As loan signing agents, we have dreaded receiving these types of notifications from title companies or signing services. Most time it means that we are going to have to make second trips or incur some types of negative consequences. Here is the email I received on Monday - “Amrock has noted a defect on this closing order. It is the signing agent’s responsibility to make sure all instructions are followed and all documents are properly notarized and returned.
Defect: Utility bill was accepted as a form of ID during this RON closing because could not see ID hologram. This is not an accepted form of ID, and hologram is a preferred step, but not necessary.
If you have a valid reason to dispute this defect, please respond directly to this email and include any supporting documentation within 48 hours. Thank you for your attention on this matter.” After mentally reviewing the RON session related to this matter. I responded with the following statement: “I am writing to formally dispute the defect flagged. While conducting the Remote Online Notarization (RON) closing, I can assure you that the utility bill was not utilized as a primary or replacement form of identification, nor was it intended to substitute the standard credential analysis process. It was used solely as an added, supplementary measure to enhance the security and verification process, acting as a secondary confirmation for my own professional diligence and peace of mind. The system had already successfully authenticated the driver’s license as the primary form of identification, and therefore, the inclusion of the utility bill should not be misconstrued as a failure to adhere to your protocols. I respectfully request that you reconsider this defect, as my actions were taken to provide an even higher level of assurance and were not in any way intended to compromise the integrity of the closing process. I should not be penalized with a defect for proactively taking an extra, precautionary step to ensure a smooth and secure transaction.” This was their response to my position: “Hello, this defect is being removed as the video clearly shows the ID was shown prior to anything else.” There are times when we, as loan signing agents, see situations that call for utilizing our own judgement and critical thinking abilities. In that case, I observed that the ID hologram was not strongly viewable. Therefore, I asked the signer for another form of identification just as a supporting form of verifying his person. If for whatever reason there were questions about the signer’s identification, the video would show that I took prudent steps to confirm the signer’s identity. My actions were to safeguard my own position and not to be dependent on the platform’s systems. We all must take the initiative-taking in protecting ourselves as Notary Publics/Loan Signing Agents.
FYI: Some of their documentation continues to reveal the former branding.
I anticipated that it was their oversight as I’ve seen the former branding on documents as recent as last week.
So, it does cause one to wonder if the “Defect Notification” continues to reveal the former branding as well. @cfletcher Simply for clarification, would you take a cursory view of the notification & share which branding is present please? Thank You
I appreciate your complete post. Other alleged errors Notaries need to be aware of is the good old bait and switch tactic, which basically means someone screwed up and blamed it on the Notary. For example, you get a tersely worded email saying you failed the get certain documents in the package signed. You’re gasping in shock knowing everything was printed, gone through, prepped for signatures, double checked before leaving the client’s home, and diligently returned. Afterwards, I access the documents posted on the platform and downloaded, compare the pages to look for these allegedly missed pages, and immediately you’ll notice those pages were never included in the first place! You should immediately and professionally address this ‘oversight’ and charge them to go back out there. Don’t let them get away with this. There’s no back and forth required. This is my cost to get these additional documents signed.
They will also get sneaky and upload the documents while you’re on your way there or during closing without the benefit of a phone call to let you know!
Very helpful post.
I’ve experienced this, plus the occasional case where they’ll send you one form (among many) without printing enabled. Catch it before you leave home, call for a resend & the notary wins. You miss it, they dock your pay.
I’ve read your posting on the RON circumstance as a education for me in the future should I ever be involved in doing RON assignments.
You say you saw the signer’s ID……which you MUST have for your notary book. If you felt at that time the ID was “not strongly viewable”….why would you continue with the signing?
I am just trying to understand the RON process, I would think the process would NOT allow you to continue if the ID verifying process was not complete on screen.
The credential analysis successfully verified the signer’s driver’s license, a critical component of the Remote Online Notarization (RON) procedure. The vendor mandates that the signer present their identification to the camera, enabling the observation of security features implemented by the State of Florida. Although the clarity of these features was not optimal, this did not constitute a basis for postponing the RON signing.
Thank You 
