Posted by JJNotary/CA on 11/29/13 12:02pm
Msg #494385
Is anyone else NOT signing the FNF release?
I was advised by my legal rep. NOT to sign the release sent out last month. So, I have sent a copy of my background cert. - which I find a very reasonable request for them to have on file, and will gladly resubmit when it comes to being renewed - but the release is just so far reaching, and open ended. I have heard others on here say there is another version of the form, and will call FNF to see if I can get the other emailed to me. In the meantime, or in the event the other version is still too far reaching, I'm not sure how much this will affect business. But - if I loose business due to a lack of releasing all of my private information would that be any more of a gamble than loosing everything to identity thief?! Sigh. Just wondering if anyone else is sticking to their guns, and sitting here a little concerned that this will be standard w/ all companies within a year. Opinions?? Advice???
Ironically, I would be fine signing some sort of agreement, but this one is so vague and open ended - it’s too concerning.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 11/29/13 12:23pm
Msg #494393
I won't
When I received the first several, I ignored them. Way over the top. Then I got one from some SS that was just a forwarded e-mail from FNF, which, of course, had the originating e-mail address at FNF. So I e-mailed that person at FNF stating that this was way too much.
It took a week, but I did receive a revised version--pretty much the same as the first but they did remove 'customers & clients' from the list of parties who could request/receive...well, near about anything. Not good enough because "I hereby release FNTG, to the full extent permitted by law, from any liability or claims arising from releasing, disclosing, providing and/or reporting information concerning me to any party pursuant to this Notice, Authorization and Release" phrase is still there.
I again objected to FNF about the new form. They have ceased responding to my inquiries.
Since then, I've received the same first version of that letter from several silly SS--strictly a 'cut/paste' job.
I have written the CFPB about this overreaching release, and they 'are looking into it' and also suggested I send it to several other depts. in CFPB for their action/opinion. It's been a little over a week and I've heard nothing from anyone yet. Come Monday....
| Reply by MAC/WA on 11/29/13 1:14pm
Msg #494404
Lee, thanks for sending it CFPB, look forward to hearing
what they have to say.
| Reply by JJNotary/CA on 11/30/13 7:49pm
Msg #494540
I would be very interested to hear what they say,as well. n/m
| Reply by John Tennant on 11/29/13 12:26pm
Msg #494394
As I posted earlier. In my opinion only a fool would sign any kind of document releasing FNF, or like companies from any, and all, responsibilities. If they provide the info to the wrong people and your identity was stolen, you would be on the hook without any recourse. I will never sign anything like that. JMHO
| Reply by MW/VA on 11/30/13 9:45am
Msg #494466
Yes, John, and IMO the NNA is all about making fools of us. n/m
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/29/13 12:29pm
Msg #494395
If you do a search here with keywords "fnf release"
or "release" or "revised release" - someone posted the revised. As I recall it's not a whole lot better.
| Reply by JJNotary/CA on 11/29/13 12:34pm
Msg #494397
Re: If you do a search here with keywords "fnf release"
Thank you, Linda - I will look for that. And thanks for the feedback - I have seen people debating this release, but have not been able to tell if people are signing them or not. The whole thing is so frustrating.
| Reply by dgd/CA on 11/30/13 10:52am
Msg #494483
Re: "fnf release" I did, here it is again. IMHO, we
absolutely cannot tolerate this on any level or circumstance (Msg# 492057, sorry, do a search on the message number, I never seem to post it so that you just "click" the link):
<<NOTICE, AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE REGARDING EXISTING CERTIFICATES AND/OR INVESTIGATIVE CONSUMER REPORTS
________________________________________________________________________
" I have or will provide to Alamo Title Insurance, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company or Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (collectively, Fidelity National Title Group or “FNTG”) a copy of my Background Screening Certificate from the GLBA-Compliant National Notary Association (“NNA”) or other approved vendor.
I HEREBY AUTHORIZE FNTG to release, disclose and/or provide a copy of any and all certificates, forms, questionnaires, investigative reports, background checks, evaluations, analysis or any other information that I have provided or caused to be provided to FNTG, or which FNTG has prepared, to any lender, bank, credit union, savings association or other financial institution (collectively, “Supervised Institution”)1 for whom FNTG provides services under a service agreement, so as to evidence that I meet the requirements, qualifications and standards imposed by such Supervised Institution on persons who receive or have access to consumer financial information or other confidential information.
I hereby agree and understand that this Notice, Authorization and Release will remain valid as long as I provide any services for or to FNTG and throughout my affiliation with FNTG. The matters and information which are covered by this Notice, Authorization and Release include, but are not limited to, information concerning my criminal history, motor vehicle history, my social security number, or any other information requested by a Supervised Institution. As used herein FNTG means FNTG and any other division of the Fidelity National Financial, Inc. family of title insurers, including any related companies, subsidiaries and/or affiliates thereof.
I hereby release FNTG, to the full extent permitted by law, from any liability or claims arising from releasing, disclosing, providing and/or reporting information concerning me to any party pursuant to this Notice, Authorization and Release.
