Real Estate

CFPB rules have been revised

Standard

Are we now free to share Closing Disclosures with real estate agents?

cfpb-logoThe CFPB recently issued amendments to its rules governing residential loan closings, but it did not settle the debate about whether Closing Disclosures can be shared with real estate agents. Traditionally, real estate agents were provided settlement statements both before closings, to give them the opportunity to explain the numbers to their buyer and seller clients, and after closings, to enable them to close MLS listings.

Since we have been operating under the CFPB rules and generating Closing Disclosures, we have struggled with the insistence on the part of real estate agents to receive those documents and the reluctance on the part of lenders to share them.  Most of us have resolved this conflict by providing real estate agents with separate settlement statements, such as ALTA’s Settlement Statements, which are similar to our prior HUD-1 Settlement Statements. It took us awhile to figure out that Closing Disclosures are not traditional closing statements and do not facilitate disbursement. Once we realized separate settlement statements are actually needed to fully inform borrowers, sellers and real estate agents, this issue became less important.

The CFPB has indicated it has received many questions about sharing Closing Disclosures with third parties. The amendment says:

“(T)the Bureau notes that such sharing of the Closing Disclosure may be permissible currently to the extent that it is consistent with (the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) and Regulation P and is not barred by applicable State law. However, the Bureau does not believe that expansion of the scope of such permissible sharing would, in this rulemaking, be germane to the purposes of Regulation Z.”

Lenders will likely continue to refuse to allow sharing of Closing Disclosures in light of this clear-as-mud directive. Most lenders currently state that the consumer may provide the Closing Disclosure to real estate agents if he or she chooses to do so. That rule is not likely to change.

The Quicken decision is out

Standard

It’s not what dirt lawyers wanted or expected

The South Carolina Supreme Court never ceases to amaze when it decides real estate cases. Dirt lawyers seldom know what to expect. We read the precedents. We attend the hearings. We listen to the Justices’ questions. We believe we get a glimpse of what they may be thinking. But we miss the mark. Last week, the South Carolina Supreme Court decided the much anticipated Quicken case*, and if I had predicted the top five possible outcomes, I would not have come close to the actual decision.

I fully expected a 3-2 decision in either direction. But it is a 5-0 strongly written decision. It is a decision that was written to dispose of the controversy. It is a decision that was written to deny the possibility of reconsideration.

real estate button keyboard

This is an unauthorized practice of law case brought in the Court’s original jurisdiction. The case was assigned to Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein as Special Referee to take evidence and issue a report. Judge Goodstein held a two-week trial and issued a report finding, essentially, that no South Carolina licensed lawyer quarterbacked (my word) the mostly Internet-based residential refinance closings. In the facts recited in Judge Goodstein’s report, lawyers were peripherally involved in all of the steps required by State v. Buyers Service Co.** and its progeny, but no lawyer was actually involved in a way that the interest of the borrower was protected.

(Summarizing the prior decisions, the steps requiring lawyers are: (1) document preparation; (2) title search; (3) closing; (4) recording; and (5) disbursement.)

The Supreme Court somehow reviewed the same record and found that lawyers were involved and used their professional judgment in each step. The facts recited in the Court’s decision were not recognizable from the facts recited by Judge Goodstein’s report. The Court completely rejected the report and apparently decided that a finding of UPL under the circumstances would “mark an unwise and unnecessary intrusion into the marketplace”. “Simply put,” the Court stated, “we believe requiring more attorney involvement in cases such as this would belie the Court’s oft-stated assertion that UPL rules exist to protect the public, not lawyers.”

Most South Carolina dirt lawyers were hoping the Court would find a South Carolina licensed lawyer must be at the center of each closing, overseeing each step, and insuring that the consumer client’s interests were protected in each step. That is definitely not what we got.

There is, however, some good news in this decision. The Court made the clearest implication to date (without an explicit holding) that Buyers Service and its progeny may not apply in the commercial arena. The Court repeatedly stated that the context of this case is the residential refinance arena. I have discussed this case with several commercial lawyers to ascertain whether they are now comfortable to forego certifications that other South Carolina licensed lawyers are involved in the closing steps that are not under their control. They seem to feel slightly more comfortable, but not comfortable enough to let go of that step. Perhaps the passage of time will help.

