Posted by DD/OR on 5/6/10 10:48am
Msg #335106

Message Deleted

This message has been deleted by a forum moderator.

Reason: Author Request - Special Exception

Reply by Jeff Ortler on 5/6/10 11:09am
Msg #335111

You should be ashamed...

The guy is blind and all you can think about is how the escrow company lied to you... Do you know how bad that guy must feel right now... Not only that he is blind but he had to deal with an obnoxious a$$ like you.

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 11:20am
Msg #335115

Re: You should be ashamed...

Boy, you came out of left field. You must get rained on a lot. Obviously, you don't want to help notaries. No, I don't think he feels bad at all. They have been trying to do this since Jan. I was not the first notary to go there and refuse. That is my right. He and his roomate started abusing me right away and I don't take abuse from anyone. I walk out instead of arguing. I posted this to tell other notaries in case this company contacts them. NR is in the process of putting this on SC.

Reply by John/CT on 5/6/10 11:38am
Msg #335124

Another new twist, DD

Now you say, "He and his roomate started abusing me right away ...." What else happened to round out this story?

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 11:46am
Msg #335128

Re: Another new twist, DD

As I explained before, the borrowers roomate told me HE was going to read every page before borrower signed. In other words, they would take control of the signing, not me.
The room-mate was verbally abusing me when I objected, so I walked instead of arguing. I was not the first notary with the first right of refusal.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/6/10 11:48am
Msg #335129

Re: Another new twist, DD

>>>In other words, they would take control of the signing, not me. <<<

Sounds like the real issue here is that you have control issues.

You should have looked at this as an easy assignment, because it sounds like all you really needed to do was notarize signatures, no need to explain anything.

And you say that you didn't want to have to spend all that time reading pages, but then you say that the roommate was going to read it.

As I said in my post below, I think you did not handle this correctly. You should have looked at this as an opportunity to do your duty TO THE PUBLIC rather than to your own wallet. MHO.

Reply by John/CT on 5/6/10 11:57am
Msg #335132

No, Robert, not "control issues" here.

It's simply a matter of of the NSA managing the process. Many of us have experienced how easy it is for things to otherwise get out of hand. It's our job to move the signing along in a timely and responsible manner. 'Nuff said?

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 12:04pm
Msg #335139

Re: No, Robert, not "control issues" here.

Thank you, John.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 5/6/10 12:13pm
Msg #335144

The signing agent was justified

She had a 183-page signing packet, Robert, and the signer's assistant indicated he was going to read every single page **during the course of the signing,** on top of which she got blindsided by the title company, which did not tell her the signer was blind. She would have been insane to proceed if they were unwilling to examine the documents during the three-day rescission period.

Either the title company should have gotten the packet to the signer sufficiently in advance where it could be thoroughly examined, or the signer should have been willing to do that during the rescission period. And the notary is entitled to a fee for the aborted closing.

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 12:25pm
Msg #335151

Re: The signing agent was justified

Thank you, Hugh Nations. I'm glad someone understands.

Reply by cawest/PA on 5/6/10 1:13pm
Msg #335178

Re: The signing agent was justified

You are correct, the TC should have provided a copy a few days ahead ... and wait to set a closing time till all the docs were ready to go and read by the roomate of the blind individual.
I only had one closing with a really sweet blind lady and she got the docs a few days ahead and her daughter had read them to her and it all went smooth ...

Reply by jba/fl on 5/6/10 1:58pm
Msg #335212

Re: The signing agent was justified

I have had one blind lady who instucted me, upon entering her castle (home) that I was not to read, she had already gone over everything and was absolutely sure of what she was doing, also noting, "I'm blind, not stupid."

I deferred to her wishes and treated her just the same as any other borrower, using the same spiel everyone gets.

This borrower was not prepared. That is problem of LO, TC, not DD's.

Reply by CaliNotary on 5/6/10 5:31pm
Msg #335287

I had a bad signing trifecta a couple of weeks ago.

And I wasn't notified of any of it in advance. It was a POA signing. The borrowers were Indian, and the two names combined had 38 letters. And the person signing as power of attorney, was legally blind, but he did have very limited sight. And for good measure, he was 72 years old.

