Posted by BrendaTx on 7/6/13 9:45am
Msg #475771

California AB 477 Update - Mandated reporting

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml;jsessionid=46df9f3d61d293180bd3e6344203

I am not a CA law smarty, but as of 7/3 the bill was noted "From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 2.) (July 2)."

The next hearing on this bill before it goes to the Senate is 8/12/13.

Yes, I know this has been discussed before, but I think that this update is worth mentioning.

Reply by Notarysigner on 7/6/13 10:17am
Msg #475775

Thank you Brenda, I don't have a problem with it.

Reply by Bear900/CA on 7/6/13 11:33am
Msg #475787

Aye! No big n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/6/13 5:28pm
Msg #475805

Seriously????

I think it's potentially a big deal. The fines for non-compliance go from $1000 - $5000. And it puts a larger target on our back for potential law suits, if a family member (and their attorney) sees the lack of a report by a notary as an angle to contest a notarized document down the road. Who needs that additional liability?

Can you really tell what might be going on behind the scenes in a matter of a few minutes with someone? I do agree that we should always be on the look out for abuse. I also applaud encouraging notaries to try to ensure that there is willingness on the part of the signer (and maybe that *should* be added to the state notary legal code). And providing instructional materials to notaries to assist with making those kinds of decisions is also a great idea. But "instructional materials" will not make up for the fact that we rarely have enough of an association with a person over a period of time to be able to detect when something untoward is going on. And while that would seem to be an excuse for not having to report (I haven't yet digested the full details of the law), I don't believe it would deter some from going after a notary if they felt there was a problem the notary didn't detect - or if they just wanted to dispute a notarized document.

If we do see something suspicious, I would love to see resources and guidelines be readily available to have a situation looked into. It would also be nice to have state law back us up for refusing to notarize in a situation where we're not confident about the willingness or competence of a signer. However, I believe that taking a punitive approach with the addition of civil penalties to notaries for failure to report, will only further discourage notaries from potentially putting themselves into those kinds of situations.

We're already talking about signers who are least likely to be able to get to a walk-in place where notary services are available, so they may be at the mercy of those of us who do mobile work. I think this law would likely cause many notaries to decline more general notary work than they might have otherwise because of the increased risk. For the small amount we're likely to make on those types of assignments, I think the risk will make many feel it just isn't worth it. So the net result may just be a significantly reduced level of service to a segment of the population who perhaps may be most in need.

I believe the intentions of this bill are very good, but that this approach will backfire and potentially do more harm than good. Another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences..."

Surely there is a better way to try to address this issue.

[NOTE to CA notaries: Feel free to copy or modify any of this to send to any of your state representatives, or committee members. More info on how to do that and who they are has been posted here previously. Any additional thoughts are appreciated.]

Reply by leeinla on 7/6/13 5:36pm
Msg #475806

Re: Seriously????

Great post Janet. I did sent an email to the staff of my state senator opposing the bill.
I hope all CA notaries will do the same. You expressed my views on the issue really well.

Reply by 101livescan on 7/6/13 6:33pm
Msg #475812

Re: Seriously???? WOW!

I see a LOT wrong with it, and I've discussed it with several judges and Deputy DAs in my county, they see a lot wrong with it too.

On a couple of occasions, I've been asked to notarize documents for people who are not in the "present" moment, and I have declined. I did not "report" the requests, but maybe I should have.

I don't know if it is the climate, the water quality or wine, that contributes to longevity around here on the Central Coast, but I see a lot of people in their 80s and 90s signing loan documents. I don't worry about them so much, it's the people I'm asked to visit in private homes, assisted care facilities, and hospitals where the appropriate methodologies for end of life scenarios have not been addressed, that I am concerned about. We've all got too much to lose in these instances, not materially so much as credibility, integrity and quality of our work. I THINK THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE, and I hope everyone on this forum will investigate and then write a letter to their representatives at the state level to nip this is the bud. We are at the low end of the totem pole, but stand to lose a great deal if named accountable in senior financial abuse.

Reply by Notarysigner on 7/7/13 1:50am
Msg #475826

Re: Seriously???? Yes..first of all you are speaking in

general terms IMO and I am talking about me. I do a lot of work for an attorney who practices "Elder Law" and I see an awful lot that a number of notaries don't.

The law will also weed-out a lot of these notaries who "think" they're doing someone a favor by bending the rules and causing havoc.

