RESPA Lawyer Blog

The Federal Reserve Board issued an interim proposed rule today, August 16, 2010, that revises the disclosure requirements for closed-end mortgages under Regulation Z (Reg Z) of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA). The Fed said the proposed rule implements provisions of the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act (MDIA) which require lenders to disclose how loan borrower's regular mortgage payments can change over time.

The Fed's notice can be accessed by clicking here:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20100816b1.pdf

Continue reading "REGULATION Z (TRUTH IN LENDING) DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSED-END MORTGAGE LOANS ANNOUNCED" »

The Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales has released a new communications article aimed at consumers and the real estate industry called "RESPA ROUNDUP." The RESPA Roundup is aimed at providing more information on issues where HUD believes more clarification is needed. The first volume focuses on the new Home Warranty interpretive rule and questions on the Good Faith Estimate.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued an interpretive rule on June 26, 2010 in the Federal Register on the issue of how home warranty companies can pay real estate agents and real estate brokers under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) without violating Section 8(a) and 8(b).

The interpretive rule was released in response to a Feb. 21, 2008 unofficial staff interpretation letter that Paul Ceja of HUD's Office of General Counsel issued that caused a great deal of confusion in the real estate industry. Since the letter was issued The National Association of Realtors (NAR), Real Estate Settlement Providers Council (RESPRO), National Home Service Contract Association (NHSC), and others pressed HUD to clarify the rule on the subject of home warranty compensation.

HUD's new clarification breaks down the issue into three distinct categories:

1. Unlawful Compensation for Referrals: RESPA does not prohibit a real estate broker or real estate agent from referring business to a home warranty company. But RESPA does prohibit a real estate broker or agent from receiving a fee for merely referring or "marketing" a buyer or seller to purchase an insurance policy from the home warranty company. A referral by itself is not a compensable service for which compensation can be given and would be a violation of Section 8(a) illegal kickback and Section 8(b) unearned fees under RESPA.

2. Bona Fide Compensation for Service Provided: HUD's RESPA guidance rule says that Section 8(c) allows payment of bona fide compensation for services actually performed. HUD said that depending on the facts of a particular case (based on a case-by-case determination), a home warranty company may compensate a real estate broker or agent for services when those services are actual, necessary, and distinct from the primary services provided by the real estate broker or agent and those additional services must not be nominal or duplicative. An example would be a real estate agent filling out all the information required to issue a home warranty policy and submitting the policy to the home warranty company.

3. Reasonableness of Compensation: Lastly, HUD said they want to assess whether the value of the payment by the home warranty company is reasonably related to the value of the services actually performed by the real estate agent or broker and not just compensation for the mere referral of business. The compensation from the Home Warranty Company to the real estate agent must be based on the fair market value of the services performed in the area where real estate agent operates. For example if the fair market value is $200 dollars in New York but in Missoula the fair market value is $60 to fill out the home warranty application, fill in the registration codes for various appliances, and do some other functions then the real estate agent in Missoula should recieve $60 dollars for that work not $200 if that is the going rate in New York. HUD appears to have taken the position that charging $200 in Des Moine when the fair market value is $60 is unreasonable compensation.

The RESPA interpretive rule raises a large legal question on the issue of whether this rule expands the definition of who a settlement service provider is. Lenders do not typically require a home warranty policy to be purchased by a buyer (or seller) as a condition in securing a federally related residential loan. The result has been that in many jurisdictions across the United States the home warranty policy is paid outside of closing and not listed on the HUD-1.

The question we need clarification on is whether RESPA believes that all home warranty policies issued on the purchase of a home where a federally related mortgage is involved be listed on the HUD-1. If that is not the case does this interpretive rule extend to companies that traditionally were not considered settlement service providers (pest inspection companies, home repair companies, privacy protection companies, etc.) under the original definition?

Continue reading "REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT: RESPA ISSUES INTERPRETIVE RULE ON HOME WARRANTY MARKETING AGREEMENTS" »

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is seeking public comments relating to Section 9: "Required Use" under RESPA. "The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA): Strengthening and Clarifying RESPA's "Required Use" Prohibition Advance Notice of Proposed Rule making" was made public on June, 3, 2010.