It all ended up going surprisingly smoothly, only took about 15 minutes longer than a normal signing. I just treated it as any other signing, other than I would hold my finger on the page next to the signature line, he'd put his face about an inch from the page to see where he needed to begin signing, and when I was going over the note I actually read the numbers instead of just pointing with a pen and saying "here is the loan amount", etc.

He didn't ask for any special treatment and I didn't give him any beyond what was obviously necessary due to his vision impairment. It's remarkable, when you treat a disabled person like a regular person instead of someone that needs to be pitied, they rise to the occasion and prove that they ARE regular people. Whoda thunk it, JEFF ORTLER?

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/6/10 5:34pm
Msg #335288

Re: I had a bad signing trifecta a couple of weeks ago.

"It's remarkable, when you treat a disabled person like a regular person instead of someone that needs to be pitied, they rise to the occasion and prove that they ARE regular people."

Amen!!!!

Reply by desktopfull on 5/6/10 3:55pm
Msg #335260

Re: You should be ashamed...

"Not only that he is blind but he had to deal with an obnoxious a$$ like you. "

IMO, your remarks are completely out of line. No one should be expected to do one of those type of closings without being informed so that you can get fairly compensated for the extraordinary service they are providing. If you have ever done one you wouldn't be making the obnoxious statement you made above.

I was burned by a TC over a blind signer too. I'll never do another one. You not only have to read every word on every page to the person, you have to put a pen in their hand and hold their hand and place the pen on the line to get them to sign in the right place. I spent 8 hours doing one of these and wasn't given a dime extra. The same TC sent me to another one 3 weeks later and I called them and told them to get a limited POA for the property for a sighted signer and left. They got the POA and I did the signing 5 days later. I will never do another closing for a blind person, they can get a limited POA period.

Reply by Notarysigner on 5/6/10 11:16am
Msg #335113

Re: Escrow Quick

I would have done it. Not read verbatim but explained what the Docs were about generally and in detail if asked. Handicap people's last thought is to be a burden to anyone. Sometimes compassion is a show of wealth. IMO

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 11:24am
Msg #335116

Re: Escrow Quick

The borrower's roomate informed me that HE was going to read them ALL the pages to him. You would go along with that? Well, to each his own.

Reply by kathy/ca on 5/6/10 11:30am
Msg #335119

Running a business is not for everyone! Professionalism! n/m

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 11:35am
Msg #335123

Re: Running a business is not for everyone! Professionalism!

You're right. I don't work for businesses that are illegal. Escrow Quick is running a business without the proper licenses. Do a search with the orange button.

Reply by kathy/ca on 5/6/10 12:35pm
Msg #335157

I wasnt talking about Escrow Quick, there are professional

ways to handle a situation such as this and I find it hard to believe that the blind man and his roommate were abusive toward you especially if you were handling it like a professional.

Reply by Notarysigner on 5/6/10 11:40am
Msg #335125

Re: Escrow Quick

If that was/is the case...what's wrong with leaving the package with them and coming back later on to complete in your time frame?

You are correct though, my choice is mine and no one is obligated to follow. I was only expressing my opinion, my choice.

Reply by LKT/CA on 5/6/10 11:16am
Msg #335114

Re: Escrow Quick

This is the result of "do not contact borrower" signings. According to your prior post, they called you 24 hours before the signing but wouldn't give you the borrower's contact info until 3 hours before the signing. Many notaries have this policy that they relay to the hiring party for "D N C B" signings: If any issues or situations arise at the signing table that could have been prevented or avoided by contacting borrower in advance, FULL FEE is required.

This unique situation calls for such a policy stipulation. A reschedule could have been avoided had the Escrow/TC/LO ensured that the borrower had all the docs read to him/her prior to the signing appt.

D N C B signings are a PITA, which is why many notaries won't take them. Before leaving that signing, I would have informed the borrower that for the future, inform the Title/Escrow/LO that he requires that a full set of docs be read to him - all pages - before a notary arrives and he signs. I would be honest and say that no notary can allot the kind of time needed for someone to read 183 pages to him. It should be done BEFORE the notary arrives so he's ready to sign.

