....

predicated on the issue that the "notary PUBLIC" who is not paid for the notarizations performed and travel if the borrowers cancel or the loan isn't funded is NOT a "disinterested party." That notary has a financial stake in closing the deal. If the hiring entity pays for notarial services, including notary travel, at the State allowed rates but the "signing agent" is paid nothing, then I can argue the "disinterested" notary point (even if the notary is 1/4 of the signing agent's body and brain).

The signing agent who goes to "get the documents signed" and, if the documents are not signed or the borrower rescinds, doesn't get paid, I believe has a financial interest in the deal and cannot be called a "disinterested party." That person's goal, like the loan officer collecting a commission on funding, is to Get 'R Done to get paid. That person is not disinterested, s/he has a vested interest in making sure those borrowers sign the loan documents and don't change their minds. (Remember the days of the surprise two-year pre-payment penalty documents and LO's saying, "Don't worry about that. I'll throw that away when I get the package package back," or "If you refinance with XXZ Bank, we'll waive that." And the next form they signed stated XXZ Bank sells 100% of it's loans.)

Reply by CH2inCA on 7/24/09 8:17am
Msg #297213

hmmm.. I figure if they put my name on the Title, then I have a stake in the transaction. If not then I'm just getting paid for a service.

Reply by MW/VA on 7/24/09 9:39am
Msg #297225

Now if you take that approach, then everyone involved in the transaction would have a "financial stake"--the abstractor, appraiser, etc. Do you think the tc has a financial stake because they are providing title insurance? These are all integral parts of getting a transaction to closing.
The main issue with the amounts that are showing up on the HUD for "notary fees" is that we need a different name for our function, such as "Notary Signing Agent or Facilitator". The attorneys have tried to make huge issues of the amounts that are listed as "notary fees" as being way beyond what the states allow for those fees.
Again, the term "financial interest" means you are one of the parties to the transaction--buyer, seller, borrower, etc.

Reply by NCLisa on 7/24/09 10:39pm
Msg #297355

I don't have a stake in the transaction.

I get paid the same fee, whether the borrower signs the docs or not. I could care less if they sign or not.

But if we look at it from your point of view: If an attorney does the closing, he/she would also have to be a notary. If we have a stake in the closing, the attorney would have a bigger stake. They have far more time and expense invested in the the closing than I do, their staff ordered payoffs, evidence of insurance, did the title searches, ordered the title insurance, did tons of work. If it doesn't close, they don't get paid for anything. How is that for being a disinterested party?