Posted by 101livescan on 2/7/10 10:16am
Msg #321775

Background Check Requiremnt by XYZ lis pendens

Any one get the notice? I received it yesterday, opened it but didn't have time to read it, left it in my office, will look closer on Monday. Meanwhile, any one else get it?

Happy Sunday. Rained like the devil yesterday, I was in it traveling to Foster Care Parenting class for live scanning of clients, then two closings. On the way home I had two shrimp tacos, came home and hit the bed. Driving in torrential rain whips me up!

On my way to plant tulips in the garden that my family gave to me for my birthday last month. You know what they say, tulips in the garden, tulips in the park, best tulips I know are two lips in the dark!

Make it a great Sunday!

Reply by jba/fl on 2/7/10 10:18am
Msg #321776

What is this? Great Quote Day? LMAO - TY n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/7/10 10:27am
Msg #321780

What? being sued over their BGC requirement?

Lis Pendens = suit pending

More info would be most interesting.

Reply by jba/fl on 2/7/10 10:33am
Msg #321782

Re: What? being sued over their BGC requirement?

I would guess but haven't received any letter as mentioned. Since there is a big class action suit that we know about it leaves me wondering if they have now advertised the business for sale? In any case, that business is no longer worth what one might think or might have thought.

Something else about which to speculate.

Reply by Lee/AR on 2/7/10 10:46am
Msg #321783

I second this request! More info, please.

One suit settled by either a refund or the cheap way--extend your membership, costing them nothing. Now another suit? Yep, more info, please.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/7/10 4:11pm
Msg #321836

That suit hasn't been settled yet...

What was sent out was a proposed settlement - that may be why they're referring to it as a lis pedens. Buried somewhere in there was a statement that the XYZ could back out of he settlement if the requests for cash refunds exceeded a certain percentage of the class members who responded. As I recall, it was a relatively low percentage.

Reply by 101livescan on 2/7/10 10:49am
Msg #321784

Re: What? being sued over their BGC requirement?

I can't believe I'm the only one that received this notice from the LA Superior Court. I wish I had brought it home with me. No way am I driving to SB to get it. BUT, do you all remember this posting a couple of years ago?

The XYZ is requiring notaries around the country to pay for a background check that is not required under the guise of the Grahmm Leach Bliley Act has been around for about 7 years the Notary Law Institute put out an article in the Nov 2006 issue refuting the false claims from the XYZ they are just making money off of them.

The background checks are actually free if one were to go through Lexis Nexis's avenue. Also, the XYZ has enhanced the "idea" of notaries performing witness closings for lenders around the country and have recommended fees but they have no idea on pricing for the areas in which people travel or their expenses they have been on a rampage of marketing and flooding the market place with false promises of financial work from home lies conducting loan closings!

I feel great empathy for people being foiled by this organization. They also claim that a mere notary public can conduct a closing! Give me a break! These people have no formal title insurance or lender training in most instances and are putting the general public in harms way with all of the predatory lending going on across the country (Ameriquest) for example, Household Finance.

These background checks are worthless! A notary public in most states is checked by their own respective states for felonies, misdemeanors, etc. But their report that they are getting for free and are charging for it are even getting a person's drivers record--WHY? After numerous emails and calls they are not responding to the queries that I personally have sent to them to address they are just on a rampage of making money off of an idea stolen from Susan P. in CO who started the concept and they stole it from her!

The XYZ should be investigated for intimidation via their numbers they promote signing services in their magazines who are known for not paying the notaries across the country for example. They conveniently do not address this serious issue!

A person who is at the closing the notary should be on the HUD as a third party and paid off of the HUD not the signing services it is a matter of time when they will too become a signing service and start taking money from the notaries across the country afterall they are in it for the money and obviously not for the good of the office of Notary Public they have made an arena of innocent people to be taken and the FBI should investigate them to the fullest extent of the law!

The XYZ is intimidating the notaries into the ever so popular machine of making themselves money off the blood, sweat and tears off of the poor people who believe that they can actually make a living "closing" loans for unscrupulous loan officers from many brokerage / lenders across the country and are using the good name of Notary Public to con the consumer--the notary cannot answer questions about a loan they are only there to "witness" a signature thus leaving the poor consumer with no assistance with their home loan.

This is outrageous! It assists the theives in the lending industry under the guise of neutrality of the notary public to deceive the general public and the XYZ is right there with them in this deception. If the Notary Public is supposed to be a neutral party and doesn't work for the lender then why do they need a background check they are not employees of the lender or the title company or the XYZ--please American's unite against this fraud against us!