I agree that a copy or fax of this document shall be as valid as the original."
As you can see, the form has been amended to include a BGC Certification. They are, however; still receiving the full and complete (non-redacted) report, which can be forwarded to (upon request) just about anyone. Nothing really revised...>>
I honestly don't give a rats a** about what they "say." At the end of the day, it's about what they put in writing.... 
Fidelity is so large, it's all about them. It Could Care Less About "The Little People" That Assist In It's Escrow/Title Home Loan Funding Capabilities. It Is My Opinion That Graham Leachman, And All Postings And Decisions Of The CFBP, Provide For The Protection Of My Personal Information And Identity As Well. Sigh...
| Reply by Doris_CO on 11/29/13 12:34pm
Msg #494396
Personally, I'm just waiting until all this filters down to something that makes sense. Getting a background check every year and taking the certification test every year just doesn't make any sense, except to the company that thinks it's going to make money hand over fist. As for the release, I'm not going to sign it until some sort of privacy policy is put into place. I like what NR has done with their background check. A symbol is put on the Notaries page and interested party's can click on that and see that all the requirements have been met. They don't need to see any personal information, just the guarantee that the information is up to date and accurate.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 11/29/13 12:45pm
Msg #494400
That's the only thing that makes sense.
The criteria was set and met. Availability to check on a website (like NR) is proof positive as we do not have the ability to control that. The particulars are of nobody's concern. Much less whoever they decide to 'share' it with. And 'no liability' if our information is misused!?! Good grief--what are they thinking? Are they thinking at all? Nobody in their right mind would sign this.
| Reply by JJNotary/CA on 11/29/13 12:55pm
Msg #494402
That's the thing/I can prove I've meet requirements
why need more?! They can pass my cert. around all they want - but the details of it? Doesn't feel right.
| Reply by Eonelin on 11/29/13 3:37pm
Msg #494418
If you think it through carefully. It makes sense to do an annual backround check... It's a pain in the butt. I agree and a extra expense.... No doubt about that. But notaries are not tested the same in all 50 states. And in some states there is no backround check done at all. You just have to pay a fee and bang your a notary.... That's kind of scary to the industry as a whole. This brings all notaries everywhere up to compliance. Besides, there will always be some who will have a bit to much to drink once in a great while or worse.... And do you really want to have a notary in your home like that?? What about a notary who is listed on Megans Law Website?? That's what this is about...
Don't have to like it... But we do have to protect our industry and the public.
| Reply by jojo_MN on 11/29/13 4:30pm
Msg #494421
You can have a background check done today with a clean file, yet next week commit some crime. Bang! Background check is no good. Even better yet, you might be stealing all of the time and never getting caught. What good does the background check do then? That background check is only good until that date. Maybe we should start having them run every three to six months? Hmmm. XYZ could really make a killing then!
Also, Even if you have the training on keeping private information private, that does not guarantee that you aren't sharing private information with others. It doesn't mean that you are locking up your documents and having your computers password-protected.
I agree that there should be some form of training if you are going to be a signing agent; however, there should not be one mandated source. I took mine through Kaplan University for my Minnesota Closers license. I would rather see each individual state oversee the licensing rather than giving it to XYZ.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/29/13 9:33pm
Msg #494437
Worth of background checks
"You can have a background check done today with a clean file, yet next week commit some crime. Bang! Background check is no good. Even better yet, you might be stealing all of the time and never getting caught. What good does the background check do then? That background check is only good until that date. Maybe we should start having them run every three to six months? Hmmm. XYZ could really make a killing then!"
This may appear to be logical, but in practical terms, compared to other parallel issues, I don't believe it is. The example that comes to mind is the entire lending industry. Credit scores are more or less probability tables, based on past experience. A lender or bank is willing to loan people money for a home (or issue them a credit card for a certain spending limit) based on their current circumstances and their past history. Auto and life insurance are other examples. We pay based on actuarial tables that predict probabilities. (Even health insurance is still impacted this way.)
I have to believe that the probability of a person committing a crime can be predicted to some measurable extent based on what they have done for the past decade or two or three or four, etc. There is no guarantee, of course, just like with the other examples, but it can give a pretty good idea. So I think we should all quit supporting or promoting the idea that a background check is useless the day after it's issued. Not only is it contrary to our interests, it doesn't present a very accurate picture of the reality, imo.
Soooooo, I think an annual background check should be more than sufficient. (Perfection in these types of things is not achievable.)
I pretty much agree with your comments about training, though.
| Reply by Eonelin on 11/30/13 11:06am
Msg #494485
That's the exact reason they are standardizing the procedures. And the big meeting they had in Washington D.C., NNA, Notaries, Title Companies, Lenders and Signing Companies all got together and said they got to many hands in the cookie jar and needed notaries nationwide to be using the same training. I personally get it...