Other good news is that, despite the facts recited by Judge Goodstein to the contrary, the Court clearly stated that lawyers were involved and used their professional judgment in each required step. The out-of-state entities who do business here should make sure their processes include this professional judgment in each step of the closing.

After reading this case a dozen times, I’ve decided that no law has changed. Nothing will change in our local processes. Nothing will likely change dramatically in the processes of the out-of-state entities who do business here. If I had not read Judge Goodstein’s report and if I had not attended the Supreme Court’s hearing, I would probably not be shocked with this result.

I would love hear what you think.

*Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc., South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 27727, July 19, 2017

** State v. Buyers Serv. Co., 292 S.C. 426, 357 S.E.2d 15 (1987)

Despicable Acts: Absentee property owners can be targets of fraud

Standard

Despicable acts

And real estate lawyers may be the best minions to prevent these crimes!

Imagine this scenario: Lucy Wilde’s family owns a farm in rural Orangeburg County, South Carolina. Since the sudden death of Lucy’s husband, Felonius Gru in 2007, no one has farmed the property. The fields are sitting fallow awaiting the opening of the estate and the division of the property among and Felonius’ heirs, including Lucy. The relatives have all fled small-town living to join the Anti-Villain League, so no one is available to literally mind the farm, and no one is in a hurry to settle the estate.

Enter Balthazar Bratt, a fraudster from Miami who sees the vacant property, searches the public records and learns the property is owned by the late Felonius Gru. Bratt also learns the property is ripe for development because it is located near the prime corridor between Charleston and Columbia, and very near Interstate access.

How can Bratt take advantage of this scenario while the Anti-Villain League employed family members are not paying attention? Absentee owners of real property are often the targets of criminals who pose as true owners offering the property for sale or as collateral for a new loan. These fraudsters may sell or refinance the property and abscond with the sale proceeds or strip any equity in the property with a new loan. The true owner has no idea the property is the subject of a real estate transaction.

In our fictional account, if Bratt was able to ascertain through the public records that Felonius Gru was deceased, a good title examiner should be able to use the same sleuthing methods.  If rural Orangeburg County is not your stomping grounds, as we say in the South, you might hire a title examiner who does have experience in the locale. In small towns in South Carolina, people know each other!

Another tip to fight criminals like Bratt is to compare the mailing address provided by the seller or borrower to the tax bill. While this step may not help in an estate situation, it may very well reveal an absentee owner located in a different address than the one provided by the fraudster.  If the address is different from the address provided to you or the lender, send a letter to the address shown on the tax bill. Your letter might simply suggest that you are happy to be of service to the buyer in the transaction and that if the seller is unaware of the situation, he should have his attorney contact you. That letter should get the attention of an absentee and clueless property owner.

Another tip is to compare signatures of the seller or borrower against documents in the public records. While we are not expected to be handwriting experts, we can spot obvious forgeries. I remember a war story from long ago where one person signed in seven spots in a deed, for the five owners and the two witnesses. The alert closing attorney called an immediate halt to the potentially disastrous real estate transaction!

A well-known and well-used technique that often works is to obtain and carefully review picture identifications for everyone who signs documents in your office. Also, do not accept an assignment of proceeds. Make sure proceeds are paid to the seller or borrower of record only.

And finally, give yourself and your staff members permission to carefully and slowly consider every aspect of your closings. Staff members should be encouraged to be cautious and suspicious and to discuss their concerns with each other or with an attorney in the office.  If the closing attorney needs a sounding board, she should call her friendly title insurance company lawyer.  I can’t count the number of times someone has called me, explained a situation, and before I could even respond, said, “oh, that’s a problem, isn’t it?”

minions

Sometimes just explaining the situation out loud to another person makes the problems crystal clear!

Be careful out there!

Sometimes the sky isn’t so blue in Malibu

Standard

California case might spell trouble for real estate agents and brokers across the country

The California Supreme Court decided a case in late 2016 that may have wide-ranging effect for real estate companies in that state.* The case involves a Chinese millionaire’s 2007 purchase of a mansion in Malibu for $12.25 million.