I have a closing at noon on Monday and auction at 1pm, I'm posting foreclosures in the morning on my way to town. This is the first thing I'll do when I get to the office after auction.

Sorry I don't have more information at the moment. Maybe someone else will read this topic this morning and have more information than I have at the moment.

Reply by jba/fl on 2/7/10 11:02am
Msg #321785

Who are you referencing in this latest post?

Is is a compilation of postings? It appears to be more than one voice/writer?

I sure we all look forward to this on Monday. Thanks, C.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/7/10 11:18am
Msg #321786

Yes...I'd like to see the rest of this too

This appears to be a blog - would like to see the post/blog and other subsequent discussion on this..

Not sure how the Lis Pendens ties in with this ... would like to read....also googled and can't find any relevant links

Reply by Riley/FL on 2/7/10 11:26am
Msg #321787

Re: Yes...I'd like to see the rest of this too

http://www.ripoffreport.com/notary/nna-national-notary/nna-national-notary-associatio-e4267.htm

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/7/10 11:32am
Msg #321788

Thanks Karen..:) n/m

Reply by Riley/FL on 2/7/10 11:34am
Msg #321790

Re: Thanks Karen..:)

You're welcome. It's Donna, BTW.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/7/10 11:37am
Msg #321791

Oh..heh..woops...sorry...:) n/m

Reply by Riley/FL on 2/7/10 11:33am
Msg #321789

Re: Yes...I'd like to see the rest of this too

"Also, the NNA has enhanced the "idea" of notaries performing witness closings for lenders around the country and have recommended fees but they have no idea on pricing for the areas in which people travel or their expenses they have been on a rampage of marketing and flooding the market place with false promises of financial work from home lies conducting loan closings!"

I believe this is one of the major reasons we have to fight for a decent fee for our services. I hope they continue to be sued to the point where they can no longer operate.

Reply by Maureen_nh on 2/7/10 1:16pm
Msg #321802

Re: Yes...I'd like to see the rest of this too

AMEN!
I know of people that I respect and admire, who in order to support their families and business, have kept up their membership, because the XYZ company has convinced major lenders and title cos to only accept their members and their CBCs. They don't like it at all but feel that they have no choice.
That situation IS criminal but try and prove it in a court of law. I sincerely hope someone can.
101livescan is one of the hardest working and very sucessful people doing this type of work around. She has gone to areas of work that most of us will never get involved in and many of us find work that she won't or doesn't do. It is all in finding your niche. I don't hold her words as Gospel but darned close.
I have tried to do my part by letting companies that insist on an XYZ blessing that I, in no uncertain terms , will not do business with them. I do not have anyone to support but me and my pooch and do have retirement income so I can be a lot braver than if it were otherwise.

My lonley voice has had no effect, I am sure, but it does seem that other voices have been added to mine and some attention is being paid in the right places.
Stay the course, if you can and get the truth out there.

Reply by Jeff Ortler on 2/7/10 2:45pm
Msg #321820

Facts.. not rumors and suppositions...Apples to Oranges

Private BGC's are NOT the same as the state required (some states, not all) searches to become a notary. The BGC's done by Lexis and other reputable companies are much more comprehensive. The states that require BGC's to become a notary only have the DOJ and FBI search for FELONY convictions, not arrests or pending cases and definitely do not check for misdemeanors. There are some states that prosecute certain levels of fraud as misdemeanors. This is an apples to oranges comparison.
As far as the BGC expiring, they are basically only as valid as the day they were run. A person could be arrested for fraud the very next day one is completed and the BGC is already outdated. The expiration dates is the tolerance date that the individual companies who perform them are willing to stick their necks out to affirm them as being accurate.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/7/10 4:46pm
Msg #321841

CA checks our DMV file, too... among other things

It's part of the check they perform with the DOJ... they pull our DMV records. I've been told they do it to verify the information we've submitted, but I've also told they use it to screen people out, too, since our DMV record will show things that the other checks might miss. They also do this for name check issues if you have a name that is more common. The DOJ/CHP has access to a LOT more information than the private companies could ever have. For instance, you cannot be a notary in CA if you're not paying court ordered child support. That may not show up in a felony screen, but it will be attached to your DMV record and most certainly with the Dept of Social Services.

They also screen you with the Franchise tax board, dept of social services and they run your through the licensing checks of other regulatory authorities for the state. For example, if you are a licensed real estate agent, they will check your record with the DRE.

Trust me... when it comes to the CA BGC, they are covering their bases now.

Reply by Cari on 2/7/10 1:18pm
Msg #321803

just found out my bgc from them expires in April of this yr.

so then what I wonder....