Right now we're dealing with an elder working as a maid/setter for a Judge who has her sleep in a garage with no heat. She has to pay rent and by the time she does she has 50 bucks left over. So you say that's ok? Well I'll tell you it isn't, besides having to have a license to rent property (here) it must be larger than 120 sq. feet. In the garage, with a car in it...your honor, please. Oh did I mention he has POA?

Yes, because of my experience of working with this attorney (she) I can recognize signs of elder abuse and differentiate between that and actual elder abuse!

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/7/13 5:11pm
Msg #475858

Re: Seriously???? Yes..first of all you are speaking in

I agree that there's nothing OK about the situation you describe. But there is nothing under current law that prohibits any of us from doing the right thing and getting involved when we see something like that.

"Yes, because of my experience of working with this attorney (she) I can recognize signs of elder abuse and differentiate between that and actual elder abuse!"

I think that's great! Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing, even if I wish I could, and I doubt that most notaries in our state can say the same thing. I can think of many situations where conditions were such that all kinds of things could be going on that I had no knowledge of or anything more than superficial indications of multiple possibilities. Is a messy home a sign of elder abuse? Could be. But it could also just be someone who is ill and can't afford a housekeeper. Or maybe someone who just doesn't see too well. And maybe I caught them on a bad day.

But yet this law would appear to put on all of us the responsibility for knowing what you know and being able to make those kinds of determinations. And it will put us at significant risk if we miss something we're not trained to find. What I object to is the "mandatory" part of this. I think we should be encouraged to look for abuse and report things that look suspicious to us. That's just being a good citizen and is something we should do anyway. But the mandatory aspect of this law adds what I think is an inappropriate level of accountability for something that is outside of our basic function. Adding that responsibility to us changes the very nature of what we do, imo.

Most other mandatory reporters are people who have some sort of social service background, who are involved with people on a personal, potentially long term basis, and have more than superficial training on how to spot and address issues of abuse. I fear that this law will try to turn the majority of us into something we're not, and I don't see that to anyone's benefit.

Reply by Notarysigner on 7/8/13 8:12am
Msg #475899

RI understand your point and I'm o.k. with it. My

world is different than yours, I'm surrounded by family members who are required to report "abuse" and nobody has goofed.

>>>> What I object to is the "mandatory" part of this. I think we should be encouraged to look for abuse and report things that look suspicious to us. That's just being a good citizen and is something we should do anyway. But the mandatory aspect of this law adds what I think is an inappropriate level of accountability for something that is outside of our basic function. Adding that responsibility to us changes the very nature of what we do, imo. <<<<<

Very good point, and because I do exactly that, it's no big deal....to me.

Reply by Venita Peyton on 7/7/13 8:32am
Msg #475833

Re: Seriously????

I've turned down at least 3 'questionable' signings. The first was for a reverse mortgage that broke ALL the rules. Wife 89, husband 86. One the phone she didn't know who I was, nor that they had a right to an interview with a HUD approved reviewer.

The second was for some type of loan for a house, 2 bed, 1 bath, in foreclosure. Company wanted me to have the couple use my laptop to 'sign', but I wasn't to leave them any copies.

Third was for a husband whose wife was in hospice care. I asked for her social worker, who informed me that she wasn't cognizant enough to sign anything.

When in doubt - turn it down. Let someone else come to the rescue.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/7/13 10:58am
Msg #475841

Re: Seriously????

I was once called by the Alameda County (CA) DA's office about a signing I did. It took place at the daughter's home in Pleasanton. Signer seemed to be "with it". We went ahead with the signing. Turns out that the daughter was trying to steal the mother's equity out of her home. This was alleged by the other siblings. I described how I handled the signing. The assistant DA told me that I handled everything correctly.
When I walk into a signing and I find that things are not as they should be, I report it to the title co. A few years ago, I had a situation where the wife had ALS. I reported to the signing service that we really needed a POA because the poor woman could barely hold the pen. They were mostly concerned about any possible mental issues. They couldn't understand that her mind was trapped inside her body. Mentally, she was fine. It took title's legal department 3 weeks to draw up a POA for this case.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/7/13 4:06pm
Msg #475852

I think that....

Bear meant to say it was no big deal to post/discuss the matter here, not that the bill itself wasn't a big deal.

But that's just my interpretations of it.

Reply by Notarysigner on 7/8/13 8:04am
Msg #475898

Re: I think that....Hey Bear...what did you mean? n/m

Reply by Bear900/CA on 7/11/13 2:20pm
Msg #476399

Let’s talk compliance in context - AB 477

I am trying to catch up on my posts after spending a few days in the hospital with my own elderly mother. She is still there and awaiting a triple by-pass so I will need to go back.