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 11:31am
Msg #335121

Re: Escrow Quick

Agreed. The whole thing took my by surprise because I had never been asked to do a blind person before and didn't realize ALL the pages have to be read to him. Whew, that was close. Never again, I learned. I just want to warn the notaries in my area to be on the lookout for this company because they will be trying to find a notary to do it. If she/he decides to do it, I hope she charges a lot of money because it will take at least 8-10 hours to read them.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/6/10 11:44am
Msg #335127

I disagree with how you handled it

You are a public servant, first and foremost. Sometimes the ethics of this profession should come before the $$$. I don't blame them for not wanting to pay you, and to be honest I think that what you are doing is borderline discrimination.

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 11:53am
Msg #335130

Re: I disagree with how you handled it

Well, that's your opinion. Just because I'm a notary does not mean I can't choose who I want to notarize for. In other words, I don't have to notarize something just because someone asks me to.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/6/10 11:56am
Msg #335131

Again, I disagree

If it is a lawful request for notarization, and all prerequisites are satisfied, I do not believe that as a PUBLIC OFFICIAL you have the right to choose who you want to notarize for.

What if the state governor decided one day to cease all government benefits for people with blue eyes? That is discrimination. The governor is no more of a public official than you are. You are denying a public service to an individual based solely on their disability.

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 12:27pm
Msg #335153

Re: Again, I disagree

Robert, you are very rude. How dare you assume that I refused because he was blind? He is not the only one who is blind, so are you.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/6/10 12:58pm
Msg #335167

Re: Again, I disagree

"If it is a lawful request for notarization, and all prerequisites are satisfied, I do not believe that as a PUBLIC OFFICIAL you have the right to choose who you want to notarize for"

According to the Florida Governor's handbook:


In addition to the situations described above, a notary may refuse to perform a notarization in a variety of circumstances, such as when:

the signer cannot pay the notary’s fee for services;

it is before or after the notary’s regular office hours;

it is a holiday;

the notary is busy with other work or activities;

the notary would be inconvenienced;

the notary is sick;

the notary is not comfortable with the request;

the signer is a minor;

the document is written in a foreign language that the notary does not understand; or

the notary is requested to travel to another location.

DD's situation if she was in Florida could come under "the notary would be inconvenienced"

Reply by John/CT on 5/6/10 12:01pm
Msg #335134

We cannot refuse a lawful request to notarize a document ...

in Connecticut, and I suppose, other states. Is Oregon an exception?

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 12:07pm
Msg #335141

Re: We cannot refuse a lawful request to notarize a document ...

Are you sure about that, John? Think about it. And if in doubt, ask your SOS.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/6/10 12:11pm
Msg #335142

I think you should ask YOUR SOS, IMO. n/m

Reply by John/CT on 5/6/10 12:19pm
Msg #335147

Per the Connecticut Secretary of the State ...

Notary Public Manual, Section 1.1: "It is the duty of all notaries to serve the public and they may not ureasonably refuse to perform a notarial act for any member of the public who ... meets all requirements prescribed by statute." I stand by my previous statement, re: "lawful request".

Reply by BobbiCT on 5/6/10 12:41pm
Msg #335160

Different Tolerances for RISK ...

"... may not unreasonably refuse ...." I think our SOTS would consider reading an entire set of mortgage loan documents to a blind person before committing him/herself into what is probably significant debt qualifies as an "unreasonable notary public" request. Besides, our SOTS is an ATTORNEY who, if not SOTS, would definately have some concerns with a unrelated notary public reading legal documents, which notary would not be paid a fee if the BLIND person didn't sign them. I don't want to be the notary on the otherside of that complaint!

I BLAME the company and loan officer that set this smells-bad deal up. I doubt the notary was the FIRST person to discover the borrower is blind. Someone in the chain of the loan should have noted that the borrower is 1) blind and 2) will need someone to read/review the documents to him BEFORE they are signed.

I would rather the blind person or lender make a formal complaint to the SOTS or sue me now for refusing to notarize than the blind person's attorney sue me later.

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 12:51pm
Msg #335165

Re: Different Tolerances for RISK ...

That's true. I never would have put myself at risk if I had known.

Reply by John/CT on 5/6/10 1:35pm
Msg #335189

I was responding to what DD said:

"I don't have to notarize something just because someone asks me to." Other issues notwithstanding, we cannot refuse a request (at least in Connecticut) simply because we don't want to ... as I inferred from the foregoing quote.