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/7/10 1:33pm
Msg #321808

Expires according to who Cari?

Technically it wasn't any good within minutes after it was completed - just like a title search, it's only good to the date and time it's done - anytime after that is not covered...

Reply by TRG_wy on 2/7/10 2:16pm
Msg #321816

Re: Expires according to who Cari?

Couldn't agree more !!

Too bad so many companys and notaries fall into the trap of believing/requiring a BGC is a must have. No where under federal law is it required. To require me to obtain it rides on the line of making me an employee. - The whole topic just makes my blood boil - thanks NNA!

Reply by Cari on 2/7/10 2:55pm
Msg #321822

okay..so why is NotRot offering the same, good for 2 yrs???

XYZ got me...okay fine...so if its a waste of money and is no good to anyone except myself, then what's the purpose of getting the bgc?

NotRot is offering the same to its members good for two years...but yeah right...to whom if not myself?

Would like to hear from Harry or Traci on this issue?

Reply by Lee/AR on 2/7/10 3:17pm
Msg #321828

Re: okay..so why is NotRot offering the same, good for 2 yrs???

There is no legitimate purpose for a background check--which, btw, was promoted ad nauseum by a certain national organization 7 years after the supposed 'guiding law' had been passed. Took NoNotAgain that long to figure out yet another way to make money. NotRot began offering same when many people on this site were very upset about the stranglehold that certain national organization was using on us. The 'expiration' is just the 'accepted norm'. Which is to say, it's absurd, but that's the way it's done. Hope that explains the situation to your satisfaction.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/7/10 5:12pm
Msg #321846

Re: okay..so why is NotRot offering the same, good for 2 yrs???

PLUS -- major difference -- it is an option here, not a prerequisite to taking advantage of any other offering made available from this site. The NNA requires i, and their basic membership, to get their practically meaningless (IMHO) certification .

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 2/8/10 5:24am
Msg #321881

HUGE point there, Janet! N/R is OUR option!

I have used the N/R BGC twice now, and will CONTINUE every two years as my own choice. Another HUGE difference in the N/R product is that it requires LIVE confirmation of your identify (via notarial jurat). You can't just order it on-line or by fax ...

I was one of the people who expressed support for this from N/R, and one of the first in line to use it - as a counter to the NNA's trifling. I am also a strong supporter of complete & currant BGC's for NSA's as well as anyone else who has access to the private information of others. So many NSA's do not realize that BGC's are pretty much standard inside the lending & title industries; and many states (including my MI) do NOT require a BGC to obtain a notary public commission.

There does need to be a point in time when a BGC is no longer considered currant - and though that is an arbitrary date, the accepted (as in "widely used" standard is 2 years.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/9/10 2:58pm
Msg #322091

Or do I have that backwards?

Maybe what I should have said was that the certification is required for the BGC? Since I have neither, I'm not sure... But I guess the point is still the same.

Reply by Todd/OH on 2/7/10 2:29pm
Msg #321817

"Tiptoe ...through the tulips .....

This brings Tiny Tim and teeny banjo (I know it wasn't a banjo) to mind.

Anyone else laugh over that goof??

Reply by jba/fl on 2/7/10 2:33pm
Msg #321819

Re: "Tiptoe ...through the tulips .....

Yeah - can't spell ukulele? I had to look it up for you - LOL

Reply by 101livescan on 2/7/10 3:29pm
Msg #321831

In California, background checking occurs each commission renewal, every four years, so why does any third party agent get to check bg every two years? Revenue generating for sure. With the FBI/DOJ layered checking requirement by the SOS, why should it be necessary for a FOR PROFIT organization to be able to make this a milestone. Beyond me. Can't wait to share the notice I got with all of you to get on the band wagon. Any one who paid for this layer of bg check may be entitled to refund and damages?

We'll see. Stay tuned. Colder than heck here on the mountain. More rain on the way. Dark, gray and looming clouds across the sky.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/7/10 4:14pm
Msg #321838

Is this different from the Signix case?

I didn't get anything for a California court, though I did post some bit back about the class action suit with NNA/Signix. It has to do with violations of the FCRA. In that, class members are offered a $52 NNA credit or they can opt for cash.

See msg#318834 for that. All of the class members are lists in the stipulation PDF.

Reply by 101livescan on 2/7/10 5:29pm
Msg #321849

Re: Is this different from the Signix case?

THIS IS IT! I must have had my head buried in foreclosure auctions when you posted this.

Reply by 101livescan on 2/7/10 5:29pm
Msg #321850

Re: Is this different from the Signix case?

THIS IS IT! I must have had my head buried in foreclosure auctions when you posted this.