HUD appears to be concentrating on home builder owned title and mortgage companies where homebuilders offered construction upgrades or discounts to consumers if the home buyers used their ancillary title or mortgage company. The controversy centered around a few homebuilders who offered consumers free upgrades (i.e. bonus rooms, automobiles, or other extravincentives) if the consumer used the home builders affiliated mortgage or title company. The controversy escalated when some of these free upgrades exceeded tens of thousands of dollars. The cost to use another mortgage or title company did not make sense because the consumer would lose out on the extravagant free upgrade. Some consumers felt like they had to use the home builders affiliated business because the incentive was so excessive they had no choice but to use the homebuilders mortgage company.

The affiliated business model is encouraged by HUD when the consumer saves money but some some felt like the practice that a few homebuilders engaged in did not really save the consumers money on the mortgage side because they claim the interest rates were higher.

HUD appears to be looking at how to clarify the incentive language under "Required Use" so that the incentive offered actually benefits the consumer yet still allows the consumer to shop around.

The comment period ends on September 1, 2010.
All interested parties wishing to submit a comment should direct their comments to:
Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW Room 10276, Washington, D.C. 20410-0500

Sylvia Hsieh with Lawyers USA recently interviewed several attorneys from across the United States on how the new Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) regulations have created confusion for both the real estate industry and for consumers. Hsieh's article "New Real Estate Settlment Procedure Act regs stir confusion, frustration" is a good article on how the rule is creating many challenges. For disclosure purposes she also interviewed Marx Sterbcow with the Sterbcow Law Group LLC for this article.

The U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) made a number of surprising management changes last month including the shuffling of Ivy Jackson, the Director of the Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales to the Office of Insured Health Care Facilities. Ivy Jackson's departure took the real estate industry by surprise and created uncertainty for state regulators who were relying on her to educate them the new RESPA regulations this year.

The Sterbcow Law Group would like to thank Ivy Jackson for her contributions over the years at RESPA. She will always be remembered as a federal regulator who was fair to the real estate industry and to consumer interests while at RESPA. Ms. Jackson's work ethic, honesty, and experience will be missed.

HUD promoted Teresa Baker Payne to the position of Assistant Deputy Assistant Secretary and Barton Shapiro was named Acting Director of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales. Ms. Payne and Mr. Shapiro both bring experience to their new positions. Ms.Payne and Mr. Shapiro both are excellent choices for their respective roles at HUD.

Continue reading "RESPA: DEPUTY DIRECTOR IVY JACKSON IS SHUFFLED OUT OF RESPA DIVISION" »

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied certifying a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act "RESPA" class action lawsuit on March 11, 2010. The Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., case No. 3:05 CV 7427, consolidated No. 3:09 CV 400, 2010 WL 908464 (Northern District of Ohio) is a case where the plaintiffs asserted that Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc was engaged in operating illegal affiliated business arrangements (aka sham AfBAs) which is a violation of RESPA Section 8(a) and 8(b) (12. U.S.C. 2607 (a) and (b)).

Judge Jack Zouhary's reasoning for his latest denial of class certification in this RESPA lawsuit is controversial because he believes that class actions are not a proper method of litigating RESPA civil suits. Judge Zouhary's partially based his decision to deny class certification because it was his opinion that state and federal regulators should prosecute RESPA claims not class action litigation. The controversy surrounds the opinion because the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act does allow for civil class action lawsuits. State and federal regulators routinely rely on class action lawsuits to help them in their investigations the loss of this informational stream may have an adverse impact on the consumers some believe if this ruling is universally adopted across the United States.

It should be noted that the Court was overruled once before in this case by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the issue of whether a RESPA class action requires a concrete financial injury in fact. The question is whether the plaintiffs will appeal this ruling or will they find another way to continue on but avoid this particular Court.

Continue reading "RESPA CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION DENIED IN CARTER V. WELLES-BOWEN REALTY, INC" »

The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., WFC Holdings Corporation, Wells Fargo & Company, and Wells Fargo Financial Services Inc. on the issue of whether overcharging a settlement service fee to the consumer violates the real estate settlement procedures act (RESPA). The RESPA fee at issue was an $800.00 dollar "underwriting fee" which was charged to the borrowers in Martinez v. Wells Fargo

Continue reading "RESPA CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT DISMISSED ON OVERCHARGING ISSUE" »

The U.S. Housing and Urban Development's Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Division released new updated FAQs on Jan. 28, 2010. The new RESPA frequently asked updated question and answers (FAQs) are in bold.