Reply by kmac/nc on 5/6/10 12:01pm
Msg #335135

Re: I disagree with how you handled it

I don't post here often, but I had to comment on your refusal to help someone out. To help the man in that situation, I would have stayed all day if needed, but, to each his own.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/6/10 12:04pm
Msg #335138

Agree. Public service should come before monetary benefit. n/m

Reply by Calnotary on 5/6/10 12:03pm
Msg #335136

Robert have you done this before?

Have you had the borrower read or have you red 183 pages of a loan signing to a borrower? Or have you ever asked to do this in the past? Yeah yeah, you told the board many times that you don't do loan signings.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/6/10 12:04pm
Msg #335140

No I haven't

But if I had been in DD/OR's situation, I would have accepted the assignment. I have a duty to the public.

Reply by Calnotary on 5/6/10 12:11pm
Msg #335143

Re: No I haven't

You have a duty as a notary public,yes that's right. But you are not supposed to read all 15 pages of a DOT. You can explain the purpose of such document but not explain/read the whole 15 pages! Now if escrow hires you to do a 183 pages readout you charge by the hour or do other arrangements. The problem here that some SS,TL,etc don't tell you till the last minute.

Reply by Calnotary on 5/6/10 12:15pm
Msg #335145

Re: No I haven't

Just think if this loan was signed at the escrow's office,do you think the escrow officer would have spent 4 or more hours reading this package?

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/6/10 12:15pm
Msg #335146

In Florida we *HAVE TO* read *entire doc* to be notarized

whether it is one page, 15 pages, or 200 pages. A DOT/mortgage is going to be notarized, so, at least in Florida, we are required BY LAW to read the entire document.

In this case, not every doc would be notarized, but even still, the ROOMMATE said HE would read the documents to the signer. All DD/OR would need to do is notarize.

This poor blind man must feel like $hit. He's been turned down by a notary for NO OTHER REASON than the fact that he is blind. It would be the same as DD/OR refusing to notarize for someone due to race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

It's discrimination, and it is a neglect of the public office that we hold. Period.

Reply by Calnotary on 5/6/10 12:20pm
Msg #335148

Re: In Florida we *HAVE TO* read *entire doc* to be notarized

I would like to hear more about this from Paw or Sylvia.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/6/10 12:26pm
Msg #335152

Re: In Florida we *HAVE TO* read *entire doc* to be notarized

"I would like to hear more about this from Paw or Sylvia."

from Florida statutes governing notaries:

(14) A notary public must make reasonable accommodations to provide notarial services to persons with disabilities.
(a) A notary public may notarize the signature of a person who is blind after the notary public has read the entire instrument to that person.

Reply by CaliNotary on 5/6/10 12:44pm
Msg #335163

You are full of crap Robert

"He's been turned down by a notary for NO OTHER REASON than the fact that he is blind. It would be the same as DD/OR refusing to notarize for someone due to race, sexual orientation, religion, etc."

She didn't turn him down because he was blind, she turned him down because she wasn't willing to donate the time it would take for the roommate to read the entire loan package. There was absolutely no reason that the package couldn't have been sent to the borrower in advance for review. I'm sure she would have done the exact same thing for a sighted borrower who insisted on reading 183 pages before starting the signing. I know I sure as hell would have.

To equate that situation with somebody refusing to notarize for somebody because they're black or gay or Jewish is beyond ridiculous.

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 12:22pm
Msg #335150

Re: No I haven't

You got that right, Calnotary. I talked to the SOS and they said there are some circumstances where I can turn down a notarization. In this circumstance, there are many reasons why I turned it down. Here are a few.

1. Escrow Quick company that hired me does not have the proper license to do business. Use the orange button.
2. It was an abusive situation. Both verbally attacking me.
3. Room-mate wanted to take over the signing which is against the law since I'm the notary.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/6/10 12:35pm
Msg #335158

Re: No I haven't

A Google search on Escrow Quick brought this up - as you see it is escrowsquick that is not licensed.