The seller, a trust, engaged Chris Cortazzo, a salesman in Coldwell Banker’s Malibu West office to sell the property.  As Cortazzo prepared to list the property, he obtained information from the tax assessor’s office that indicated the property’s living area was 9,434 square feet. The building permit described a single-family residence of 9,224 square feet, a guest house of 746 square feet, a garage of 1,080 square feet and a basement of unspecified area. The MLS listing stated that the property “offers approximately 15,000 square feet of living area”. Cortazzo also prepared and distributed a flyer making the same square footage representation.house measuring tape

In 2007, a couple made an offer to purchase the property. By handwritten note, Cortazzo informed them that Coldwell Banker did not “guarantee or warrant” the square footage, and advised them to “hire a qualified specialist to verify the square footage”. When the couple requested documentation of the square footage, Cortazzo gave them a letter from the property’s architect stating the “size of the house, as defined by the current Malibu building department ordinance is approximately 15,000 square feet.”  In a cover note, Cortazzo again cautioned them to hire a specialist. This sale fell through.

Horishi Horiike had been working for several years with Chizuko Namba, a sales person in Coldwell Banker’s Beverly Hills office, to find a residential property to buy. Namba showed Horiike the residence in question. Cortazzo gave Horiike the marketing flyer advertising approximately 15,000 square feet and an MLS printout that did not specify the square footage and contained note in small print that “Broker/Agent does not guarantee the accuracy of the square footage.” Horiike and the selling trust entered into a contract.

Before the closing, Horiike signed three disclosure forms confirming that Coldwell Banker represented both the buyer and the seller in the transaction. Under California law, a real estate broker may act as a dual agent for both parties, provided both parties consent to the arrangement after full disclosure.  The broker may act through one or more “associate licensees”, typically the salespeople who operate under the broker’s license and supervision. The governing statute provides that when an associate licensee owes a duty to any party in a real estate transaction, that duty is equivalent to the duty owed to that party by the broker.

Cortazzo did not state in writing to Horiike that there may be a discrepancy in the square footage, as he had done with the previous potential buyer. He also did not advise Horiike to retain an expert to verify the square footage. After the closing, Horiike learned that the property had less than 12,000 square feet of living area (although Coldwell Banker experts testified at trial that the living area was 14,186 square feet.)

In 2010, Horiike filed suit against Cortazzo and Coldwell Banker for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business practices and false advertising. He did not sue the selling agent, Namba.

In a unanimous decision, California’s Supreme Court stated that the case presented a single, narrow question:  whether the associate licensee who represented the seller owed a duty to learn and disclose all information materially affecting the property, including the discrepancy in the square footage. The Court held that Coldwell Banker, as broker, owed a fiduciary duty to both parties and that Cortazzo, as associate licensee, had the responsibility to properly investigate and disclose all important information related to the transaction. The Court concluded Cortazzo owed a duty to Horiike equivalent to the duty owed to him by Coldwell Banker.

Several trade associations filed amicus briefs in the case. One concern is that an agent working with a buyer has no idea what property that buyer will ultimately purchase. Whether the same broker will represent the seller can’t be predicted. Another concern is that this decision may also reach commercial transactions. It is also possible that this case may open selling agents open to lawsuits from their clients for over-disclosure.

Could this happen in South Carolina? A provision in our statutory scheme may save brokers from the fate set out in this case, at least where different branch offices of a real estate firm are involved. Here, each branch office must be managed by a broker-in-charge. South Carolina Code §40-57-350 (I)(2) states that a broker-in-charge and associated licensees in one office of a real estate brokerage firm may conduct business with a client of another office of the real estate brokerage firm without creating a dual agency relationship, so long as the branch offices each have separate brokers-in-charge and do not share the same associated licensees.

I can’t find similar protection for listing and selling agents who work in the same branch office, nor for companies with listing and selling agents in the same location.  And, as we all know, there is no predicting what our court might say in connection with real estate matters. We will have to pay attention to see whether other courts, and particularly South Carolina courts, follow the lead of the California Supreme Court.

*Horiike v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., 1 C5th 1024 (2016)

The hazards of drafting survivorship deeds for consumers

Standard

Pay attention to tricky South Carolina law!