One of the new questions asks whether a loan originator can require the use of its affiliate company for the tax or flood certificate. The updated RESPA guidance says that the loan originator may not require the use of its affiliate for the tax service or flood certificate, but a loan originator may require the use of a non-affiliated provider.

Three weeks have gone by since the new RESPA Regulations went into effect and the most commonly asked question we have encountered thus far is how are Seller Paid Transfer Tax Charges shown.

The Frequently Asked Questions "FAQs" state that "All charges typically paid by the borrower must be disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate regardless of whether the charges will be paid by the borrower, seller, or other party?" The FAQ under Section 4 & 5 (see pages 34 & 35): Right to Cure Tolerance Violations has caused a great deal of confusion in some areas of the country on the issue of where to put the transfer tax fee. The confusion centers on whether the transfer tax fee has to be disclosed on the borrower's Good Faith Estimate even if the seller is paying for 100% of the transfer tax.

In some areas of the United States the local custom or tradition in a real estate closing has been to make the seller pay for the entire or a portion of the transfer tax or there is language in the real estate contract stating the seller is to pay for all or part of the transfer tax.

The answer is if the seller is paying for the entire transfer tax or a portion of the transfer tax then it must be listed on the borrower's Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and must be shown on the HUD-1 on the borrower's charge column on page 2 of the HUD-1 settlement statement. A credit may be given from the seller to the borrower on page 1 of the HUD-1 to offset the charge. The only exception to this is if state or local law requires the seller pay for the transfer tax. If state law or local law specifically requires the seller to pay all or a portion of the transfer tax then that portion was not required to be on the Good Faith Estimate.

Please remember though that a transfer tax, unless state or local law requires that it be paid by the seller, is a zero tolerance charge and must be disclosed on the borrower's GFE and on the HUD-1. It should also be noted that a lender may overestimate the transfer tax charge as reductions are not considered tolerance violations under the new RESPA guidelines.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that it would be holding a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) outreach campaign for real estate industry compliance issues last week.

Continue reading "RESPA: HUD ANNOUNCES NEW RESPA OUTREACH CAMPAIGN" »

HUD announced today a delay in "HUD ENFORCEMENT" on the new RESPA Rule which goes into effect on Jan. 1st, 2010 on FHA loans. We need to highlight the fact that only HUD Enforcement of the new RESPA rule has been delayed for 120 days on FHA loans. Civil litigation on the new RESPA Rule goes into effect on Jan. 1st, 2010 and therefore is not delayed.

We applaud HUD for delaying enforcement of the new rule for 4 months it still exposes companies that do not implement the new changes to potential civil litigation issues for not complying with the new rule.

Another RESPA attorney said it best: "Better pin on your badge and strap on your gun looks like HUD will look to the plaintiff's bar to bring the heat in the first 4 months."

Below is a copy of the HUD press release:

Continue reading "RESPA: HUD OFFICIALLY DELAYS "HUD ENFORCEMENT" OF NEW RESPA REFORM RULE" »

The Director of the Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Ivy Jackson, clarified an major issue today that addresses industry confusion over the Yield Spread Premium "YSP". Several wholesale lenders issued guidance that the new RESPA restrictions required anyone who is not funding their own loan to have all the YSP, any money made on the interest rate, credited to the borrower. Some wholesale lenders were under the belief that anyone who brokered a loan would not be allowed to make any money on the loans interest rate or YSP.

For example under the current rule if the par rate today was 5.5% and its paying 100.500% that the broker would make their origination of 1% plus .5% on th rate in YSP. However, some wholesale lenders have been issuing guidance to mortgage brokers throughout the country that say the new RESPA restrictions forces the loan originator to credit the .5% YSP to the borrower at closing. This is not accurate as Ivy Jackson clarifies below:

Ivy Jackson said this is not accurate and states that "while true that any YSPs are now shown as a credit to the borrower in Box 2 under "Your Adjusted Origination Charges." The rule eliminates the 1% cap on origination charges for FHA loans.