08/07/06 - ** INTERNET ALERT - escrowsquick.com** - The Department of Corporations has been notified that escrowsquick.com is offering escrow services over the internet and is falsely advertising at its website that it holds a California Department of Corporations license 9632318 issued to Escrowquick, Inc. The website also states online escrow services are provided by Internet Escrow Services. escrowsquick.com is not licensed by the California Department of Corporations. Escrow Quick, Inc. and Internet Escrow Services, Inc. are licensed by the Department of Corporations. Both companies are not associated with escrowsquick.com. (Consumer Alert)

Reply by desktopfull on 5/6/10 4:11pm
Msg #335267

Re: I disagree with how you handled it

Sometimes your ignorance of signing situations is astounding, and since you don't do them and don't know what is entailed you would be better off with no comment. There's nothing discriminatory about refusing to work 8 to 10 hours doing a closing where you are only getting paid for the normal 1 hour closing.

There is no reason in the world for a notary to be subjected to the work that doing a blind signing entails without advance notice and additional compensation. All they have to do is get a limited POA authorizing a sighted person to sign the documents after they have had someone review the docs with them, preferably an attorney reviews the docs and then executes the limited POA. Or, just let the attorney do the closing.

Reply by Notarysigner on 5/6/10 4:27pm
Msg #335272

Re: I disagree with how you handled it

Didn't think of that one, good point, thanks for bringing that to the table. This is something the LO/TC could have suggested if their were proactive and experienced. Someone had to know. Thanks.

Reply by Tess on 5/6/10 12:21pm
Msg #335149

Re: Escrow Quick

You could have at the very least, read and notarized the notary forms, yes, even the mortgage, and left the rest for the friend and the LO to handle. This way the loan could have closed!

Reply by Jeff Ortler on 5/6/10 12:29pm
Msg #335155

Despicable....

....how the hell do you feel justified??? The guy is blind... DID YOU EVER CONSIDER HIS FEELINGS or just your self righteousness.... I am so disgusted with anyone who supports this type of behavior...

Reply by Calnotary on 5/6/10 12:33pm
Msg #335156

Re: Despicable....

Calm down Jeff, breath deeply and release slowly, many may not appreciate some words you used here already.

Reply by CaliNotary on 5/6/10 12:39pm
Msg #335159

You have got to be kidding me

"DID YOU EVER CONSIDER HIS FEELINGS"

DD shouldn't have to consider hurting his feelings simply because he's blind. If he's like most blind people, he just wants to be treated like everybody else. Yeah, some accommodations need to be made because of the blindness, but those do not include the notary sitting and staring at the wall for 3 hours while somebody reads 183 pages in detail.

They DO include the TC and/or lender making the effort to get the docs to him prior to the signing so they can be reviewed. That should be plain old common sense.

But the signing agent bending over and taking it simply because the other people involved in the process can't do their own job properly? No way. Bending over and taking it because somebody happens to be blind? No way.

If you want your own bleeding heart to dictate your business decisions, have at it. The rest of us can use professional judgment instead of FEELINGS and not get ourselves stuck at a signing for 3 or 4 hours.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/10 1:06pm
Msg #335172

"I don't have to notarize something...."

You said, "I don't have to notarize something just because someone asks me to."

Uhm... actually, YES you do. The whole idea of being an independent Notary means that you are supposed to comply with lawful requests for notarization.

And as a business owner, you are supposed to comply with Federal disability accommodation laws. Now, the company hiring SHOULD have told you to allow extra time because of the needed accommodation. but to outright refuse? You possibly opened yourself up to a Federal Disability discrimination lawsuit.


Per your handbook:

"A notary public is commissioned by the State of Oregon to provide a service to the public. The law does not state that notaries MUST serve the public, but if service is refused without just cause, the notary public and their employer could face a civil law suit. ORS 194.010(1)."

Did you catch that? You must have JUST CAUSE for refusal.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/10 1:07pm
Msg #335174

(oops, that wasn't supposed to go there) n/m

Reply by jba/fl on 5/6/10 1:55pm
Msg #335207

I do feel she had just cause for refusal. JMHO n/m

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/6/10 12:44pm
Msg #335162

Whatever. I think DD/OR acted in a discriminatory manner

and although he can give a million reasons why he refused this assignment, it all comes down to the fact that the signer was blind and DD didn't want to take the time to accomodate him.

I stand by what I have said above.

I'm done with this thread.

