Posted by dgd/CA on 10/29/13 8:49pm
Msg #490355

FNF (Fidelity Nat'l Title) update...

I know this has been discussed many, many times in the last two weeks. However; I did send an email to Jennifer Walker of FNF to advise her that while I was considering a BGC through Sterling (Never XYZ), I would Never Consent To 1.) my personal and private info being forwarded to any entity that FNF either had a vendor relationship with OR agree to have any borrowers request same (indicated I had no problem with their sharing of my Certification). 2.) I would Never, Ever Under Any Circumstances Agree To Release Their Family Of Corporations From Any Liability As I Was Not The One (Personally) Forwarding (Non-Redacted Information). Here is her response:

"...I will forward your email to the head of our compliance department. You are not alone in your concerns, and we will address the issue as soon as it is reviewed...."

Hoping it is reviewed soon. Whilst FNF has stated they will continue to utilize us for other Lenders not on their original email list, at the end of the day, once you're off a partial list; you're off the whole list.

I stand with many here that have stated they will NOT perform on this request, based upon their senseless requirements. I honestly believe, that because FNF represents the largest Title/Escrow Company in the US, the powers that be have, quite simply, gone much too far and have most assuredly forgotten that we Are Not Employees, We Are Independent Contractors. IMHO, the law (as posted by many here) is very clear.

Reply by CarolF/NC on 10/29/13 9:06pm
Msg #490357

Good. Hopefully many have followed suit and will

continue to do so

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/29/13 9:22pm
Msg #490360

Just wondering....

...once the BGC issue is ironed out as to what company will handle it and what info they"ll require, generally speaking, are notaries going to provide their BGC only to clients they actively handle signings for? Will they provide a BGC to their clients whose data base they're in, but whom they've not done business with for years?

I received an email regarding the BGC issue from a company I completed one signing for about 4 years ago. Will it be the case of "We need the BGC before we can offer you the signing" as opposed to "I agree to the signing, company confirms THEN they get the BGC"?????

Thoughts....

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/29/13 9:36pm
Msg #490364

Re: Just wondering....

My guess is that with the pace required to fill an order, few if any, will want to bother asking for it after the fact, unless they're having a difficult time finding someone. They're probably going to limit their calls to those who already have the prerequisites on file. If you push it up a step, I doubt that the folks at the Fidelity office will go along with a ss owner who says "I've found someone to fill that signing, and they said they'll forward their BGC Certificate and Release form right away." Sometimes a title office is farming out the signing to more than one ss, just as the ss's do for us. They'll likely just move on to the next one.

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/29/13 11:48pm
Msg #490375

Re: Just wondering....

I'm wondering more on the notary side. Just as an example, let's say you have 20 great client relationships - great character, your fee's met, timely payment, etc. 8 of these clients give you steady work, 6 clients you hear from here and there, and 6 clients you haven't heard from in years.

All 20 clients email you asking that you provide a BGC - you're in their system. For sure, you'll provide the 8 steady clients with a BGC. What about the other 12.......they have great character but does it make smart business sense to provide BGCs to them when the chance of working with them are slim and none?

NSAs will have to create their own lotteries to see which of their clients are "worthy" of receiving a BGC.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/29/13 9:30pm
Msg #490362

Thanks for posting the update. I also sent an email to FNF asking them to review their release form. We shouldn't have to give up any and all expectation of privacy protection ourselves in the interest of protecting private information of borrowers.

It seems reasonable to me to that we be able to expect the same privacy assurances for our personal info as we're expected to uphold when dealing with borrowers' personal data. (I wish I'd thought to say it that way in my email! )

I'm hoping that the widely distributed release form is one that someone just found in a file and decided it would serve their purposes for this issue. I also hope they take a fresh look at it and make some serious modifications to something we can live with.

I suspect that the greater the number of inquiries they receive, the higher the possibility of a modification. (BTW, this is an opportunity to showcase professionalism in our ranks, not animosity...)