Based on the wholesaler bankers example and a $100,000 loan, if the broker is going to make $1500.00 on the loan and there is a $500 YSP; Block 1 or "Our Origination Charge" would show $2000.00, Block 2, would show $500, resulting in an "Adjusted Origination Charge" of $1500.00."

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act "RESPA" regulations set to take place on January 1, 2010 has purportedly been delayed by HUD for six months. We are now waiting for an official announcement to take place by HUD to officially confirm the six month delay which should make the new implementation date on or around July 1, 2010.

We don't know what precipitated this possible delay by HUD but the real estate industry has stepped up their criticisms on the new rule, including a recent letter sent to HUD by numerous trade organizations, issues with the new Truth In Lending Act form "TILA" integration, and other federal enforcement agencies concerns about the transparency of the new HUD-1 have forced HUD to re-evaluate parts of the new rule. Of course one of the other problems is that many in the real estate industry are still very much unaware or uneducated on the new RESPA Rule.

UPDATED at 10:39 PM:
Assistant Secretary of Housing David Stevens informed me that there will not be a delay in the implementation of the Jan. 1, 2010 RESPA rule. The information we received came from numerous credible sources in Washington, D.C. but it appears that the information regarding the delay according to HUD will not occur.

UPDATE #2 AT 11:53 ON THURSDAY:
Kelly McCarel atRESPA NEWS.COM is now confirming "that HUD has been holding private meetings about the possibility of a delay" according to their sources.

However, Assistant Secretary of Housing Dave Stevens stated to us in an email at 3:00AM this morning that "There have been all sorts of discussions on readiness but a delay on implementation has not been one of them. The industry needs to be prepared for January 1st."

Stay tuned.............

Latest Update November 13, 2009
HUD Announced a 120 day (4 month) delay in HUD Enforcement of the new rule or as HUD calls it a "Restraint in Enforcement."

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided updated RESPA Reform compliance guidance on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement three times in the last few weeks. The following frequently asked questions (FAQs) involve only the HUD-1 below and are in addition to the initial FAQs released. We will add the Good Faith Estimate frequently asked questions at a later date. These rules, bearing a miracle, will go into effect on Jan. 10, 2010.

HUD-1 GENERAL

Question:
May separate HUD-1s be given to the seller and borrower with only their own information on each HUD-1?

Answer:
Yes. It is permissible to have two separate HUD-1s in a transaction; one with the buyer's credits and charges only, and one with the seller's credits and charges only. The settlement agent must provide the lender with a copy of both HUD-1s when the borrower's and seller's copies differ.

Question:
If an addendum is used, can the following text be added to the HUD-1: "See attached addendum for additional information"?

Answer:
It is acceptable to insert such a reference where appropriate on the HUD-1 for the purpose of making it clear to the parties what the completed HUD-1 comprises.

Question:
How should payments by the seller or real estate agent that are for settlement services included on the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) be shown on the HUD-1?

Answer:
If a seller or real estate agent pays for a charge that was included on the GFE, the charges should be listed in the borrower's column, with an offsetting credit reported in Lines 204-209 of the HUD-1, identifying the party paying the charge. For a seller-paid charge, the charge should also be listed in Lines 506-509. For a charge paid by the real estate agent, the name of the person paying the charge must also be listed.

Question:
The instructions in Appendix A to Part 3500 for completing the HUD-1 indicate how fees that are paid outside of closing should be designated on the HUD-1. Can the convention "P.O.C. (B*) be used instead, with the following footnote at the bottom of the page: *Paid outside of closing by borrower"?

Answer:
Yes, the HUD-1 Instructions require that P.O.C. items be listed on the HUD-1 by the settlement agent with an indication whether P.O.C. items are paid by the borrower, seller, or other party by marking the items paid for by whoever made the payment identified in the parentheses, such as P.O.C. (borrower) or P.O.C. (seller) as long as a footnote is added to the HUD-1 clearly noting the party paying for the items such as *Paid outside of closing by borrower or *Paid outside of closing by seller.