What I find disturbing more is that some notaries in some states have zero training. Zero backround checks. I can't talk for you but I don't want a person like that in my front door.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 11/29/13 4:34pm
Msg #494422
Nobody is objecting to a background check. The objection is
signing a Release that will allow someone to send your background check and any/all underlying report/s with all your personal information to an undetermined amount of other people/entities just because they request it. And if you then become the victim of ID theft, too bad--because YOU waived your right to privacy of your own info and so what may happen to you is nobody's fault but your own BECAUSE YOU SIGNED THIS RELEASE.
| Reply by jojo_MN on 11/29/13 4:49pm
Msg #494424
Re: Nobody is objecting to a background check. The objection is
I don't object to having a background check either, within reason. I am just sick of people forcing us to take so many of them and requiring their sources and then thinking we should be okay with sending those companies the entire background check so many times. I don't care if we have just one done, even yearly, if it were done on the state level and could be verified with just going online with a check mark or something showing that it was done.
Like I said earlier, that bgc is only good up to the day it is done. JMHO
| Reply by dgd/CA on 11/30/13 11:06am
Msg #494486
Sadly Lee/AR, I couldn't agree with you more. :( n/m
| Reply by MW/VA on 11/30/13 9:44am
Msg #494464
I'm with you on this, Doris. I'm not rolling over to n/m
| Reply by MW/VA on 11/30/13 9:45am
Msg #494465
(oops) comply with any of this at this point. It's not in
my best interests!
| Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 11/29/13 12:55pm
Msg #494401
As I posted somewhere below this...
My attorney advised me not to sign. Why not just give them a blank check or a completely signed and stamped notarial certificate?
| Reply by MAC/WA on 11/29/13 2:11pm
Msg #494409
Not sure if one can "sign away" their rights granted by federal law, but at least as the subject of a consumer report you should know your rights----
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/pdf-0096-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf
| Reply by jojo_MN on 11/29/13 4:20pm
Msg #494420
No way will I sign that form.
There is way too much information on the background checks that is absolutely no one's business. All they need to know is if we committed any felonies or were charged with any criminal behavior related to financial or abusive situations. The only reason for the second is because we will be working with their customers. Anything else is over and above.
I was a victim of identity theft in the past and the thought of so many people having my personal information just makes my head spin.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 11/29/13 5:10pm
Msg #494427
Things to ponder while contemplating signing a release
1. ID theft is the #1 crime today...and growing.
2. When you see news reports about theft of mortgage payoff funds, who did the stealing? A title company employee--maybe even the owner. (see Source of Title). Apparently even TCs are worried about this as they now offer 'Closing Protection' letters...in case a mortgage payoff is 'misappropriated'.
3. Who would know the ropes better and have access to credit reports than a lender's employee so s/he could pick some unsuspecting notary with good credit--like me.
4. Loans are originated in 50 states, but all end up with same lender/office. Pick 1 notary a week from just 1 different state and you can go for a year without repeating. I imagine that would be pretty hard to track down.
AND THEY WANT US TO KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY PROVIDE THIS INFO AND HOLD THEM BLAMELESS IF OUR INFO IS MISUSED! I, too, have 99 problems BUT THIS IS ONE I CAN STOP.
| Reply by Serina/VT on 11/29/13 5:26pm
Msg #494429
Re: Things to ponder while contemplating signing a release
Nope, not signing it, not providing a BGC either, not that I couldn't because I passed a FBI BGC for my main job that I have had for 15 yrs.
| Reply by JinCA on 11/29/13 5:42pm
Msg #494431
Not going to sign it. n/m
| Reply by LadyCA on 11/30/13 1:20am
Msg #494444
More and more companies asking for too much info on us
I just had a company asking me to send all my identity papers that they required from me is scary just the thought of it so I did not gave it to them. They asked from SS to copy of DL to address and so forth ,makes you wonder how do we know if they will not use it against us like making ids and so forth in our names once we submit all this information back to them ,oh and they wanted my stamp to be put on a paper and for me to cross it out, this tells us how scary the world is becoming by easy access to our identity.
I know we should submit copies of commission, bond and background and of course best is to get an EIN but more than this I do not think we should give them since we really do not know who really receives it at the other end specially when it comes to Signing companies.
| Reply by JJNotary/CA on 11/30/13 7:53pm
Msg #494541
Thanks for all of the feedback! n/m
| Reply by JJNotary/CA on 11/30/13 8:02pm
Msg #494542
I do believe there needs to be some over haul of loan closings, some standardizing of processes, and to do that does take some back and forth until the new standards are balanced and make sense from all sides. Hopefully sooner rather than later. In the meantime, we need to do what makes sense for us, not just what makes sense for signing co.s and title companies. Maybe in the next few months FNF will put together a more thoughtful version of the release, one that protects notaries as well, when they find they do not have enough notaries to close all of their loans. It doesn't seem like we are completely against a release of some sort, just not THIS sort!
| Reply by JJNotary/CA on 11/30/13 8:10pm
Msg #494546
Also... looking at NOT renewing xyz membership this year....
I really enjoy NR, the supplies are less, love the journals, not sure that I am getting what I am looking for w/ my other membership...
|
|