More than a decade has elapsed since our Supreme Court surprised dirt lawyers with Smith v. Cutler,* the case that told us there were already in place two survivorship forms of ownership in South Carolina. We apparently missed that day in law school! The two forms of ownership are joint tenancy (which we knew and loved) and tenancy in common with an indestructible right of survivorship (which slipped by us somehow). This is a mini-history lesson about how we got to this state of the law and a reminder for dirt lawyers to carefully draft deeds.

Under the common law in South Carolina, tenancy in common is the favored form of ownership. A deed to George Clooney and Amal Clooney (whether George and Amal are married or not) will result in a tenancy in common. At the death of George or Amal, the deceased’s fifty percent interest in the property will pass by will or intestacy laws. Joint tenancy was not favored in South Carolina, and there was no tenancy by the entirety that would have saved the property from probate (and creditors) for a married couple.

A rather convoluted 1953 case** interpreted a deed that intended to create a tenancy by the entirety as creating a shared interest in property between husband and wife referred to as a tenancy in common with an indestructible right of ownership. This is the case that the Smith v. Cutler Court referred to as creating the form of ownership we missed.

It’s not technically true that all of us missed this form of ownership. Some practitioners did use the language from the 1953 case to create a survivorship form of ownership. The magic language is “to George Clooney and Amal Clooney for and during their joint lives and upon the death of either of them, then to the survivor of them, his or her heirs and assigns forever in fee simple.”  Other practitioners routinely used the common law language: “to George Clooney and Amal Clooney as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common.”

Conveying title from a person to himself and another person establishing survivorship was not possible in South Carolina prior to 1996 because the old common law requirement of unities of title could not be met. To create a survivorship form of ownership, the property owner conveyed to a straw party, who would then convey to the husband and wife, complying with the unities of title requirement and establishing survivorship.

A 1996 statutory amendment to §62-2-804 rectified this problem by providing that a deed can create a right of survivorship where one party conveys to himself and another person. The straw party is no longer needed. This statute was given retroactive effect.

In 2000, our legislature added §27-7-40, which provides that a joint tenancy may be created, “in addition to any other method which may exist by law” by the familiar words “as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common”.  The statute addresses methods for severing joint tenancies which typically results in a tenancy in common. For example, unless the family court decides otherwise, a divorce severs a joint tenancy held by husband and wife, vesting title in them as tenants in common.  A deed from a joint tenant to another severs the joint tenancy. A conveyance of the interest of a joint tenant by a court severs the joint tenancy.

Following the enactment of §27-7-40, most practitioners used the language set out in the statute to create a joint tenancy, “as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common.” Five years later, Smith v. Cutler required us to examine our drafting practices with fresh eyes. The court held that a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship is capable of being defeated by the unilateral act of one tenant, but a tenancy in common with an indestructible right of survivorship is not capable of being severed by a unilateral act and is also not subject to partition.

Real estate lawyers in the resort areas in our state are often asked to draft survivorship deeds because couples from other states as accustomed to tenancy by the entirety. Until Smith v. Cutler, most practitioners did not believe different estates were created by the different language commonly in use. We believed joint tenancy was created in both cases.

Now, clients should be advised about the different estates and should choose the form of ownership they prefer. I’ve discussed this issue with many lawyers who advise married couples to create the indestructible form of ownership. Others who seek survivorship are often advised to create joint tenancy under the statute.  I see many deeds from the midlands and upstate that use the traditional tenancy in common form of ownership. I’ve heard estate planners prefer tenancy in common so the distribution at death can be directed by will. Lawyers who draft deeds for consumers need to be aware of and need to address the various forms of ownership with their clients.

One final thought on the survivorship issue in South Carolina. Do we now have a form of ownership that protects property from creditors of one of the owners? If a tenancy in common with an indestructible right of survivorship is not subject to partition, then it may not be reachable by the creditors of one of the owners. Let me know if you see a case that makes such a determination. It would be an interesting development.

 

* 366 S.C. 546, 623 S.E.2d 644 (2005)

** Davis v. Davis, 223 S.C. 182, 75 S.E.2d 45 (1953)

 

How to cure a defective deed

Standard

Why South Carolina should consider a legal specialty in real estate.

The Real Estate Practices Council of the South Carolina Bar is considering petitioning our Supreme Court to create a specialty for the practice of real estate law. Two committees have been formed, one to consider residential real estate as a specialty and the other to consider commercial real estate as a practice specialty. If you have ideas that may help, please pass them along to me!

