Posted by PA_Notary_II on 1/8/13 2:17pm
Msg #449447
Secures Settlements revisited...
This is the company that provides bgc's for a $99 fee and is claimimg that we will not be able to perform witness signings without it. I was just informed by an SS that all Notaries in her stable will be required to purchase this bgc or the lenders will not accept their doc packages if they have not been vetted. Secured has tried a new twist by going directly to the lenders and advising them that they are liable for damages if anyone closing their loans does not have this background check.
Many lenders are buying into this B.S. and have insisted on everyone having a bgc from Secured. They claim it is required by the new CFPB rules that went into effect on 01-01-2013. I have read and read and can find nothing in these new rules that verify this. Even assuming this were true, how can anyone require that we buy a product available from several sources from THEIR choice of company. Many if not all mortgage doc packages have a form that advised the borrower that the lender cannot dictate from whom HO insurance is purchased, only that HO insurance is required. How are we any different? I have, and will continue to refuse to be bullied into purchasing a product I neither want or need. If my NotRot bgc isn't acceptable....tough luck.
Once again a bottom feeder is attempting to bleed the lowest compensated individual in the loan process of their hard earned money. I sincerely hope that all Notaries will reject this out of hand and let the lenders see if they would rather pay an attorney $300 to $500 to get their docs signed.
|
Reply by dgd/CA on 1/8/13 6:46pm
Msg #449485
This opportunistic company (obviously employing top notch Sales Personnel) has been a continual source of worry for me. Particularly when they added "NSA" to their arsenal (as it relates to their interpretation and implementation of the new Consumer Finance Laws). I came very close to actually signing up with them the end of November (due to my consternation that California requires that we pay for a backqround check encompassing DOJ and FBI) , some sense said "wait, not so fast!" Then, in December, this was issued by Californias Department of Corporations:
http://www.corp.ca.gov/Commissioner/Bulletins/pdf/0001-12.pdf
I've been waiting... waiting... waiting... it appears as though they (hopefully) may very well have to refund (for those in California) not only the initial charges, but be heavily fined as well. Sooooooo Keeping My Fingers Crossed.
A side note: as I had started the process, but failed to complete, prior to the issuance of this bulletin, I have received 11 emails either inquiring as to why I have not proceeded, or requesting that I do so. For now, I will continue to wait....
|
