Posted by Les_CO on 10/15/13 1:03pm
Msg #488209

Background Checks

Just FYI I recently received this from FNF (Fidelity National Financial) regarding their “Preferred Lenders.” FNF must have a copy of your NNA ‘certificate’ before you can do any signings for these lenders.
I paraphrase:
As November 1, 2013 any of FNF’s ‘Preferred Notaries’ that do closing for our ‘Preferred Lenders’ must have a current Background Check from The NNA, or Sterling info Systems. Our Preferred lenders are: 1/ Bank of America, 2/BMO Harris, 3/ JP Morgan Chase, 4/ Union Bank, 5/ US Bank, /Wells Fargo.

So it’s the LENDERS that are requiring this…. The Title Companies, and their respective SS are just following orders….Personally I HATE the NNA, I am NOT a member, I believe they alone have caused the downfall of a good professional business (NSA) by their greedy unconscionable tactics but ….. FNF must have a copy of your NNA BGC ‘certificate’ before you can do any signings for these lenders, and apparently the Sterling deal is not up and running yet. I guess FNF can make their own rules….but I smell dishonest business practices, and kickbacks somewhere in this mess. JMO

Reply by Lee/AR on 10/15/13 1:48pm
Msg #488213

I wouldn't be surprised. However, I just think it's exceptionally good 'CYA marketing' to these Lenders--who really don't care about the notary (or even think about it) as long as they can 'look good' and don't have to bother doing anything.

So...anybody got an idea how to get thru to the Lender? I don't.

Reply by Lee/AR on 10/15/13 2:01pm
Msg #488214

One idea, but need a better one... thanks jba/fl

See Jules Msg #488201
Use the same letter (skip the horrid co beginning as I don't think that will work well)
and PUT IT ON TOP OF EVERY PACKAGE YOU RETURN.

Still doesn't get it to the 'right' place...the Lenders who've bought into 'that co's' marketing, but if everyone did it, it would show...solidarity, a ground swell of rebellion, something that somebody might take notice of and forward to the 'right' people.

Reply by Lee/AR on 10/15/13 2:06pm
Msg #488215

Talkin' to myself here, but add NR's bgc as a alternative to

that letter, yes?
Reason being that, so far, the ones I've received all do have an alternative of their own--all different--requiring multiple $$ to multiple BGC companies. That sucks. WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE ALTERNATIVE.

Reply by FSN/FL on 10/16/13 10:15am
Msg #488306

Re: Talkin' to myself here, but add NR's bgc as a alternative to

All they want is to squeeze notaries as we are at the short end of the stick. It's obvious that FNF will have a commission from all BGCs processed by Sterling Info Systems and accept the NNA BGC b/c they don't want to clash. It sound totalitarian, exclusive and all those adjectives associated with far left regimes.

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 10/16/13 1:22pm
Msg #488344

Really? left wing conspiracy? take political opinions to JP n/m

Reply by Lee/AR on 10/15/13 2:11pm
Msg #488216

Include a link to NRs promo page for BGCs, too. Yeah!

That would be: www.notarypublicbackgroundcheck.com

Yeah, still talking to myself.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/15/13 5:10pm
Msg #488239

For the record re: the letter

I checked yesterday to be sure, and found out that they no longer require membership to get a BGC, but they ARE requiring certification. It's a two-year package for $99 that includes re-doing the screening and the certification exam after one year. If you need training, that's a different package and I'm not sure what that requires. Perhaps that one does require the memberships, since it's much pricier.

My personal opinion is that a letter sent as suggested would be unlikely to get to the lender, who is, after all, the title/escrow company's client. They would probably just end up in the circular file.

Reply by CH2inCA on 10/15/13 5:13pm
Msg #488240

So, let's write to the lenders!

Let's remind them of the Class action law suit that NNA, had to settle or lost (?)
Not necessarily for wrong doing, but it was a point of contention even then.

Is there a way we can compile a list of the lenders and their contact information?

Reply by CH2inCA on 10/15/13 6:10pm
Msg #488245

That's lawsuit not law suit... :0) n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 10/15/13 6:56pm
Msg #488248

Re: The previous class action suit

See Msg #318834

The previous class action suit about BGCs and the NNA had to do with accusations that the NNA violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by not making proper disclosures and permissions regarding the BGCs.

It had nothing to do with what's going on now... the fact that companies, in particular First American, appears to have partnered with the NNA (see the NNA's main page) and is requiring the NNA background check, only.

They claim it's a lender requirement... but I'm suspicious of that. I think the lender is just passing off on a written suggestion on the part of title and escrow companies.

There was talk about price-fixing several years back when the NNA had their suggested fee schedule. When reports from notaries about phone calls from the feds started popping up, all of a sudden, the fee schedule disappeared and the NNA website overwent a major redesign. I do not think these events were coincidental.

A lawsuit isn't really going to do it...not a class action one.

What needs to happen, IMO, is that word gets to the Feds who were making those phone calls years ago start getting word of this new nonsense going on about background checks and only allowing one vendor to provide them.

I want to say that I'm not opposed to the background checks. In fact, I happen to think they're a good idea. I think every notary in every state ought to pass one before being issued a commission. But when it comes to running our businesses... if WE have to pay for the background checks, we should be given options.