Question:
Where should fees for processing and administrative services be listed on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement?

Answer:
Processing and administrative services are services to perform origination and title service functions. For the loan origination function, charges for such services are included in the total on Line 801. For the title services function, charges for such services must be included in the title underwriter's or title agent's charge and are shown in the total on Line 1101. Examples of processing and administrative services include, but are not limited to, the following: document delivery, document preparation, copying, wiring, preparing endorsements, document handling, and notarization.

Question:
Where should the survey fee be disclosed on the HUD-1?

Answer:
The location of the survey fee on the HUD-1 is determined as follows:
(a) if the loan originator required a survey as a condition of the loan and the borrower selected the settlement service provider, the charge for the survey must be listed on a blank line in the 800 series in the borrower's column;
(b) if the loan originator required a survey as a condition of the loan and the borrower selected the settlement service provider, the charge for the survey must be listed as part of the total in Line 1301 of the HUD-1 and itemized as applicable;
(c) if a survey was required to issue a lender's or owner's title insurance policy, the charge for the survey is part of the charge in Line 1101 and must be further itemized if performed by a third party;
(d) if the borrower elected to obtain a survey that was neither required by the loan originator nor required to issue a lender's or owner's title insurance policy, then the charge is listed in the borrower's column on a blank line in the 1300 series.

Question:
May an addendum be added to the HUD-1 to list additional fees and other information?

Answer:
Yes, an additional page may be attached to the HUD-1 to add sequentially numbered lines as needed to accommodate the complete listing of all items required to be shown on the HUD-1, and for the purpose of including customary recitals and information used locally in real estate settlements (for example, breakdown of payoff figures, a breakdown of borrower's total monthly mortgage payments, check disbursements, a statement indicating receipt of funds, applicable special stipulations between buyer and seller, and the date funds are transferred).

Question:
The General Instructions indicate that if a charge has been shown on the GFE as payable by the borrower but at closing it is paid by another person, including by the loan originator in a loan other than a no-cost loan, the fee should be shown in the borrower's column on the HUD-1 and be offset by listing a credit to the borrower on lines 204-209 of the HUD-1. If a HUD-1A form is being used, lines 204-209 do not exist. How should the credit be shown on a HUD-1A form?

Answer:
Use of the HUD-1A form is an optional form to be used by the settlement agent in a transaction in which there is not a seller and as otherwise appropriate. If the use of a HUD-1A form is not appropriate, such as if there is a credit given by a loan originator or other party, the settlement agent must use the HUD-1 form.

Question:
In a transaction that is closed in the mortgage broker's name but is table funded by the lender, must the name and address of the funding lender be shown in Section F (consistent with definition of "lender" under 24 CFR §3500.2(b)) or may the mortgage broker's name and address be shown?

Answer:
The HUD-1 Instructions for Section F state that the name and address of the lender must be stated in this section. Therefore the name of the lender and not the mortgage broker must be stated in Section F on the HUD-1.

Continue reading "HUD RELEASES ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE GUIDANCE ON NEW RESPA RULE" »

On July 30, 2009, some of the provisions of the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 (MDIA) go into effect and lenders, mortgage brokers, title agents, real estate agents, and real estate brokerages need be alert as to these new federal governmental regulations. Here are the details for the MDIA:

1. The 3/7/3 Rule requires a seven business day waiting period once the initial disclosure is provided before closing a home loan (business days are everyday except Sundays and Holidays). This means that before a borrower can close on a transaction the borrower must receive the initial Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and initial TIL statement disclosing the final Annual Percentage Rate (APR) seven days prior to closing.

2. If the final annual percentage rate APR is off by more than .125% from the initial GFE disclosure then the lender must re-disclose and wait yet another three business days before closing on the transaction.

3. The consumer has the right to cancel and not proceed with the transaction if they so choose.

4. Lenders are forbidden from collecting money for appraisals, loan applications, etc. prior to the delivery of the Truth In Lending (TIL). Lenders can only collect from the borrower the credit report fee at the time of prior to delivery of the final TIL. No other fees are permitted to be collected at the time of application. If the TIL is sent by mail, additional charges can occur after the 3rd business day after the borrower receives the TIL in the mail.

