Hi, mlefer2003, and thank you for the input. Good point on the Settlement Agent's possible responsibility, but that was not it.
I am certain that I did not read the notary self-notarizing document wrong. I read it many times over before believing it myself. Here is a little more which may be of interest:
First, I receive a newsletter (snail mail) which comes with one of my memberships to a notary association-- one besides the NNA, which mails out a very comprehensive publication each month. I will try to locate the issue I am going to refer to here.
Just last month, there was a fairly long article about this exact thing. The document mentioned in the article which is being put before the notary is confusing, but, almost seems like it is ok at first glance. I feel the document I had was like this. I almost notarized it before catching it.
Here is specifically what I was given to do. It was called an ID Letter.
Here are the details: It was titled ID Letter, like I said. Underneath that was the usual State of Texas, County of ___ .
In the body of it: What was called for in this document was the information I had already taken care of in a PATRIOT act form and in another form that was basically the same. The name and a blank, the DL# and a blank, etc. one document for both Mr. & Mrs. Borrower.
At the end of this very long fill-in-the-blank form was a statement like "I have seen sufficient and valid identification documents of the aforesaid Mr. B and Mrs. B. Further, I have copied the information contained therein correctly and accurately into the spaces provided for the same." Subscribed and sworn to on this ____ day of _____ 200_.
Underneath was [Seal] and then to the right was the normal line over Notary Public - State of Texas.
The only way to even come close to properly executing that document was to add a signature line for myself, in the space above [seal] and the notary signature line, then go find another notary to notarize my signature.
The other reason I know I am not mistaken: The same company who assigned the problem loan package called me this morning to ask me to do a closing this evening.
I told the caller that all documents except for two were completed and all of them were on the way back. However, I said we had a policy conflict and that I could not do the "notarization on my own signature" (stated just this way) in the one document, nor could I take a loose paper that had no apparent intended document that it would be attached to, and notarize it thus stating that Mr. & Mrs. Borrower had appeared before me and signed and subscribed before me a document that did not exist.
She said, "Well, those are documents we require. They have to be completed in our packages." I thanked her for the opportunity and told her I was sorry because I did want to work for them, but it would probably not be possible.
I can only explain it by what I read and re-read in the notary manual I have on notarial ethics and law in Texas. I'd love to keep the business and have their jobs so I really put time into it.
Then, I consulted my sister who is a also a long time notary, but more helpful than that is that she assigns court appointments to attorneys as a court coordinator for one of the courts in her county. Therefore, they are always willing to take a minute to listen to her and she caught one of them during a slow minute and asked him his opinion.
(I did not fax the documents to her because both had the names of the borrowers and one had the name of the company that hired me--the loose page, which actually said After Recording Return to: _their name__. That means it was going to be attached to a document recorded in the property records, right?)
However, I read to my sister, and described to her, what was in the documents. She got back with me and had a resounding "No. Do not do it."
The consensus of the legal eyes looking at the statutes which govern Texas notarial acts along with my explained situation was an eye opener to me.
Lawyers are hired to be loophole experts, so given that angled view, plus what I have read in the cases being filed against lenders who make most of their money by reposessing property of disadvantaged borrowers (non-English speaking/aging, etc.), I can understand why the lawyer came up with this dark explanation without thinking of him as an alarmist or a paranoid personality, even though it may sound a little extreme. Here's the lawyer's answer:
Once you notarize a document incorrectly such as the ID Letter, you have proven yourself to be either too eager for a fee, or inexperienced, untrained, or inept. So, any problems that may arise on a loan package where you have already done something so clearly against the rules, such as in the ID Letter, you have discredited yourself. That being the case, you have discounted anything of value you, as a notary, may attest to if you are actually willing to admit that you notarized a paper that was loose--thus you have incriminated yourself as a notary and will at the least lose your livelihood (my commission).
Further, there is nothing to stop a lender, title company or interested party from using a loose notarial jurat with notary signature and stamp, or other loose notarial act with signature and stamp, to attach to a falsely signed document which may provide remedies for a lender or other interested party that are unreasonable and much against fairness for the borrower.
And, if this practice is perpetuated, it will evenutally become apparent.
When that happens, is the signing agent going to continue to thrive in Texas? Probably not.
I hate that I lost two really decent fees, and future business, but I believe it is what was right for me to do.
Take care, Brenda
|