If a company insists on a specific vendor for BGCs... they ought to be paying for them themselves.

Reply by Letty Marquez on 10/15/13 8:04pm
Msg #488258

Re: The previous class action suit

I though I was the only one thinking this. I am not opposed either to background checks. What I am oppose is this non-sense of one company taking care of the background.

Sounds like when they first start saying that the $15k E&O wasn't good for titles, $100k was to find out that little by little some escrows started requiring the $500k if you wanted to do signings for this particular lender, now some are asking for a million dollar?

This is the exact same thing they are doing! what's next? The NNA goes ridiculous high on their fees. This is just BS (pardon my language).

I believe should be secretary of state who do the background...just saying.

Reply by Lee/AR on 10/15/13 10:05pm
Msg #488271

Here's the problem with 'options'

So far, every 'notice' I've received has had an alternative company. Each was cheaper than 'that company' and every one had a different BGC co. that you could 'choose'. So you can get a cheaper BGC--multiple times thru each SS/TC's alternative OR go with 'that company'...meaning... you really have no intelligent choice. Just doesn't pass the smell test.

What we need is several competitive options offered by all to all for universally accepted BGCs.
I'd like to type that in all caps because I am shouting.

Reply by CH2inCA on 10/15/13 10:40pm
Msg #488272

It had nothing to do with what's going on now (?)

Except that we're talking NNA and BGCs

Point is that it's not and has not been in the past the best product out there.

Reply by ct on 10/15/13 2:25pm
Msg #488219

In California to get commissioned we have to do a background check thru the FBI.. so the NNA does a better job??? Maybe someone should exempt California notaries... JMO

Reply by Gary Williamson on 10/15/13 2:29pm
Msg #488220

Yes but in California it is once every 4 years when we recertify. I am starting to see requirements for a yearly background check.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 10/15/13 2:48pm
Msg #488222

Most pkgs get sent back to TC not Lender. Don't see how a letter to lender would help. Good thought though.

Reply by Lee/AR on 10/15/13 4:57pm
Msg #488235

Because IF TC gets enough flak from many notaries, they may

...MAY...let Lenders know about the problems this is causing with notaries who do not like the organization behind the BGC. I'm 99.999% positive that Lenders don't know about ALL the hoops/memberships/costs/whatevers that a notary has to do with 'that organization' just to be able to get their loans signed.

As for the Certification, tho' I've never taken it, I understand from others that the questions/answers are not necessarily correct for every state (rather--geared to their Model Notary Act, which is State Law nowhere)--so what good is that?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 10/15/13 10:00pm
Msg #488270

Re: Because IF TC gets enough flak from many notaries, they may

Agreed... I'm pretty sure the lenders themselves are pretty clueless and hands off in this. This seems to be a relationship issue between the Title and Escrow companies and the NNA.

Reply by MW/VA on 10/15/13 7:11pm
Msg #488250

Harry from NR responded to this in msg. 488158. n/m

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 10/16/13 5:15am
Msg #488280

Another tactic that could have impact ...

...would be for N/R members to GET the N/R-sponsored BGC! Once you've passed, it becomes highly visible on your N/R listing - and can be linked to.

If N/R listings showed a vast majority of NSA's with this particular BGC, it could be a potential game-changer (in more than one way).

I just ordered my update a couple days ago - hadn't realized mine had lapsed (not a single client noticed, either). I support BGC's for this industry, and I support the product offered here, and I have supported it since Harry first made it available - supported by actually obtaining/maintaining.

Reply by MW/VA on 10/16/13 9:50am
Msg #488301

I completely agree, Renee. n/m

Reply by Eric Andrist on 10/16/13 11:44am
Msg #488323

I just received a request from Executive Notary Services to resend them an application package. They wrote that I need to send an NNA Background check and if I didn't, they would only consider me for jobs that didn't require it.

So I sent them my Notary Rotary BGC and told them that if they wanted to pay for me to get an NNA BGC, I'd be happy to oblige. I told them I was not a fan of NNA and am skeptical about any company that would require me to have a background check from ANY one particular company. To me that sounds like kickbacks.

I think we should require that anyone who requires a specific BGC supply us with proof that the title company is requiring this, stating why they are and why other BGC's are not acceptable.

Reply by Anita Edwards on 10/16/13 12:42pm
Msg #488336

So the end of the story is what? Are we all running to NNA to get the proper BGC or not?

I think its a crime that we are told who we can do business with. It's like saying you have to buy car insurance from Flo or you aren't working for us.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 10/16/13 12:56pm
Msg #488339

I'm certainly not. I won't be bullied into anything. If the ss's want to pay for it, I'll do it, otherwise I'm out.

Reply by Gary Boehm on 10/16/13 2:51pm
Msg #488351

Background Checks - I ask in all seriousness

So regardless of whether it is right or not, does this mean that starting November 1st if we DO NOT join the NNA that we will automatically lose about half of our signings and have our income cut in half? I JUST had a phone call from a company that asked me point blank if I was a member of NNA/and had THEIR backround check. When I said no I wasn't interested in joining them he said "Call me when you do, otherwise we can't use you.".

I am looking for actual responses to this.