One reason for consulting a real estate lawyer might be for assistance in curing a defective deed. It is impossible to list all the types of defects that appear in deeds of record. The list grows every day! Some of the most common defects are property description discrepancies, grantor and grantee name discrepancies, out-of-state forms that do not comply with South Carolina statutory requirements, right of survivorship attempts that fail, discrepancies in ownership percentages, failure to recite consideration, grantor signature discrepancies, and authority issues of seller entities.

dee house

Curing defective deeds will often require corrective deeds or quitclaim deeds from parties with outstanding interests. Note that corrective deeds are exempt from the deed recording fees imposed by §12-24-10 et seq. of the Carolina Code. See, specifically, §12-24-40(12). With corrective deeds, it may be necessary to obtain a deed back from the grantee. An example would be a deed from the developer to Richard Roe for lot 35, where Mr. Roe actually bought and occupied lot 34. To cure this problem, in addition to obtaining a deed from the developer to Mr. Roe of lot 34, Mr. Roe would need to convey lot 35 back to the developer. I continue to be amazed at the number of real estate professionals who think this step can be skipped, and that a corrective deed will somehow get the title back for the other lot. Also remember that mortgages may have to be re-executed or otherwise corrected once the deed issue is cured.

I am often asked whether the lawyer can “fix” the problem on the original deed and re-record it without the involvement of the parties. The answer is a strong “no”. The grantor must at least initial any changes. The more serious the problem, the more likely it will be that a corrective deed will be needed and that the grantor as well as the grantee will have to be involved.

When a deed discrepancy is discovered after the title has been conveyed again, the question often arises whether the corrective deed should run to the original grantee, and whether that would create the necessity for deeds from each grantor to each grantee in the chain of title after the problem. I often suggest that the corrective deed be given to the current property owner. The participation of intervening property owners is not needed.

Deed reformation actions are possible, and foreclosures often include additional causes of action for deed reformation to correct legal descriptions and other mistakes. Title insurance companies are often responsible to pay for these additional causes of action.

With these difficulties to be faced, don’t you think real estate practice as a specialty is a good idea?

Court decides timeshare owners can sue developers

Standard

Real Estate Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction

The South Carolina Supreme Court, answering questions certified to it by the Federal District Court, held last week that the South Carolina Real Estate Commission (REC) does not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine violations of the South Carolina Vacation Time Sharing Plans Act.*

The Court also stated that the REC’s determination of a violation of the Time Act** is not a condition precedent to a private cause of action to enforce the Act and that the determinations of the REC are not binding on the courts.

These questions arose from two sets of litigation in the federal court involving individuals who entered into contracts with developers to purchase timeshare interests.

One set of plaintiffs, the Fullbrights, brought a purported class action against a timeshare developer, Spinnaker Resorts, Inc., seeking the return of money paid under a contract to purchase, plus interest, as well as a declaration that the contract was invalid.

The other set of plaintiffs, the Chenards, brought suit against another timeshare developer, Hilton Head Island Development Co., LLC, alleging fraud, negligent representation and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act as well as violations of the Timeshare Act.

In answering the questions, the Supreme Court stated that it was not taking any positions on the merits of the cases, which remain under the jurisdiction of the federal court.

The Court found that §27-32-130 unambiguously allows for lawsuits by stating that the provisions of the Act do not limit the right of a purchaser to bring a private cause of action. The developers had argued that this statute is ambiguous and that public policy evidenced by the Timeshare Act as a whole requires the REC’s jurisdiction to be exclusive.

These determinations will no doubt clear the way for class action lawsuits against timeshare developers.

 

* Fullbright v. Hilton Head Island Development Co., LLC, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion No. 27220 (May 17, 2017).

** S.C Code §27-32-10 et seq.

Two positive articles for dirt lawyers from national sources

Standard

REALTOR®Mag is reporting that although financing remains the top roadblock to successful closings, fewer real estate agents are reporting financing as an issue today as opposed to previous months. This trend is a good one! Check out the article here.