Reply by desktopfull on 5/6/10 9:15pm
Msg #335341

Re: Whatever. I think DD/OR acted in a discriminatory manner

Typical flower child response.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/7/10 11:03am
Msg #335413

If you knew me at all you would no that I am definitely

not a flower child.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/6/10 12:49pm
Msg #335164

Re: Escrow Quick

"I walked out of the signing yesterday when I discovered that I would have to read 183 pages to him. So now they're trying to find a notary that is stupid enough to do it. The borrower is blind and you will have to read 183 pages to him"

Why would you consider a notary who is willing to assist a blind person stupid??
You say in another post that the borrowers friend was willing to read the documents to him, couldn't you have called the company and apprise them of the situation and ask if you could leave borrowers copies for the friend to read to him and make arrangements to return when he had read them (I can almost guarantee that the friend wouldn't have read all pages to him - he would fall asleep halfway through the mortgage!)
I have notarized for people with disabilities and we sometimes have to go the extra mile to assist them. May not be the "job" of the notary, but it is an act of human kindness.

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 1:13pm
Msg #335176

Re: Escrow Quick

Sylvia, I mentioned the fact that a notary would have to read 183 pages because it's true and they should be aware of it. I just meant the notary would be stupid if she/he didn't charge more because of the time involved. At the signing, everything happened too fast. I didn't walk out because he was blind. I walked out primarily because the roomate wanted to take over the signing, which is against the law. They didn't give me a chance to work out any kind of arrangement because they were both trying to argue with me. I just wanted to escape. I wasn't the first notary that walked out on them, and I won't be the last. Don't you think the company knew what the score was? Of course they knew he was blind. That's why they lied to me and didn't tell me everything. Of course, I feel sorry for the guy but I am a business and I don't run my business on feelings. Does a mortgage company feel sorry for you if you're ill and can't make your payments? Does the phone company feel sorry for you if you're ill and can't pay them? I don't think so.

Reply by Notarysigner on 5/6/10 1:00pm
Msg #335168

90 page oregon handbook

It's not 183 pages but page 10 Chapter two might end all this if you read it.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/6/10 1:04pm
Msg #335171

Re: 90 page oregon handbook

James
Doesn't that section only refer to employers and notaries. DD isn't an employee.

I am surprised though that the Oregon handbook only addresses the blind using a signature stamp and not reading the document to them or anything else.

Reply by Notarysigner on 5/6/10 1:13pm
Msg #335177

Re: 90 page oregon handbook

Yes, it was the only thing close..except our wizard Marian (said fondly) pin-pointed the issue.

Reply by VioCa on 5/6/10 1:18pm
Msg #335181

Re: 90 page oregon handbook

I've had this happened to me a few years back and I decidedd to stay, but only because I was available for about three more hours.
As much as we want to accomodate, sometimes it is not possible because of our schedule
This is no discrimination when we are caught in a situation that we had no prior notice about it
The title co tried to avoid paying the extra dollar for the circumstances, so they got a no sign instead.
I would have offered to go back later after all the docs were being read to the borrower (with the Title co approval). If that wasn't an option for them then I would have politely appologized and informed them that I do not have availability to assist with the reading process. Every time I had readers and I could not wait a few hours I offered this option and everybody was happy

Reply by DD/OR on 5/6/10 1:43pm
Msg #335195

Re: 90 page oregon handbook

As a rule, most companys don't want you to leave documents with the borrowers unless they're signed.

Reply by kathy/ca on 5/6/10 1:51pm
Msg #335203

"as a rule", but this is a unique situation. n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/10 1:56pm
Msg #335209

Re: 90 page oregon handbook

As a rule, most people are able to read document given to them, too.

When dealing with the disabled, you have to work around "the rules" --- what you did, DD, was just assume and make a decision. Now, they should have told you...yes... but YOU SHOULD have tried make it work, too, rather than just walking out. That's where you messed up, IMO.

Dealing with the disabled ALWAYS involves extra time and cost. That's a reality of doing business. There's this pesky thing called the Federal Disability guidelines... annoying to you? Perhaps. But all the same, sometimes you have to think a little bit, be compassionate and come up with a solution.

I don't think anybody actually thinks YOU were supposed to read all those documents.

As a rule, business owners don't allow pets in their stores. HOWEVER, Federal law requires them to do so if a disabled person needs an assistance animal.

In other words... sometimes the "rules" just don't apply.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/10 1:07pm
Msg #335173

"I don't have to notarize something...."

