Posted by HisHughness on 11/30/10 11:26pm
Msg #363302
Long, frustrated vent
After eight years as a signing agent and thousands of closings, I have finally, and reluctantly, reached the conclusion that neither title companies nor lenders are really concerned about quality.
I reached that conclusion after a signing this afternoon that was the epitome of something all of us have encountered time after time: The utter lack of uniformity in notary certifications.
I understand that there are states out there that have imposed, through legislation, some uniformity on certifications. But that doesn’t really address the cause of the problem, which is the uncaring attitude of lenders & title companies. If I’m wrong, I certainly won’t object to someone setting me straight.
This afternoon, though, I did a closing with nine different forms of acknowledgments and eight different forms of jurats. That same title company – incidentally, one with an excellent reputation – will send the same packet out with the same multiplicity of certifications heaven knows how many times this week. In doing so, it is just screaming for notaries to err because of the completely unnecessary complexity of so many different forms, all intended to accomplish precisely the same thing.
The problem, it seems to me, is simple enough to cure. There are two forms of notary certifications, an acknowledgement and a jurat. The lender and the title company each call their lawyers, tell them to call each other and between them work out one form for each certification. Then, regardless of the original source of any document, both lender and title company slap on their documents the previously approved certifications. And that way, in any given packet, there are only two forms for the notary to fill out, thus reducing the potential for errors substantially.
That seems simple enough to me. If it isn’t, somebody please tell me why. Otherwise, I’m let with the conclusion I originally voiced: I don’t think they really care about quality.
| Reply by Pat/CA on 12/1/10 12:27am
Msg #363309
I agree, and very much appreciate CA has done just that!
| Reply by Jack/AL on 12/1/10 12:37am
Msg #363312
But we've always done it that way!
To often, I get a feeling that such is the case, although I agree with the original post and suggested remedy.
| Reply by MichiganAl on 12/1/10 12:44am
Msg #363313
I've been shaking my head recently, but not because of the lack of uniformity in certs. For me the frustration has been over seeing ridiculously redundant docs over and over again. This says you have no other liens, and this says you have no other liens, and this says you occupy the property, and so does this. This says your income hasn't changed, this says you occupy the property and your income hasn't changed, this says your income hasn't changed and you haven't taken on any other liens, this says you don't have an escrow, so does this, and this, etc., etc., etc...
I just picture some uneducated grunt coming up with one nonsense form after another, "hey everyone, look at the great form I just created that reiterates the same thing as this other form but does it in a better way! Aren't I wonderful?!" Forms that take up only a third of the page but are on legal paper, packages that require every other form to be notarized (yet some title companies and lenders manage just fine with only two or three notarized docs required), forms that are generic with blanks everywhere and no information filled out whatsoever, forms that require the notary to notarize their own signature, blank acknowledgments attached to nothing that title companies want you to just toss in, and on and on and on.
No commitment to quality, no commitment to common sense, no commitment to doing what is best for the borrower, no commitment to being effective and concise, no commitment to creating a smooth closing. I really feel that despite what the mortgage industry has gone through over the last few years, they've learned little to nothing.
| Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/1/10 1:17am
Msg #363318
***No commitment to quality, no commitment to common sense, no commitment to doing what is best for the borrower, no commitment to being effective and concise, no commitment to creating a smooth closing. I really feel that despite what the mortgage industry has gone through over the last few years, they've learned little to nothing.***
Where is the NNA when it could REALLY do something useful for the profession?
I wonder if the CEO of any lender or any title company has ever sat down and actually looked at what goes out to a borrower?
| Reply by jba/fl on 12/1/10 7:23am
Msg #363334
"No commitment to quality, no commitment to common sense, no commitment to doing what is best for the borrower, no commitment to being effective and concise, no commitment to creating a smooth closing."
That sums up the whole thing - lack of commitment. I feel that this is also intertwined with yesterday's comments about the brain drain in the industry.
| Reply by James Dawson on 12/1/10 1:16am
Msg #363317
Agree with all of you and let me add the Doc that has me really going is the affidavit that the borrower swears to stating "there is no severe damage they don't know about!" Give me a break. If the appraiser didn't catch how are you if you don't even know about it? Gheezh
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/1/10 5:22am
Msg #363322
My take/theories on redundancy & lack of uniformity
As for the various notarial certs, I don't think we'll see changes any too soon unless/until the day comes where nationally uniform notarial certs are accepted. I also don't think it's so much a matter of lenders & title agents 'not caring' as much as it is that the notarial certs are simply not their domain - they're ours.