The article indicates that, according to the REALTORS® Confidence Index, which is based on the responses from 2,500 real estate agents nationwide, the decline in complaints about financing may reflect an improvement in the economy, better credit histories from buyers and an improvement in loan evaluation processes.

But the article does report that appraisals are becoming a growing concern. Real estate agents indicated that a shortage of appraisers, valuations that are not in line with market conditions and “out-of-town” appraisers who are not familiar with local markets create the difficulties.

And for the first time in eleven years, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conforming loan limit has increased to $424,100, allowing more home buyers to avoid jumbo loans, obtain lower interest rates and deliver lower down payments. The non-conforming loan limit had previously been stuck at $417,000. Read the article from INFOGRAPHIC here.

The economic news surrounding real estate closings is generally positive nationally. And the news is good in South Carolina, too. I’ve traveled around the state a good bit since the beginning of the year, and everywhere I go, I ask lawyers about business.

Early in the year, it seemed residential practices were sluggish in some markets while commercial practices were extremely busy statewide. In the last few weeks, I’m hearing much more encouraging news about residential practices, and commercial lawyers continue to report that business is excellent.

Our office is in the middle of a seminar series we have entitled “The future’s so bright, we have to wear shades.” We’re drinking the Kool-Aid and enjoying these economic good times. Those of us who weathered 2008 – 2012 deserve it!

Multi-state mortgage modification practice may be hazardous to your law license!

Standard

Last week, this blog discussed two April 19 South Carolina Supreme Court cases* in the context of the social media issues they raised. This week, I want to point out the mortgage modification issues, which were, no doubt, the impetus for the discipline in both cases.

Let’s look at the facts in the first case, In the Matter of Bacon. In November of 2012, attorney Brunty hired INMN, Inc., a marketing company, to solicit out-of-state clients interested in modifying their home mortgages. Brunty hired Integrity Partners, LLC to process the loan modifications. Brunty was suspended and later disbarred.

Brunty introduced Bacon to a principal in Integrity, who assured Bacon that Integrity and INMN were complying with federal laws and regulations and had a network of attorneys licensed to practice in every state where clients were accepted. Bacon accepted those assurances and hired INMN and Integrity. (Two people who’ve read this blog asked me about the relationship between Bacon and Brunty. I don’t know. The Court did not specify.)

Handling the former Brunty cases did not go smoothly, to say the least. Integrity continued to work on those cases without attorney involvement. Integrity employees incorrectly advised many of Brunty’s clients that their files had been assigned to Bacon. Some of Brunty’s clients became Bacon’s clients, but some did not. Some of Brunty’s clients’ credit cards were charged fees that were paid to Bacon.

Bacon admitted that he violated federal rules against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in respect to the mortgage modification matters.

The FTC’s “Regulation O” places a number of restrictions on mortgage modification services. For example, a provider may accept a fee only after the client has executed a written agreement with the lender or servicer. Attorneys are exempt from this rule if they are licensed to practice in the state where the home is located as long as they hold advance fees in trust accounts and comply with trust accounting rules.

Bacon was not licensed to practice in all jurisdictions, so he was not authorized to accept any up-front fees. He also failed to deposit the fees into a trust account, failed to maintain separate ledgers for these clients, and failed to properly supervise the individuals who had access to the accounts.

The Court stated Bacon was involved in the unauthorized practice of law in several states. He was suspended from the practice for six months and ordered to pay restitution to clients.

In the second case, In the Matter of Emery, the attorney received a public reprimand. In 2013 Emery signed a contract with Friedman Law, a New York law firm, to accept referrals for mortgage modification cases. Emery received client referrals from an internet marketing company and paid for the service based on the potential number of clients referred to her. Regardless of the residence of potential clients, cases would be assigned to Emery as a part of the Friedman Law network.

Non-lawyers employed by Friedman Law or two paralegal services worked the cases. The non-lawyers included Emery Law in their signature blocks and used Emery Law letterhead. Other than the fact that some of the non-lawyers employed by one of the paralegal services worked in Emery’s office, she did not directly supervise the work.

For the most part, the non-lawyers worked diligently, but six clients filed disciplinary cases because of some issue or complication resulting in client dissatisfaction.

The Court stated that the written fee agreements in these cases were confusing and self-congratulatory and often contradicted the verbal communications of the non-lawyers.