You said, "I don't have to notarize something just because someone asks me to."

Uhm... actually, YES you do. The whole idea of being an independent Notary means that you are supposed to comply with lawful requests for notarization.

And as a business owner, you are supposed to comply with Federal disability accommodation laws. Now, the company hiring SHOULD have told you to allow extra time because of the needed accommodation. but to outright refuse? You possibly opened yourself up to a Federal Disability discrimination lawsuit.


Per your handbook:

"A notary public is commissioned by the State of Oregon to provide a service to the public. The law does not state that notaries MUST serve the public, but if service is refused without just cause, the notary public and their employer could face a civil law suit. ORS 194.010(1)."

Did you catch that? You must have JUST CAUSE for refusal.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/10 1:16pm
Msg #335180

...and here's how I would have handled it....

Just call the company and tell them that the person needs extra time and accommodation in order to review the documents. Ask if you can leave a copy with them and return later in the next day or two.

How hard is that?

Reasonable accommodation for the disabled is a RIGHT... and it's a Federal law that business owners need to comply with.

Reply by CaliNotary on 5/6/10 1:28pm
Msg #335186

Re: "I don't have to notarize something...."

"Did you catch that? You must have JUST CAUSE for refusal."

The just cause is that the borrower was not ready to sign the document so she could notarize it.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/10 1:36pm
Msg #335190

Re: "I don't have to notarize something...."

I actually completely agree with you on that...

HOWEVER... I think DD approached it all wrong.


She said, "I walked out of the signing yesterday when I discovered that I would have to read 183 pages to him."

That's her reason for refusing? No... clearly she handled it improperly. While the frustration over the situation is justified, it could have been handled easily. She wasn't expected to read all those pages.... the individual needed time. So, get permission, give them time and come back later? Why walk out in anger? That's just unprofessional and rude... AND it shows discriminatory action.

Reply by kathy/ca on 5/6/10 1:49pm
Msg #335200

Marian, I totally agree with you! Professionalism would have

totally made this situation a non issue!

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 5/6/10 1:49pm
Msg #335201

ADA also states that

a reasonable notice must be given when possible that an accommodation is required so the person giving service has the time to adjust. The person with a disability has certain responsibilities under this law also. In this instance, the hiring authority has plenty of time to request that an accommodation be made. They did not comply, so there is nothing here under the ADA. I dealt with this a lot during my corporate employment. We would hire someone and then once hired demand an accommodation for a disability they did not disclose. Based on that, we legally could and did terminate. Sad thing was, had they been honest from the start, they could have been accommodated, as in this case.

That being said, DD's customer service skills definitely need polishing up. I had a mentor growing up that could sell a bottle of water to a drowning man. You are right in saying something probably could have been worked out, but I see no legal action here.

Reply by LKT/CA on 5/6/10 1:09pm
Msg #335175

5 Star Posts, CaliNotary!!!

Agree completely with CaliNotary, BobbyCT, and HughsNationSAA.....

Reply by jba/fl on 5/6/10 1:53pm
Msg #335206

Re: 5 Star Posts, CaliNotary!!!

Me too. And, LKT - your posts have been right on target also.

There was not enough pre-signing disclosure to the notary and what followed was unreasonable.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 5/6/10 1:20pm
Msg #335183

Re: Escrow Quick-- Pay attention, Robert.

There should have been full disclosure on the nature of the assignment by Escrow Quick so DD/OR could properly price and schedule the assignment.

That being said, I had a similar situation back in the "good old days" when I had multiple assignments in a day. This was the second signing in a string of 6. Needless to say, if I would have stayed for the entire reading at that time, the remaining 4 would not have been done by me. 4 others would have been inconvenienced by the 1. The blind BO had a friend there to read the docs. I got the LO on the phone, had them call the land line back and explained the situation. I told him to page me when they were ready for me. I went and was able to complete the remaining 4 assignments before I was paged. I went back and completed the blind signing.