It is certainly POSSIBLE for state-specific certs to be placed on the docs - but would require money, time & more money to accomplish. Each & every doc that has a cert would have to have 50 versions, then be tagged in the software for its appropriate state. To go through this expense (first the lawyers, then the editors, then the software techs) to do something that is really our own annoyance is just not something I think we'll ever see happen. I guess the simple question is: Why would they, and why should they, when WE are responsible for that verbiage being correct for our own state?
As for the ridiculous redundancy - I have suspicions & theories but no real answers. What I know is that the 'doc management' systems are vastly more complicated than we imagine. One person with an ounce of common sense could say "geez, this is embarrassing, let's revise this document." Seems simple in our own sense of how things work - maybe they have to get permission, but then go into the system and edit, save, done. This might be true in a small, independent office who does their own docs (some title agents, perhaps) but lenders? Not so easy. They don't have an attorney, they have legal depts. They have tech depts, and secondary market depts and compliance depts and all those depts have to "work" on a single sentence getting written/edited/removed.
I suspect it's the secondary market that has an influence on the redundancy, to some degree. The lender would have its 'basic' loan pkg - and to that, certain investor-preferred or required documents might be added, tagged by the software to coincide with each specific loan product. Exactly as we see with FHA loans. Each loan product has a target - whether that target is within the lender's own portfolio, or the secondary market. The FHA requires their own special signature page to the Hud - it's ADDED to the pkg. Investor "A" requires their own version of Financial Status Affidavit, it gets ADDED to the pkg.
My personal 'fingernails on the chalkboard' docs are the ones you sometimes find from very small, independent settlement agents who are just doing them in Word, and are so unprofessionally written. Those make me feel embarrassed for them, and I have to tie my hands together to NOT retype their master copy for them & send it to them!
| Reply by Carole Breckbill on 12/1/10 7:06am
Msg #363332
Re: My take/theories on redundancy & lack of uniformity
In addition, an error occurs somewhere and a CEO says we need to have a doc that makes sure it doesn't happen again - lots of CYA docs in every pkg. Will it change? Probably not - unless every state follows CA's lead. If you really want something to get upset about, think how much money could be saved in our healthcare system if every health care provider used the same form to report/invoice the insurance companies. While the ack/jurat problem is an issue, my take is that if the lender/title company sends them to us, we need to get them signed and notarized - no matter how ineptly drawn.
| Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/1/10 7:51am
Msg #363336
Re: My take/theories on redundancy & lack of uniformity
>>>While the ack/jurat problem is an issue, my take is that if the lender/title company sends them to us, we need to get them signed and notarized - no matter how ineptly drawn.<<<
Um, no. We have laws to follow as notaries. Our laws in Florida specifically state the elements required for any notarial certificate. If a title company sends us a botched certificate that doesn't comply with Florida Statutes, it is our responsibility to fix it.
The notaries who simply "sign and stamp" whatever ridiculous certificate is put in front of them are the reason why the standards of this profession have been reduced to nothing.
We all took an oath of office. Our duty is to the state, first and foremost. The title company is absolute last on my list.
| Reply by PAW on 12/1/10 8:10am
Msg #363339
Thank the lawyers and underwriters
Documents and forms are made to address an issue or problem. However, if there is a problem or issue with the form, they are not changed, just another document or form added to the mix to clarify or correct erroneous information. A lawyer or underwriter doesn't want to step on a previous lawyer's or underwriter's toes by changing 'their' document, so they just add another one to the pile. So what took 8 pages 10 years ago, now takes 150 pages to accomplish the same thing. Lawyers/lawmakers keep changing the rules of the game, but no one changes the forms and docs to match the new rules (HUD-1 may be the only exception). Rather, they simply add corrective measures to the mess that no one can really figure out after it has been obfuscated beyond recognition.
| Reply by HisHughness on 12/1/10 9:37am
Msg #363362
Re: My take/theories on redundancy & lack of uniformity
*** Each & every doc that has a cert would have to have 50 versions, then be tagged in the software for its appropriate state.***
I don't think that is the case at all, Renee. Most states don't have mandated forms; suggested perhaps, even preferred, but not mandated. So a uniform certification goes on every document. If there are state requirements, then as you noted it is the notary's responsibility to conform it.