First let me state that I live and work in an industry (mortgage origination) that is HUGELY over-regulated and that is definitely a HUGE deal for me. I meet with our state industry leaders and we work tirelessly to bring some sanity to the fore. It might be hard for many here to fathom how much we fight to protect consumers from “unintended consequences” of federal regulation. You are paying more now for your mortgage origination costs then before all this regulation started.

I feel the same about this off-the-wall regulation for CA notaries and am not minimizing it. I encourage discussion both here and with any legislators who will perhaps act on it in our behalf.

Whatever reason James had “no problem with it” he didn’t initially state, nor did I. He later cleared up that he is already doing some of this and stated, “I am talking about me”. I am assuming he is referencing any personal impact on him in a large way as he is already tuned in to issues involving elder abuse.

I was much briefer, and I too, was speaking just for myself. I am already hard-wired in, and forcefully so. I must report fraud and/or ANY suspicious behavior per the Red Flags Rule, per FinCen (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) including the mandated filling out of SARS (Suspicious Activity Reports) with the BSA (Bank Secrecy Act). Failure to do so within 30 days can impose huge fines on me. Basically, I have to “rat out” anyone for acting suspiciously in a financially fraudulent manner. That already includes reporting suspicious fraudulent activity against the elderly.

Whether the bill passes or not, I am already obligated to comply. Granted, it imposes one more agency, but I don't find that a much bigger cloud than I am already under. I originate reverse mortgages and am extremely cautious and sensitive to mental capacities, advertising guidelines, elder abuse or neglect. There are times when I have had to tell customers "No", so I wouldn't put them in greater harm than they already are.

For those of us already there, and who live under the threat of fines and jail time for lack of filing a report, it comes as no surprise that notaries are being lined up the same manner as financial institutions mentioned in the bill.

http://altc.assembly.ca.gov/sites/altc.assembly.ca.gov/files/AB%20477.pdf

“2) Subject notaries to the same liabilities, limitations, and definitions as those imposed upon
reporters within financial institutions.”

“AB 477 reinforces an existing responsibility that banks and other institutions have to their customers - to report potentially fraudulent activities and serve in their customers' best interests.”

It is my expectation, very clearly and very definitively, that notaries will fall under the obligation of third part vendors for loan originators. Not that we are in the origination business but we are a 3rd party provider and sometimes hired directly. The government has put into place a mechanism that can’t be stopped arbitrarily because “we just don’t like it”. At this given moment, per law, I am required to make sure that any 3rd party vendor (includes title, escrow) have in place their own Red Flags Policy and internal policies to deter fraud. They beg to differ, and so will notaries when the time comes. That’s a good thing!

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/6/13 6:36pm
Msg #475813

BTW, meant to say a big THANK YOU to Brenda for the update!! n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/6/13 6:41pm
Msg #475815

You are welcome. Here are msgs to start reading.

The bottom line problems?

(1) Bad: Fines for notaries
(2) Bad: Specific rules for reporting--not just notary rules...confidentiality, who to report to, etc.
(3) Worst: Once the average bear notary gets the point of this, they will not want to handle the potential liability. That means seniors will have less willing notaries to help them.

Msg# 472577 Suggested form letter to help you act today against AB 477 - BrendaTx on 6/7/13 5:32pm (Skip my letter; read the thread.)

Msg# 472230 Re: Anybody (California Notaries) see the latest XYZ newsletter? - JanetK_CA on 6/4/13 4:45pm

Msg# 472214 Anybody (California Notaries) see the latest XYZ newsletter? - Notarysigner on 6/4/13 3:48pm

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/6/13 6:42pm
Msg #475816

Clickable msg numbers (I hope.)

Msg #472577 Suggested form letter to help you act today against AB 477 - BrendaTx on 6/7/13 5:32pm (Skip my letter; read the thread.)

Msg #472230 Re: Anybody (California Notaries) see the latest XYZ newsletter? - JanetK_CA on 6/4/13 4:45pm

Msg #472214 Anybody (California Notaries) see the latest XYZ newsletter? - Notarysigner on 6/4/13 3:48pm

Reply by Yoli/CA on 7/6/13 7:06pm
Msg #475818

Thank you, Brenda. Needed that kick in the rear.

Just emailed all my legislators strongly urging them to oppose AB477 - again. Sometimes, a reminder leaves more of an impression than the original message.

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/6/13 7:34pm
Msg #475820

You're welcome. :) n/m