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 10/29/13 11:54pm
Msg #490377

my response from Fidelity's Liz Rhea-not encouraging

I inquired about the release form and relayed some comments and concerns from NotRot folks and here is what she wrote.

"I’m sorry but this was written by our legal department based on guidelines provided by the lenders and this time not being changed. The notaries are only required to sign if they want to be used on the preferred lenders files."

Liz Rhea
Field Compliance Division-Southwest Operations
Fidelity National Title Group
Telephone: 619-920-7720

Reply by Esther Korn on 10/30/13 7:43am
Msg #490392

Re: my response from Fidelity's Liz Rhea-not encouraging

I had also contacted Liz Rhea asking her about the possibility of using BGC from a company other than XYZ or Sterling, and this was her response:

"At this time we are only accepting current NNA Certified Signing Agent certificate or for you to order a background check thru the supplied Sterling link. If you were contacted by a signing service, your paperwork needs to be sent to them."

It seems to me that she neither has the authority nor will to pass on our concerns to those who make the decisions like Jennifer Walker did, as posted earlier.

Reply by Esther Korn on 10/30/13 8:06am
Msg #490395

Re: my response from Fidelity's Liz Rhea-not encouraging

My thoughts are that basically, business is dead at this time. I refuse to give my money to XYZ or even to Sterling. I had a BGC done in May by Lexis-Nexis which is perfectly comprehensive. I don't think we will get more business if we buckle and get the BGC from the required companies. There simply isn't any business out there right now. I am not comfortable having my personal information floating around all the Signing Service Cos and FNF's offices. It simply isn't worth it, especially during these very slow times. Do you all really believe your phones will be ringing off the hook once you submit your NNA or Sterling BGCs? I really don't think so. Rates are high, people aren't refinancing now, banks aren't lending-they are laying off mortgage lenders.

Reply by dgd/CA on 10/30/13 7:55am
Msg #490393

Re: my response from Fidelity's Liz Rhea-not encouraging

I agree, it would seem as though Liz Rhea is more a of a "Company Gal" than Jennifer. While I was thrilled that someone at FNF is at least making an effort to address our concerns, I recognize that FNF is a hugh corporation, it's compliance department could (sadly) probably care less about us.

My primary issue is not necessarily the release form, but rather, the extent of private and personal information it would be "releasing." I simply feel that if you must have and pass a BGC, the certificate should be sufficient.

Reply by Esther Korn on 10/30/13 9:03am
Msg #490407

Re: my response from Fidelity's Liz Rhea-not encouraging

Agreed, dgd/CA, but if enough of us say something, I do think that FNF's compliance dept. may start making an effort to address our concerns, because our concerns could be liabilities for them. You know what I mean? If our personal info goes into the wrong hands, if for instance an employee at FNF steals someone's identity, FNF could be liable. I'm not an attorney, but I would imagine that they need to be very careful with that.

Reply by Lee/AR on 10/30/13 12:24pm
Msg #490469

Ha! You're also releasing them from any liability for

whatever happens to you after they've sent your info to nearly anyone who asks for it.

Reply by MW/VA on 10/30/13 9:54am
Msg #490433

Thanks for your efforts. n/m

Reply by dgd/CA on 10/30/13 1:12pm
Msg #490484

Thank You Marlyinn...

Who knows, if enough of us respond challenge this, prehaps (PREHAPS) FNF Compliance Department will actually understand the depths of their own disparities. Again, I for one, will not respond to FNFs demands, as they are currently written.

Reply by garland/CA on 10/30/13 1:53pm
Msg #490492

Rec'd a call and was told FNF legal is reviewing the form

Your voice of concern may make a difference.

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 10/30/13 2:05pm
Msg #490500

a call from whom? n/m

Reply by Peter Jeute on 10/31/13 2:48pm
Msg #490714

Verified today with Jennifer Walker over the phone that the Relase of Info form is back in the Legal Dept and being reviewed so if I were any of you I wouldn't sign it the way it is and wait until is reads acceptably to all of us. It most likely won't be modified overnight so patience is key but hold your stance on NOT signing this.