5. The following language must be clearly written on the initial and final TIL: "You are not required to complete this agreement merely because you have received these disclosures or signed a loan application."

If you are a real estate agent or title agent you need to manage the process very carefully by:

A. Making sure that you check the initial Good Faith Estimate and Truth In Lending form for your buyers and look for discrepancies in charges. The new rules were put in place to protect consumers from being low balled one figure by a loan officer only to find out at the closing table that the fees charged were much higher. The new MDIA rules will absolutely delay closings if these steps are not followed carefully.

B. Buyers, sellers, and real estate professionals should not schedule a closing until the borrower has completed the seven day waiting period as required in the initial TIL.

Continue reading "MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE IMPROVEMENT ACT (MDIA) GOES INTO EFFECT ON JULY 30, 2009" »

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank officially introduced legislation to create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). The legislation, which is backed by the Obama Administration, would consolidate the consumer protection powers of the fifty various federal financial regulatory agencies by creating a single regulatory agency. The creation of this single regulatory agency is the single most important aspect of the proposed 229 page Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal.

The current financial governing system encourages abuses in the industry to take place because of the loopholes created by an inefficient and ineffective regulatory structure. The loopholes are exploited even further by the mass infighting that many of the governmental regulatory bureaucracies regularly display. The consolidation of these various federal agencies into one rule-making and investigative federal division should provide more uniform rules for those in the real estate industry and for consumers of real estate products.

The CFPA will have sole authority to draft and interpret regulations under the existing consumer financial services and fair lending statutes. The recent Good Faith Estimate/HUD-1 Settlement Statement forms developed by HUD and the Truth In Lending Act form is a prime example of decisions being made by one federal agency without input from a completely different agency. The biggest benefit consolidation presents to the industry and to the consumer is that this will increase the number of enforcement investigators. The consolidation of regulatory investigators is crucial because quite often investigators in one agency stop investigating abuses that relate to other agencies due to a myriad of reasons.

Continue reading "THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CFPA) PROPOSAL INCLUDES RESPA AND TILA REGULATORY GOVERNANCE" »

Reporter Kate Moran of the Times Picayune wrote a terrific article on a lawsuit the Sterbcow Law Group LLC and Melancon Rimes LLC filed on in behalf of their client and plaintiff Sarada LeBourgeois who was the victim of mortgage fraud.

"Lawsuit alleges that a loan originator stole money from a client" was published on May 12, 2009 and briefly describes the events surrounding the lawsuit. The federal case was recently remanded back to Civil District Court in New Orleans by U.S. District Judge Lance Africk.

Kelly McCarel with RESPA News also wrote an excellent article on the case on Feb. 12, 2009 entitled Louisiana case ties RESPA violations to alleged mortgage fraud"

The case was filed in the Orleans Parish, Civild District Court in Louisiana with the docket number 2008-2705 and is listed under the name Sarada LeBourgeois, et al. v. Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corporation, et al.

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley has introduced two new legislative bills that the real estate industry and public need to be keenly aware of: Senate Bill 911 known as The Transparency for Homeowners Act and Senate Bill 912 known as The Promoting Mortgage Responsibility Act. Sen. Merkley believes that abolishing the Yield Spread Premium (YSP) will stop the real estate mortgage problems in the United States because by eliminating the YSP will kill off the mortgage brokerage industry who rely on the YSP as part of their compensation. There have been abuses with the YSP and never was that more apparent during the sub-prime mortgage craze but if Senator Merkley was really interested in reigning in abusive practices they why didn't he address the Service Release Premium (SRP) abuses which far exceeded the abuses of the Yield Spread Premium? Robert Blake of the Mortgage Insider criticizes both bills as an attempt by the banking lobby to kill off their competition.

Continue reading "OREGON SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY INTRODUCES TRANSPARENCY FOR HOMEOWNERS ACT AND PROMOTING MORTGAGE RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 2009" »

The Obama Administration is pushing new legislation which would create a financial services regulatory commission. The commission would be called "The Financial Product Safety Commission" and it would regulate all mortgages, credit cards, and mutual funds. The Washington Post's Zachary A. Goldfarb, Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho wrote an article on May 20, 2009.

