RESPA Lawyer Blog

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "CFPB" released the "Integrated Mortgage Disclosures under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth In Lending Act" (Regulation Z) proposed rule today. The CFPB is asking the public to comment on the rule on or before November 6, 2012 with the exception of 12 CFR 1026.1(c) and 1024.4 in which comments are due on or before September 7, 2012. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act directed the CFPB to issue proposed rules and forms that combine certain disclosures that consumers recieve in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the TILA and RESPA. The CFPB has proposed to amend Regulation X (RESPA) and Regulation Z (TILA) to establish new disclosure requirements and forms in Regulation Z for most closed-end consumer credit transactions secured by real property.

To read a copy of this proposed rule please click the link below. Warning the document is 1099 pages so becareful before hitting the print button on your computer!
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CFPB-2012-0028-0001

If you care to comment on the proposed rule the comment form can be accessed by clicking the link below:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=CFPB-2012-0028-0001

Continue reading "RESPA: INTEGRATED MORTGAGE DISCLOSURES UNDER RESPA AND TILA PROPOSAL RELEASED" »

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "CFPB" announced plans today to implement an early warning enforcement action plan ("the Early Warning Notice") which would allow those under investigation the ability to respond to the CFPB. The CFPB Bulletin 2011-04 (Enforcement) announced the first in a series of periodic bulletins the CFPB will release which are aimed at providing information about the policies and priorities of the CFBP's Bureau of Enforcement.

"Before the Office of Enforcement recommends that the Bureau commence enforcement proceedings, the Office of Enforcement may give the subject of such recommendation notice of the nature of the subject's potential violations and may offer the subject the opportunity to submit a written statement in response. The decision whether to give such notice is discretionary, and a notice may not be appropriate in some situations, such as in cases of ongoing fraud or when the Office of Enforcement needs to act quickly."

It is important to note that if the subject(s) of an investigation is asked to provide the Bureau of Enforcement a response statement and the subject prepares and submits the response statement under oath to the Bureau the response may be discoverable by third parties.

The Early Warning Notice also allows any person involved in an investigation to voluntarily submit a written statement at any point during an investigation.

Continue reading "CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU: "THE EARLY WARNING NOTICE" PROCEDURE ANNOUNCED FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION" »

The United States Supreme Court granted First American Financial Corporation's Writ of Certiorari it filed in the Denise P. Edwards et al. v. First American Financial Corporation, et al. RESPA class action lawsuit today (June 20, 2011). The Supreme Court will now decide whether a plaintiff has standing to sue, on behalf of a nationwide class, when a plaintiff asserts that a real estate company violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA) without showing the RESPA violation affected the services rendered.

The Edwards lawsuit accuses First American and others of operating an illegal kickback scheme which violated Section 8 of RESPA. The Supreme Court decision will focus strictly on Question 2 presented in the Writ of Certiorari. The issue presented in Question 2 is whether the a privte purchaser of real estate has standing to sue under Article III, Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution.

The case is First American Financial v. Edwards, 10-708.

Continue reading "BREAKING RESPA NEWS: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT GRANTS WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN EDWARDS VS. FIRST AMERICAN'S RESPA CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT" »

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Division released its latest RESPA ROUNDUP newsletter (Volume 5, April 2011). The newsletter asks and answers one question each on HUD-1 Line 803 tolerance violations, credit report charges, what happens if a loan originator fails to issue a Good Faith Estimate "GFE", and clarifies 4506-T "Tax Transcript Fees" disclosure.

Question #1. HUD-1 Line 803 tolerance violation

"Does zero tolerance for HUD-1 Line 803 (see “adjusted origination charges”; 24 CFR § 3500.7(e)(1)(iii)) mean that loan originators must double the cure of a tolerance violation of Line 801 or Line 802 because each tolerance violation on those Lines also results in an increase in the Adjusted Origination Charge on Line 803?

No. Correcting a Line 801 or Line 802 tolerance violation will serve to correct a tolerance violation that stems from the calculation of Line 803.

Loan originators should carefully monitor their own charges to avoid tolerance violations. However, if the loan originator fails to correct Line 801, 802 or consequently Line 803 tolerance violations before settlement, the loan originator can effectuate a cure within 30 days by listing and describing a credit in either the 200 Series on Page 1 or in a blank line in the 800 Series on Page 2. Whether the cure is shown in the 200 Series or 800 Series, the settlement agent should include a notation of P.O.C.(lender), to indicate that the lender has made a payment of a specified amount to correct a potential tolerance violation.

Whether the cure is shown in the 200 Series on Page 1 or the 800 Series on Page 2, a cure to correct a tolerance violation on Lines 801 and/or 802 will serve to correct the tolerance violation on Line 803.

After the revised HUD-1 has been prepared by the settlement agent, the settlement agent must provide the revised HUD-1 to the borrower and lender, and, as appropriate, to the seller."