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 12/1/10 1:06pm
Msg #363423
You're hired, Hugh
Yes, what you suggest would be a lot simpler. It was just a little too simple & obvious for me to figure out, since I always seem to start at the deep end & work my way up. =)
| Reply by Bear900/CA on 12/1/10 10:19am
Msg #363374
Re: My take/theories on redundancy & lack of uniformity
I’ll add my two cents. Yes, accountability to the State is supreme. Next, you are in the business to make a living. Step up to the task. It is natural to second guess all the reasons for obfuscation. Try not to, but just in case here are just a couple of issues brokers deal with. By the way, they too get frustrated from lack of conformity and uniformity.
Banks, including major banks often interpret new regulations set forth by HUD and other agencies separately and differently from each other. Hence begins an entire chain of confusion and in-house remedies by everyone involved in the process depending on their own strict interpretation. HUD is aware of this but sweeping changes are rarely met with sweeping conformity. This does not take lenders off the hook if HUD decides to interpret against them.
These are not notary related other then perpetrating “home-made” forms to deal with and have signed for the benefit of all parties in the chain. The various parties (title, lender, broker) will all cover themselves or at least attempt to. Here is one example, I can give many.
Fannie spot audits banks underwriting to check for new debt among other things before they will purchase a loan. This sounds like a no-brainer but “recently incurred” debt was not caught in loans past. That means they have the right NOT to purchase a loan they otherwise would. If the borrower’s debt is higher then the loan application and credit report state they will refuse to take the loan. This creates a huge log jam.
To prevent this from happening, the bank’s underwriting will first conduct a pre-funding review of the loan to check among other things that debt has not increased. If they fund the loan without checking, they may be stuck with a loan they cannot sell to Fannie. Just a few of these can put some wholesalers out of business as their intent is to sell the loan to Fannie not service it.
This backs up to the loan broker/originator. If the bank can’t sell the loan they will force it back on the broker which in effect will put them out of business. Brokers and banks sign contracts to this effect. It’s a daunting situation.
This in turn backs up to the customer. Loan originators will caution the customer not to purchase anything on credit (new appliances, car, etc), and will often make them sign a “home-made” form listing the entire Do’s and Don’ts involved. These forms are often shared among brokers if they are any good. Sometimes they’re not. This is one of the simpler scenarios but look at what is involved. Multiply....
Another…the new GFE has no signature. Where is the verification of customer acceptance? Generally it’s on a homemade form though it may look professional. It is usually combined with an “intent to proceed” statement. You may or may not see this as some originators are more cautious then others.
There is no guidance in these areas outside of experience and knowing when to take cover. Recent laws that are sweeping in nature to protect the customer have made the loan process quite difficult for originators, processors, underwriters, lenders, title/escrow, CUSTOMER and….notaries. Join the club and get informed. Read, study, read.
Lenders, title/escrow, customer/notary may all be in different states supplying differently worded acknowledgements. Think about it, but you still need to conform to your state’s wording. I will line-through & initial, stamp, or attach a new acknowledgement if needed and have never had a return. Our turn to cover and stay in bounds.
| Reply by A S Johnson on 12/1/10 10:00am
Msg #363365
Hugh, as you know me, I am one that is as frustrated with the itmes sent in any of the packages we are asked to get signed.
In Texas and I only ask for us in Texas:
1st we need to have an education requirement for notaries with a proctered test.
A Deed of Trust of like document, being a recordable document, a Notary (or anyone witnessing the signing of these documents) should have to have a certifcation.
We should have a statewide organization for NSA as part of the the Texas Bar Assoc (Texas land and Title would be a secondary association NSAs should have a reconized part in).
To me most importantly, a legally manadeded "not for profit cooporative" (like a farm cooporative) to assign all signings in Texas. this should stop out of state for profit signing services from lowball fees and not even paying us or title/escrow companies from asking us to do something imporper such as back dating.
With all the interest involved I know this will never happen. I'm deaming.
.
|
|