The non-lawyers sometimes wrongly held themselves out as employees of Emery Law. Clients never knew whether they were dealing with employees of Emery Law, Friedman Law, a firm in the Friedman Law network or one of the paralegal services.

Interestingly, in 2013, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that lenders do not engage in the practice of law when they handle mortgage modification transactions.** In the present case, however, the Court stated that assisting clients in mortgage modification matters is the practice of law in South Carolina when performed by a lawyer.

Friedman Law represented to Emery that assisting clients in mortgage modifications is not the practice of law and that its network of lawyers in other states satisfied the requirements of multijurisdictional practice.

The Court stated that regardless of whether a particular state had adopted a rule permitting multijurisdictional practice and regardless of whether the particular state had determined that loan modification assistance was the practice of law, the fee agreements repeatedly referred to the services as “legal services”. In other words, the clients believed they were being represented by an attorney.

The Court said that Emery was involved in the systematic and continuous presence in other states, which constituted the unauthorized practice of law.

Accepting mortgage modification cases across state lines may be possible in certain circumstances, but these cases are obviously fraught with hazards. DO NOT accept these cases without carefully examining the federal and state laws involved in each situation and without carefully supervising each person who touches the cases. The best advice may be to never accept these cases when they involve properties located outside of South Carolina.

 

*In the Matter of Bacon, S.C. Supreme Court Opinion 27710, April 19, 2017; In the Matter of Emery, S.C. Supreme Court Opinion 27712, April 19, 2017.

**Crawford v. Central Mortgage Co. and Warrington v. Bank of America, 404 S.C. 39, 744 S.E.2d 538 (2013)

Dirt lawyers: guard your clients and your offices against sloppy title search practices

Standard

Our Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that searching titles is the practice of law. For every real estate closing, the closing attorney should perform or supervise the title examination. Theoretically, all title insurance and malpractice claims caused by title search errors can be prevented. Having safe title examination practices in real estate closing offices would go a long way toward minimizing claims and protecting clients and their properties!

The following are some dangerous practices that lead to claims:

  • Hiring title examiners who are inexperienced, who cut corners and who are not covered by errors and omissions insurance coverage.
  • Failing to properly instruct title examiners as to how titles should be searched. Whether law firm employees or outside abstractors are used, the closing attorney should develop and use his or her own set of title examining procedures.
  • Failing to require title examiners to pull documents. It is not sufficient to search titles using indexes. Doing so puts the lawyer and client at the mercy of the county employee who typed the index.
  • Failing to review chain documents. The attorney should review chain documents. Attorneys spot issues that are missed by abstractors. If a link in the chain of title is a foreclosure or an estate, the foreclosure file or the estate file should be reviewed.
  • Failing to use proper search periods. The long-standing search period standard in South Carolina is sixty years. Title insurance companies have shortened this standard to forty years, particularly for residential transactions. But some title insurance companies and sloppy practitioners are allowing for much shorter periods of time, like ten years, or “up from the developer” or “up from the deed into the borrower” without informing the client that the title has not been examined. Title examinations are the practice of law in South Carolina, and  title companies do not have the power to permit a lawyer to shorten search periods without the informed consent of the attorney’s client.
  • Relying on prior title insurance policies that are not worthy of reliance. In “tacking on” to prior policies, closing attorneys should use common sense and good judgment. Determine who issued the prior policy and decide whether that person’s work should be substituted for your own. Review the prior policy to determine whether it looks normal on its face. Some title insurance companies are issuing products that are not backed by title examinations or are backed by very short title examinations. Those policies are not worthy of reliance in an atmosphere where title examinations are the practice of law. As in the case of other short searches, informed consent confirmed in writing from clients should be obtained for employing a short search based on a prior policy.
  • Failing to pull back title notes where a short search is used. It does not help that the attorney’s office has closed properties in the same chain of title if that prior title work is not used. Exceptions and requirements from the prior title work should be used in the current title insurance commitment and policy.
  • Failing to search for a longer period of time where the shorter search does not reveal normal easements and restrictions for the type of property being searched. A search involving a residential subdivision created in the 1950’s should not stop in the 1960’s.

At least two sets of eyes should review every title examination. And one of those sets of eyes should belong to an attorney who was taught in law school to spot issues!