Posted by James Dawson on 9/4/10 12:26pm
Msg #351558

Does the privacy disclosures included in the loan..

..package, also include the notary?

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 9/4/10 12:43pm
Msg #351560

Generally speaking my vote is: Yes

I would think that the privacy issue of borrowers names is covered in that SA's are acting as agents of a SS or TC. By that I mean that the financial info involved, the results of the signing, the names etc. should not be discussed in a way that would allow anyone outside of the process to know who they (borrowers), are or any of their personal information. Not to mention that to do so is not professional.

With that said, in TX our logs are considered public records and as such the information is available to the public upon request, and following the guidelines. But that's not the same as offering their information at the drop of a hat.

Reply by James Dawson on 9/4/10 1:14pm
Msg #351562

Re: Generally speaking my vote is: Yes

Yea, I was kinda thinking along those lines.

I've noticed maybe just a little bit too much info is being offered by some poster. I Do respect the posters who are creative enough to change the information just enough to not disclose the actual time, name and place. Something we should all practice IMO.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/4/10 2:47pm
Msg #351564

Re: Generally speaking my vote is: Yes

I know some CA disagree with me... but in CA our journals are public record, too... to the point where the public does have access to specific records if they properly request them. By doing so they need to know the name of the person signing, the month/year and the nature of the document signed. That's it. By law, if they request that in writing, we have to respond within 15 days.

So, while access is quite limited, it is still considered a public record.

I think that the privacy rules also apply to us, but I also think that we each should have our own privacy guidelines.

For example, I had an appointment with a couple last year... a couple that is VERY prominent individual our community. It was interesting to me because what he and his wife were doing was in DIRECT opposition to... let's just say... a position that they maintain.

Beyond that, I'd not feel comfortable disclosing more because I'm positive it could damage his reputation. And frankly... it's none of my business. I don't have any affiliations with this person at all, but having grown up in this town, I know exactly who he is, and I know plenty of people who DO have connections to him. When I hear some of them talk, I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut about it. However, it's not exactly private information, either. Anybody with half a brain could look up public documents to learn this.

I think part of being a notary involves a great deal of discretion. We're exposed to so many "delicate" situations that we just need to shut up and tune out.

I do that a lot when I'm at a local detention center. I'm often sitting right next to an attorney as he discusses legal issues with his clients. I've learned how to tune myself out of those situations and concentrate on something else.

It is tough, though, when you have a situation that you wish you could gossip about. 99% of the time, gossip is just pointless. I'm guilty of it myself, but I really try not to. I credit that to a good friend who always said, "Use good judgment and practice prudent silence."

However... there is always a time when speaking up is the right thing to do. When a wrong should be made right, to teach a lesson or something similar to that. But idle gossip or revealing details without permission? Not quite the same.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 9/4/10 6:13pm
Msg #351588

Probably

***SA's are acting as agents of a SS or TC.***

Legally, an agent is one acting on behalf of a principal, and has the authority to bind the principal, so a signing agent is actually not an agent. I would think, though, that since the agent is carrying out the business of the principal, even though the SA may be a subcontractor, that he/she would be bound by the umbrella of the lender or TC's privacy policy. Certainly any borrower would be inclined to think so, and unless a notary public is going to present his/her own privacy policy for consideration by the borrower, then the borrower should be entitled to rely upon that presented by the lender and/or TC.

That privacy would, though, be mitigated in states where journals are public information, as in Texas, to the extent that closing information is included in a journal, i.e., DL info, DOB, deeds, etc.

JMO

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 9/8/10 4:10pm
Msg #351902

Thanks for the correction, Hugh. :-) n/m

Reply by MW/VA on 9/4/10 2:55pm
Msg #351565

Absolutely. We're part of the loan process & need to be GLBA complaint. That's one of the reasons the background check issue was raised a few years ago. GLBA or not, IMO a notary would be expected to keep the client's info confidential. We are notaries, not the town crier.
We have several notaries who post here who deal with high profile clients all the time, and I'm sure their level of professionalism is that they keep all that info confidential.

Reply by MW/VA on 9/4/10 3:01pm
Msg #351566

Someone caught it with msg. 351530 & it's been deleted.

I'm sure Harry wouldn't want to be part of a lawsuit for making that kind of info. public.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 9/4/10 3:16pm
Msg #351571

Re: Someone caught it with msg. 351530 & it's been deleted.

Actually, the original poster (who sent me a PM) immediately regretted the post and requested it be deleted. The signer's last name was quickly removed from the subject line in the wee wee hours early this morning, and the entire post later deleted. Just FWIW...

