Posted by Pat/CA on 10/24/10 7:22pm
Msg #358031

Escrow employees that charge travel fees, etc. in-office

When I was a loan officer, (and knowing many loan officers), many times I went to the title or escrow companies do be with the client at the closing. Such would be the scene:

I'm in the conference room, brwr. walks in, notary (escrow or title officer) asks for their i.d. and heads back to their office - after verifying that's actually them.

I'm left at the table to go through every loan doc as if I'm the notary, although I'd just make sure they sign all docs.

Officer records everything in their journal after we leave, once I'd given them all the docs.

Final HUD-1 shows $150.00 or so notary fees, but all they did was notarize 3-8 signatures, average.

That is very irritating to me when they don't have the costs I have associated with being a traveling notary. Gas, auto wear & tear, paper, printing, office apparatus, not to mention most of their cost of maintaining their commission is usually paid for by the company they work for.

Does this bother anyone else? It CA one cannot charge more than $10.00 per signature so what they are doing is illegal... and yet it's rampant!

Reply by PAW on 10/24/10 7:31pm
Msg #358033

What they are doing is not illegal. There are other documents which need to be notarized in a real estate transaction that you probably don't see. Further, in CA and other escrow funding states, the fees and charges listed on the HUD are estimates based on policy and history. (This is true also for table funding states, but should reflect the actual charges.) After disbursement, the HUD may show the actual fees and charges. (Usually doesn't happen, but it should, imo.)

Reply by Pat/CA on 10/24/10 7:40pm
Msg #358035

Hmmm, I did not realize there are other docs that need notarizing in the transaction. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

The discrepancy I do see however (I think) is that the FINAL HUD-1 and the estimated HUD-1 show the $150.00 notary fee (or whatever amount listed).

An example: I had a brwr, single, whose loan docs needed 3 notarizations. Estimate and final HUD showed $150.00 notary fees. It was my loan and we always allowed $150.00 for notary, but being the loan officer, I couldn't notarize it.

So with the loan docs, there were $30.00 in notary charges and I just highly doubt another 12 real estate docs needed notarizing.

That's just one example, but I've seen it too often to think something isn't quite right.

Reply by Philip Johnson on 10/24/10 7:42pm
Msg #358037

So as the borrower's rep (LO) did you ask for

the $ to be rebated back to your customer?

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 10/25/10 6:54am
Msg #358063

I've been noticing that addendums are not part of

the HUDs in some of the closings that I am doing. And that concerns me, as this should be attached. Its where most of the added charges, including mine, are listed and the BO has a right to see these fees clearly broken down.

....thought this was supposed to be part of the HUD anyways as part of the new HUD overhall, but some that prepare these, feel that its NOT a necessary component or part of the HUD, though I seriously do not see that way, and totally disagree....

Reply by janCA on 10/25/10 9:09am
Msg #358081

PAW

Paul, I've heard this stated many times, that there are other docs that "may" need to have signatures notarized that we don't know about. What docs would that be and not be within the loan package. I would think that any and all documents pertaining to a particular loan would be in this set of docs for the borrower/s to see. I don't get it.

Reply by PAW on 10/25/10 9:52am
Msg #358084

Re: PAW

The most common that I'm aware of, are property related, such as the DOT/Mortgage when it changes ownership. There are sometimes affidavits by the lender and/or title company that state certain things were done during the processing of the loan or property inspections and even underwriting. And the satisfaction of the mortgage sometimes has a lender affidavit.

The only documents that require notarization and are included in the package, are typically those the borrower/homeowner needs to sign.

Reply by Philip Johnson on 10/24/10 7:34pm
Msg #358034

Not my experience, when buying various houses

the TC employee started and finished the transaction. Second, why do you care? We had a term in the Army that was used very widely. "Keep your eyes in your own lane" a phrase I still follow today.

Reply by Pat/CA on 10/24/10 7:52pm
Msg #358039

Re: Not my experience, when buying various houses

That kind of is my point: the TC employee should be there throughout the transaction. I don't feel legally a loan officer should EVER be the one going over the loan docs, talk about a conflict of interest, of course I had financial interest in it closing.

I have many signings where the loan officer is present, not to do the notary's job, but as support for their client or in case they have any questions, etc.

And the reason I care is that I'm hearing numerous escrow/title people say that because of the economy, they're doing their own notaries lately; I can indeed understand that, but just charge what's legal!

And although I can agree with your Army term in many facets of life, it seems to me that a majority of the reason we're in this industry mess is because too many 'kept their eyes in their own lane.' Though surely that's not meant as an indictment to anyone on this board.

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/24/10 9:54pm
Msg #358042

Re: Not my experience, when buying various houses

<<<I'm left at the table to go through every loan doc as if I'm the notary,...... I don't feel legally a loan officer should EVER be the one going over the loan docs, talk about a conflict of interest, of course I had financial interest in it closing.>>>

HUH?!?!?!?!?!? What conflict of interest???? You are involved in the process for months while the Notary sees the docs for the first and ONLY time after all is "said and done"....you get a commission of $X,XXX, the Notary gets $XXX - yet you're left at the table to go through every loan doc AS IF you are a Notary....ROTFL & L & L !!!!

If LO's indeed did their jobs by reviewing the numbers with the borrowers PRIOR to the signing, appointments would go smoother and faster. As it stands, the Notary is left to "put out fires" mainly because LO's failed to connect with borrowers prior to the signing.

BTW, what *exactly* is the conflict of interest you speak of?

Reply by Pat/CA on 10/24/10 11:11pm
Msg #358047

Re: Not my experience, when buying various houses

Indeed the way one's words are written on here aren't always the way they were meant to be said, or stated as clearly as possible.