The Senate version of this bill under Section 10: Enforcement has some very strong criminal and civil money penalties that could further strengthen consumer protections against businesses. The current senate & house versions of the bill could add considerable consumer protections against loan servicing companies which under Section 6 of RESPA offer consumers very little protection from some mortgage servicing companies abusive practices. This is definitely one of those bills to keep an eye on as the ramifications could be huge for businesses and consumers.

Continue reading "RESPA: THE FINANCIAL PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION ACT OF 2009" »

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's Southern Division handed down a decision on April 20, 2009 in the Vicki V. Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc. d/b/a RealtySouth case. The case centered on Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and whether Administrative Brokerage Commissions (ABC Fees) are illegal.

United States District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins ruled the ABC Fees that RealtySouth charged consumers in a residential real estate transaction involving a federally related mortgage was nothing more than an unearned fee because the ABC fee would not be linked to a bona-fide settlement service that RealtySouth performed in the transaction.

The Birmingham News "Homebuyers were unfairly charged fee, federal court in Birmingham rules" by Russell Hubbard broke the story.

Section 8(b) of RESPA clearly states that no fee may be charged for the rendering of a real estate settlement service other than for settlement services actually performed.

RealtySouth charged a $149.00 Administrative Brokerage Fee since 2003 on over 30,000 real estate transactions in the state of Alabama. The defense was dealt a significant blow when two RealtySouth executives testified in their depositions that the ABC fees they charged did not go any particular settlement service but rather was implemented to increase revenues for the brokerage only. They further testified that the consumers did not get any benefit from the ABC fee. The testimony from the RealtySouth executives damaged RealtySouth to point where the defense didn't have any real hope of winning in this case.

If RealtySouth had charged the consumers a fee that was based on some benefit (i.e. technology closing platform to store all their documents) and labeled attached an appropriate label to that bona-fide fee then I believe the verdict would have been different. The wholesale blanket of charging ABC fees "where no service has been provided to the consumer" should be curtailed by any real estate brokerage or in some cases real estate agents themselves from charging such a fee.

The bottom line is that real estate brokerages need to make sure if they charge consumers an additional fee separate and apart from the real estate commission that the fee is reasonable, verified, service is provided, and most importantly the fee provides some benefit to the consumer.

The damages against RealtySouth could exceed $13.5 million dollars (treble damages on $149.00 with potentially 30,000 borrowers) plus the plaintiffs attorneys fees and costs in the civil action. If HUD's RESPA division sanctions RealtySouth as well the price tag could go up even further because Section 8 under RESPA also has criminal penalties.

The American Land Title Association (ALTA) sent a letter to the Federal Housing Administration asserting that Department of Housing and Urban Development is violating Section 9 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) with regards to the HUD-designated closing agent stipulation on all HUD properties for sale.

Section 9 of RESPA prohibits the seller of property from requiring the use of a particular title company unless the seller pays for all the borrowers title closing costs. Housingwire.com has more information on the letter sent to HUD by ALTA.

October Research has selected Charles C. Cain to be a speaker at the 2009 National Compliance Summit on February 19-20, 2009 at The Westin Casuarina Las Vegas Hotel, Casino & Spa. Charles Cain is Of Counsel to the Sterbcow Law Group LLC in New Orleans, Louisiana and is President of Alliance Solutions LLC based in Cincinnati, Ohio.

A recent RESPA litigation ruling by the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio sparked headlines this week when they overturned a district court ruling denying class certification in the Erik C. Carter, et. al., United States of America v. Welles Bowen Realty, Inc. et al lawsuit. No. 07-3965.

The issue at dispute is whether a Section 8 claim of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act violation gives consumers "standing even if the consumer does not allege an above-market race charge for services, i.e. an 'overcharge.'" The district court previously held that because the defendants did not over charge the consumers they didn't suffer an injury but the appellate court has overturned the district courts decision.