Question #2. Credit Report Charges

"The regulations provide that the only charge that a loan originator may impose on a potential borrower before issuing a GFE is a charge limited to the cost of a credit report (see 24 CFR §§ 3500.7(a)(4) and (b)(4) “…the [loan originator] may, at its option, charge a fee limited to the cost of a credit report”). Only after a loan applicant both receives a GFE and indicates an intention to proceed with the loan covered by the GFE may the loan originator collect fees beyond the cost of a credit report.

For example, if the loan originator’s cost for a credit report is an $8.75 charge from a third party, the total amount that the loan originator can charge the borrower before the GFE is issued is $8.75. In this case, the actual charge of the credit report listed on Line 805 of the HUD-1 is $8.75.

Alternatively, pursuant to 24 CFR § 3500.8(b)(2), the loan originator’s cost for a credit report may also be calculated, charged, and disclosed on the GFE and HUD-1 as an average charge, as long as all of the requirements in 24 CFR § 3500.8(b)(2) are met. This section provides, in part: “The average charge for a settlement service shall be no more than the average amount paid for a settlement service by one settlement service provider to another settlement service provider on behalf of borrowers and sellers for a particular class of transactions involving federally related mortgage loans….”"

Question #2: What if the Loan Originator fails to issue a Good Faith Estimate "GFE"?

If a loan originator fails to deliver a GFE in clear violation of 24 CFR § 3500.7(a) and (b), the loan originator will have significant potential tolerance violations at settlement. See RESPA § 3500.7(e).

Where the loan originator has not provided the consumer with a GFE, when completing the HUD-1 comparison chart the loan originator’s instructions to the settlement agent must indicate that the settlement agent must fill in the GFE columns with $0 and the HUD-1 columns with the actual charges from Page 2 of the HUD-1. If this results in one or more tolerance violations, the loan originator may cure the tolerance violation(s) by reimbursing the borrower the amount by which the tolerance was exceeded at settlement or within 30 calendar days after settlement.

As with other compliance areas, loan originators should adopt policies and procedures to ensure that GFEs are delivered timely, in accordance with the requirements of RESPA.

Question #4: 4506-T "Tax Transcript Fees"

The fee for obtaining a tax transcript using IRS Form 4506-T, “Request for Transcript of Tax Return” is an administrative charge that is part of processing and underwriting that should be disclosed as part of Block 1, “Our Origination Charge,” on the GFE regardless of whether the charge is paid to a third party or directly to the IRS.

Continue reading "RESPA: NEW RESPA ROUNDUP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELEASED BY HUD" »

The United States Department of Treasury has hired Richard Cordray to lead the Enforcement Division of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which was created under the Dodd-Frank Bill. Richard Cordray was elected as the Ohio Attorney General in 2008. Cordray has filed numerous lawsuits during his tenure as the Ohio Attorney General, most notably against AIG, Marsh & McLennan, Bank of America, and Merrill Lynch which resulted in more than 2.5 billion dollars in settlements.

Given Cordray's history it appears that he will be focusing on federal preemption of nationally chartered banks and the problems state regulators have had with their inability to enforce laws. The doctrine of preemption was used by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency as a way to stop states from enforcing rules and regulations against nationally chartered banks. He has pledged to jointly work with state attorney generals while at the CFPB in his investigations which could significantly hamper nationally chartered banks argument of federal preemption against state laws. Cordray and The American Bankers Association have opposing stances on the bank preemption issue. The underlying premise is that nationally chartered banks who engage in abusive and fraudulent tactics better be prepared for an onslaught of litigation and penalties when the enforcement team starts working with the states.

Richard Cordray's reputation is that of a staunch advocate for consumer rights against financial services companies who break the law. Cordray is responsible for selecting the enforcement team and preparing for the exercise of enforcement powers. RESPA enforcement under Cordray appears to be a priority based on his past history and Section 6 of RESPA is a prime target for future regulatory enforcement action by the CFPB.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) collaborated to produce a series of videos on YouTube.com which are geared at educating future home buyers on the real estate buying process. The joint effort was unveiled at the National Association of Realtors 2010 National Conference in New Orleans last week.

The first 10 minute video "Shopping for your home" features HUD associate deputy assistant secretary Teresa Baker Payne explaining the home buying process.

The second 12 minute video "Shopping for your loan" features HUD deputy assistant secretary for FHA Vicki Bott explaining what home buyers need to look for when shopping for their mortgage loan and includes a consumer friendly approach to the Good Faith Estimate "GFE."

The third 10 minute video "Closing the Deal" features Teresa Baker Payne explaining the actual closing process and what areas on the Good Faith Estimate and RESPA HUD-1 Settlement Statement home buyers needs to look at when they receive their closing documentation.

This is an excellent series of videos because not only does this help consumers but it also will help educate those in the real estate industry as well. This is probably the best consumer educational initiative HUD has put together in years.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which will oversee the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) now has a decision maker to help set up the CFPB. President Obama announced today the appointment of Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren to implement policies and procedures to protect consumers from financial products. Ms. Warren who is widely known as the person who developed the idea for the CFPB will also be responsible for helping select a director to head up the CFPB.