Now, Robert, neither you nor I know exactly what happened in this instance, but since you have no experience at loan signings, perhaps you should not have commented. Yes I believe we do have a duty to all who request our services. In my situation, what about my duty to the other 4 who would have been displaced or canceled because the scope of the assignment was not disclosed by the person who hired me? Some decisions have to be made. You don't inconvenience the whole lot just because of one. I simply moved the assignment to the end of the list and gave them a choice of re-scheduling or getting another notary. I wonder what you would have done given these circumstances. Throw the other 4 under the bus? Make them all late? Was I discriminating against a blind person? Now DD/OR did not state what other work he had for that day, but I am willing to bet the day did not include the surprise of staying 6-8 hours at one place.


While this entire situation may have been handled better by DD/OR (don't know for sure, as I wasn't there), the problem began when Escrow Quick not disclosing the entire scope of the assignment. DD/OR is due some compensation for the time spent. DD/OR fee for this assignment should have been a lot more than just a normal signing do compensate for the time spent and he was unable to do that because he was not given the proper information.

Reply by LINDETTE HENDRICKS on 5/6/10 6:25pm
Msg #335302

Re: Thank goodness Glen

I have read through most of the posts and I must say I am shocked and amazed at all of the people who felt like DD should have stayed under those circumstances. For everyone who doubts the borrower and his roommate were being abusive consider this. They were probably already upset about the previouse notary who walked out. I can't say how many times I walked into a borrowers home and they were upset with the LO and tried to take it out on me. Personally I usually combat those situations by killing them with kindness ,which I would have done in this instance also, by politly excusing myself. It can be a very scary situation to be in someones house who is upset because your not doing something they want. As Glen mentioned in his post persons with disabilities must make PRIOR arrangements to be accomidated. My father has MS and is confined to a wheelchair so we often have to call ahead to resturants etc, to make sure they can handel what we need. No way should a notary be expected to stay while a person reads 183 pages of language that most people dont understand anyway.(loan doc language). That would have lead to 1000 questions that DD couldn't answer anyway. This signing should have been handeld by the LO or the docs delivered early so that by the time a notary showed up all they would have to read was the notarized documents. One more thought. What if the borrower later claimed they were not read everything, I would not want to take on that responsibility. Borrower should have someone they trust completely to read to them and who would sign a document stating they read every word. Im sure when the SOS came up with the read the entire documment they did not think it would be a 183 page package.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/6/10 6:49pm
Msg #335308

Re: Thank goodness Glen

"Im sure when the SOS came up with the read the entire documment they did not think it would be a 183 page package. "

The reading only refers to documents that are needing notarization, not loan packages

Reply by NCLisa on 5/6/10 1:39pm
Msg #335192

Re: Escrow Quick

I've done closings for the blind, and was never required to read the entire package to them. I made a point to read the hud to them and go over the highlights of the note, which are now the 3rd page of the hud. Gave them the same "gist" of each document they were signing and got their hand to the sig line. I did date for them. Took a bit longer than normal, 60 minutes instead of 30. I did know they were blind in advance, and made sure I had enough time.

I would never sit there and read 183 pages to anyone. Not my job.

Reply by PAW on 5/6/10 1:57pm
Msg #335211

My thoughts ...

First, let me say that I have not read each post. I have read many of them. My thoughts on this is first, we weren't there and we all know that posts do not really express feelings nor show attitudes clearly. Second, there is a big difference between discrimination and unreasonable accommodation request. DD may have come across in an over-reactive mode, but I sincerely do not believe that to be the case. Had Escrow Quick been upfront with the needs of the signer, I'm sure that an equitable solution could be found and the signing would have taken place. Dropping the 'extra' conditions of the signing on the signing agent at the last minute, leaves the signing agent unprepared and may not be able to accommodate the signer.

I have been dealing with folks with disabilities and those who work with those with disabilities just about my entire adult life, having a daughter who is disabled since birth. Many folks are not cut out to work with the disabled or handicapped. Others prefer to work with them. I don't have any less respect for a person who wishes not to be accommodating than one is will jump at the chance.

Again, I believe the whole issue could have been avoided altogether is Escrow Quick presented ALL the facts before hand, or at least, let the signing agent make contact with the signers in time to reach a reasonable accommodating solution.

Reply by MW/VA on 5/6/10 2:13pm
Msg #335229

Re: My thoughts ...

Thanks, Paul. You're always the voice of reason & sanity & keep emotional reactions from dictating your responses. It's always refreshing.

Reply by John/CT on 5/6/10 6:35pm
Msg #335306

And, most welcome! :>) n/m