When I stated "I'm left at the table to go through every loan doc as if I'm the notary" I was merely trying to visually place the reader there. In other words, no one was at the table except the LO and the borrowers, which usually, it's the borrowers and the NOTARY at minimum at the signing.

Where I can see a conflict of interest is in the fact that indeed a loan officer has a financial interest in the loan. So if that loan officer has been less than stellar in this transaction and no one else is at the signing table, it opens the possibility for them to quickly go over those documents while many borrowers just sign away, trusting all they're told is true by the LO's. And yes borrowers have a responsibility to understand the terms, costs, etc., but I still believe a loan officer should never be legally entitled to be the sole closer.

"As if I'm the notary" meant for that transaction. I'm not the notary for that transaction, nor should I be. IMO, in CA anyway, either a notary or a title person should be at every closing, not someone who has a direct benefit in it. That isn't fair to borrowers... we still live in an ugly world full of greedy & dishonest people!

My complaint was never being at the signing as an LO, as clarified above. I consider myself a very honest notary and the same for when I was a loan officer. I agree as a notary that if LO's did their jobs and reviewed numbers before the signing our jobs would be easier. I also always did that, but keep in mind, many times the docs aren't received until an hour before the scheduled signing either, therefore, I'd request they bring their GFE so they KNEW what I said then and did now were the same!

Sometimes on here, instead of people asking for clarification, they appear to be on an attack. I find this difficult to understand.

All I'm saying is that I don't think it's right to see notaries in the title business make a lot of money that's not made legally. I'm a black and white person, right is right, wrong is wrong!

Reply by jba/fl on 10/24/10 11:11pm
Msg #358048

Re: Not my experience, when buying various houses

"And the reason I care is that I'm hearing numerous escrow/title people say that because of the economy, they're doing their own notaries lately; I can indeed understand that, but just charge what's legal!"

I don't know what they are doing to their own notaries lately, but I doubt that they can charge legally for what they might be doing! And to admit it online?! um, um, umm.

Reply by Pat/CA on 10/24/10 11:15pm
Msg #358049

Re: Not my experience, when buying various houses

I'm sorry, you've lost me on this one.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/24/10 11:38pm
Msg #358050

Re: Not my experience, when buying various houses

It's usually helpful to visualize a tongue firmly planted in cheek, when reading jba's posts...

She was referring to the fact that we don't "do" notaries (unless you're extra-specially close). "Notaries" is plural for the people who have a notary commission, not the act of completing a notarization. What we "do" is we notarize signatures. Just a little grammatical thing to pay attention to. It's pretty excusable for other people to make this mistake, but those of us who do this as a profession should probably get it right.

Sorry this correction had to be at your expense, but it's something that has been addressed here too many times to count. I'm sure this won't be the last time, either!

Reply by Pat/CA on 10/24/10 11:50pm
Msg #358051

Re: Not my experience, when buying various houses

Haha, oh my, I committed that cardinal offense, on here no less?! I indeed do know better, WHOOPS! Thanks for clarifying. Really, I get it!

Reply by jba/fl on 10/25/10 12:06am
Msg #358053

Re: Not my experience, when buying various houses

This was such a solemn day that needed some "gotcha" type break for LOL

Reply by Texas 911 Notary.com on 10/24/10 11:56pm
Msg #358052

Are you saying that the notary left the room and the borrowers signed the docs in her absence?
Then, afterward, the notary came back and notarized the signatures including on the documents the borrower has to acknowledge and SIGN while in the PRESENCE of the notary? It seems you me that you were more a witness to a potential lawsuit than a LO at a closing.

Reply by James Dawson on 10/25/10 12:44am
Msg #358056

Could it be me?

I just re-read your post a couple of times for understanding and hopefully I got it right. You are addressing the issue of the notary AT the TC is getting what's on the HUD1 and incurred NO traveling expenses right? Did NOT print out the Docs, right?

>>>> That is very irritating to me when they don't have the costs I have associated with being a traveling notary. Gas, auto wear & tear, paper, printing, office apparatus, not to mention most of their cost of maintaining their commission is usually paid for by the company they work for. <<<<<

If this is the case, then I can safely say your post is indeed very confusing. Illegal, dishonest, I don't think so unless the notary did not witness the borrower signing the Docs. Notary fees include more than calculating charges at $10.00 a signature IMO.

This has been discuss many times and I believe the outcome was what the notary "charges" must fit within the guidelines of allowable expenses. Those are state specific and can be audited.

Last I checked, the Notary Fee on the HUD1 was NOT determined by the Notary.

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 10/25/10 6:48am
Msg #358062

Totally unfair and truly pisses me off that they are the

ones playing the nsa role and NOT doing the true job, then having the nerve to cheat the BO by collecting nsa fees of $150 or more! What balls!

Some of these same folks then turn around, and have the absolute audacity to low ball real nsa's fees while working as shoddy part-time SS owners - (folks that while still employed by their TC or lender open up a side SS and profit off of their employer ) Though not all fit this category, but most do IMO) and to make money off the backs of BO's and NSA's.

These are the same folks that give us so much $hit about our fees and I believe are the culprits who started coining excuses like, "....but you're only working for less than an hour, its and in and out closing, its only so many miles from you, your in the same zip code, bla bla etc!"

Talk about your double standard and true hypocrisy!

Unfortunately, that same crap is happening over here too. My office is literally on the same block as a TC, and the same thing is told to me every couple of months that I go in and drop off my cards....'okay thanks, but we use an in-house notary'....and I know they are charging at least $150 for notary fees to their customers and literally do NOT perform the true nsa job!

Yes Pat, I'm sick of that double standard $hit over here too!

Reply by James Dawson on 10/25/10 9:20am
Msg #358082

Good Morning Cari!!! n/m