Warren is considered a strong consumer advocate and her ideology has some in the financial services industry concerned. The concern reached a fevered pitch over the last two months with Republicans and the financial services industry pledged to hold up her confirmation in the Senate. Obama's move of not appointed her to the CFBP but rather giving Warren supervisory authority of the CFPB without going through a senate confirmation process stunned her critics.

It remains to be seen how Warren will tackle the enforcement of RESPA in the near future but I suspect that we will see a huge increase in both funding and manpower in the RESPA enforcement arena.

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 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 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released the new Settlement Cost Booklet. The 49 page informational booklet must be delivered to consumers within three days of the application along with the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) for a mortgage loan by their lender or mortgage broker. Even though the HUD informational guide was released on Dec. 16, 2009 it must be used beginning on Jan. 1, 2010. Failure to provide the new HUD booklet to consumers within three days of the loan application is a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Section 5.

An electronic copy of HUD's Settlement Cost Booklet can be sent to the borrower electronically in lieu of the printed booklet.

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" »

HUD released the following information today with regards to the HUD-1 Settlement Statement in order to help consumers and industry better understand the new RESPA rules that will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2010. We will list below all FAQ's HUD released with regards to the HUD-1 Settlement Statement.

If you have questions or comments please feel free to ask in our RESPA Blog comment section.

Continue reading "HUD RELEASES FAQ 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" »

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" »

The Financial Services Committee for the House of Representatives voted to suspend the implementation of the new Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD-1) Settlement Statement. The committee voted to amend the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 1728) because the Federal Reserve Board is coming out with a new Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) disclosure. Many in the industry are concerned that the new TILA disclosure will not integrate properly with the new HUD-1 and GFE. The bill will soon go to the full House and the Senate has its own version it will be pushing. So it looks like the new GFE and HUD-1 will have to wait until the TILA is finalized by the Federal Reserve Board.

The Real Estate Services Providers Council, Inc. (RESPRO) has more information on the House committee action.

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.

The National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) last week. The lawsuit seeks to prevent to HUD from implementing the the new RESPA rule. While NAMB is the first trade association sue HUD, most real estate industry observers expect that dozens of other various local and national trade associations will file suit as well to stop this rule from going into effect.

NAMB believes that the new RESPA rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The lawsuit also alleges that HUD failed to examine the new rules impact on small businesses arguing that the implementation of this rule will significantly hurt consumers and cause unfair imbalances in the mortgage lending marketplace.

If the Obama Administration doesn't kill the new RESPA rule in its entirety next month when they take office then the odds are this will hot button rule will be mired in litigation and cost millions of dollars in legal fees on both sides.

The United States Housing and Urban Development's RESPA Department unleashed their new HUD-1 Settlement Statement today. The new HUD-1 doesn't change too much in format on the 1st page but its the 2nd and 3rd page that does.

Sections 100, 200, 400, & 500 don't have any changes from the previous HUD-1.

Sections 300 & 600 do break down "Gross amount due" and "Less amounts paid". I don't foresee these two sections as controversial.

Section 700 of the HUD was not modified or changed.

Sections 800, 900, and 1000 will be discussed later in conjunction with the GFE and the 3rd page of the new HUD-1. Its clear from page 3 of the new settlement statement that HUD has enacted price controls of no more than a 10% deviation. This will be extremely controversial and will likely cause most of the trade associations to file suit against HUD for overstepping its congressional authority by enacting price controls.

Continue reading "RESPA REFORM RULE'S NEW HUD-1 SETTLEMENT STATEMENT INITIAL ANALYSIS" »

Federal Housing Commissioner/Assistant Secretary for HUD Brian Montgomery, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation Gary Cunningham, and Director of RESPA Ivy Jackson will appear before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee today, November 12, 2008 at 2:00 PM EST to discuss HUD's new final RESPA rule.

The actual rule is still not available to the public but Housing and Urban Development (HUD) expects the rule to be published in the Federal Register in the coming days.

Continue reading "RESPA REFORM CONGRESSIONAL HEARING SET FOR NOVEMBER 12, 2008 AT 2:00 PM EST" »

RESPANEWS.COM is reporting that The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has concluded its review of the proposed RESPA REFORM rule that The United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been pushing for.

The proposed 2008 RESPA Reform rule seeks to give HUD the authority to impose civil money penalties for violations of certain RESPA sections such as Section 4 (HUD-1); Section 5 (Good Faith Estimate "GFE" and Special Information Booklet); Section 6 (Servicing); Section 8 (Referral Fee and Fee Spliting prohibitions); Section 9 (Required Use); and Section 10 (Escrow Accounts).

The public proposal gives HUD and State Regulators authority to enforce injunctive and equitable relief , expands the statute of limitations for government and private actions against those who violate RESPA, and requires the delivery of the HUD-1 Settlement Statement to the borrower at least three days prior to closing.

Although it is not official it does appear that the highly controversial Closing Script proposal has been yanked from the rule.