Reply by MW/VA on 9/4/10 3:19pm
Msg #351573

Re: Someone caught it with msg. 351530 & it's been deleted.

Yes, we all have those moments. Some have said there should be an "edit" button that would allow us to delete or edit a post we've made. NR is great about responding quickly though.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/4/10 3:31pm
Msg #351576

Re: Someone caught it with msg. 351530 & it's been deleted.

I'm sure the original poster meant no harm at all. In that particular case... in a way, it would be somewhat interesting for us, as notaries, to know. I would have had a difficult time not saying it, either.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 9/4/10 3:33pm
Msg #351577

Re: Someone caught it with msg. 351530 & it's been deleted.

GBLA aside, I understand the excitement of the notary - not to mention the irony - that she was signing you-know-who. If I were the notary (and it coulda been me cos the notary and I cover the same area), you-know-who would have had to call security to drag me out after the signing cos I would have unloaded on her a long list of very important matters I've been dying to share with the SOS .... ! (So it's probably just as well I wasn't the notary)!

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 9/4/10 3:35pm
Msg #351578

Woops. I meant 'GLBA ' in previous post. n/m

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 9/4/10 5:59pm
Msg #351587

***[We] need to be GLBA compliant.***

Absolutely. Heck, I'd say that even if a person isn't a Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual, we need to be equally discreet. I mean, straights have privacy rights, too, even is they aren't GLBA members.

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 9/8/10 4:14pm
Msg #351903

LOL n/m

Reply by dickb/wi on 9/4/10 3:47pm
Msg #351580

i think everyone is painting this with.....

to wide a brush....we are not a party to the loan....the privacy statement incl in the loan package is the lenders statement of what information they [the lender] will keep confidential as is the ptivacy statement in the title docs [the title co's statement]......we at least in wi as a notary public are bound by state statutes to keep information that we see confidential.....also notaries in those states that subscribe to the uniform notary laws are bound to keep information confidential....but i don't believe that was the question....."does the privacy disclosures [statement] incl in the loan package apply to us?".....my abswer is no......jmho

Reply by MW/VA on 9/4/10 4:52pm
Msg #351584

All subject to interpretation, I suspose, but we handle the

loan docs & all the borrower's personal info., identification, ss #s, financial info., etc.
I don't know how anyone could see that we weren't included in the privacy statement.
My humble opinion & the policy that I follow.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/5/10 4:41am
Msg #351606

Agree, Dick - right intent, just wrong disclosure

The lender's Privacy Disclosure is directed towards the consumer as required by the GLBA.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) is crafted to protect the consumer from disclosure of their non-public/personal information by financial institutions - this excerpt would seem to cover us:

(2) Exception

This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institution's own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.

(c) Limits on reuse of information

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.
-------------------------------------------

Having been through the corporate-mill & many very dry hours of compliance training and the on-site spot checks by the FTC, the last half of the last sentence "...unless such disclosure would be lawful if made ...by the financial institution" is something that still courses through my veins & causes me to harp here pretty regularly about such things as leaving information on people's voicemails.

Reply by LKT/CA on 9/4/10 6:36pm
Msg #351589

Celebrity or Joe Schmoe (What's the big deal?)

Whether a celebrity, public official or Joe Schmoe - they all have this in common: They must sign on the line above where their name is printed.

Reply by GA/Atty on 9/4/10 7:41pm
Msg #351592

Yeah but this is a really HUGE A-Lister! n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/5/10 12:55am
Msg #351604

Re: Yeah but this is a really HUGE A-Lister!

Yup... in this case, it's one of those that would be VERY interesting for notaries to know about... and as somebody else mentioned, if it were me... I'd not leave that appointment until after I'd had a bit of a chat with this individual. It's just not an opportunity that comes along everyday.

Of course... I'd then be sure to ask permission of this person if I could share the general experience with other professionals who would be interested in the conversation.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 9/5/10 4:02am
Msg #351605

Privacy in our homes and papers is a Constitutional Right.

That's the First Law.

So, I see "Privacy Disclosures" as mere adjuncts to the personal Oath I took to be Commissioned in my State, which, guarantees my integrity as to personal known information.

My first loyalty is to the Law. The second is to my client, which, by necessity, incorporates the First Loyalty: To diligently guard the Privacy of my clients - to the extent available by law.

I've gone to great lenghts to disguise my Particular Business with phone-answerers/ Receptionists/Bouncers/all Front-liners, really, including machines, to maintain those loyalties to the Law - to protect the Privacy of my clients' Personal Business.

Reply by James Dawson on 9/5/10 10:47am
Msg #351612

Very interesting all, thanks for the answers to my question n/m