Welles-Bowen Title Agency is a joint venture affiliated business arrangement, owned by Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc. and Chicago Title Insurance Company--a Fidelity subsidiary. The alleged problem with the relationship however appears to be that Welles-Bowen Title Agency did not really perform any settlement work, review title, or even conduct the closings. However, Chicago Title gave Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc. seventy percent (70%) of the fees and title policy money generated. If the allegations are true then this relationship would appear to be an illegal sham affiliated business arrangement under federal RESPA guidelines. There are other issues at play as well, such as the State of Ohio's affiliated business arrangement ownership and profit requirements but those were not addressed in this appellate decision.

Continue reading "REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT (RESPA) LITIGATION UPDATE " »

The new Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) guidelines are now officially enacted as of Friday, Jan. 16, 2009. However the Required Use Section 9 changes have been put on hold for 90 days pending a review by HUD which was prompted by the National Association of Homebuilders lawsuit.

The new Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and Housing & Urban Development Settlement Statement (HUD-1) can now be used but won't be required until next year. However if a lending institution does use the new Good Faith Estimate form then the new HUD-1 and HUD-1A must be used as well in order to be compliant with the new rules.

If you are a lender or title agent please make sure you and your staff are educated on these changes because the new rules will create a substantial risk for litigation for companies who are unaware of the new rules.

We are hearing from multiple sources that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will be formally announcing delaying the implementation of the new RESPA Reform rule which is scheduled to go into effect on January 16, 2009, The delay is in response to the National Association of Home Builder's (NAHB) lawsuit against HUD that was filed on December 23, 2008. We will provide an update on NAHB lawsuit later.

The RESPA implementation delay is rumored to be 90 days from Jan. 16, 2009, meaning the new RESPA guidelines rule regarding Required Use and Section 9 of RESPA at this point will go info effect on April 16, 2009. The 90 days will give HUD 90 days to study the NAHB lawsuit.

The Sterbcow Law Group is pleased to announce that Charles C. Cain will join the law firm effective January 1, 2009. Charles will be "Of Counsel" and will work out of his Cincinnati, Ohio office. Charles is highly regarded as one of the country's top RESPA compliance and regulatory attorneys by many in the legal and real estate industry. He will add tremendous depth to the firm in our rapidly expanding RESPA litigation and compliance practice.

Charles joins The Sterbcow Law Group from LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. where he was the Vice President of LandAmerica's Senior Alliance Business Partner division where he focused on management and creation of over 400 RESPA compliant affiliated business relationships in over 28 states. He also provided employee and independent agent RESPA training. Charles is also President of Alliance Solutions LLC in Cincinnati, Oho.

Charles has been a featured speaker at various events such as The Real Estate Settlement Providers Organization, October Research's programs such as Title Radio and the National Settlement Services Summit, Ohio Bar Association, Kentucky Bar Association, Ohio Land Title Association, Indiana Land Title Association, Missouri Land Title Association, and Michigan Land Title Association. His reputation and knowledge are one of the many reasons that numerous state regulators throughout the United States consult with him for RESPA guidance.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded him the "Special Citation" for Fair Housing Best Practices. He is the Past Chairman of the Real Property Section of the Cincinnati Bar Association, former Trustee of the Cincinnati Mortgage Bankers Association, Member of the Mayor of Cincinnati's Blue Ribbon Committee of the Cincinnati Housing Partnership, and a Member of the Cincinnati Area Fair Mortgage Credit Project through the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

Charles is admitted to practice law in Ohio, Kentucky, various Federal Courts, and the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeal.

Continue reading "NATIONALLY ACCLAIMED RESPA ATTORNEY, CHARLES "CHUCK" CAIN, JOINS THE STERBCOW LAW GROUP" »

President Elect Barak Obama has selected Shaun Donovan to be the next United States' Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Donovan, who was the head of the New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development, is viewed by many in the industry as someone who possesses a significant amount of experience in the housing field.

Donovan was Managing Director for Prudential Mortgage Capital Co's Lending and Affordable Housing Investments Division prior to his position with New York City. Real Estate Industry groups (the National Association of Realtors Mortgage Bankers Association, and others) have lauded Donovan's selection once his name became public.

Donovan will inherit a lot of controversial regulations including RESPA Reform and will have to address other areas including the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) lending issues.

If the Senate confirms Donovan he will replace Steve Preston.

Continue reading "HUD: PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA SELECTS SHAUN DONOVAN TO BE NEW SECRETARY " »