real estate closings

SC Real Estate Commission begins enforcement of new “wholesaling” law

Standard

Chicago Title sent out a memorandum to its agents on September 27 that I want to bring to the attention of those who read this blog.

South Carolina’s Real Estate Commission has begun to send out enforcement letters to investors the Commission believes are participating in illegal “wholesaling.” One of those redacted letters is attached.

On May 21, Governor McMaster signed into law former bill HB 4754, which requires a real estate broker’s license for those engaging in wholesaling. The new law defines the term “wholesaling” as “having a contractual interest in purchasing residential real estate from a property owner, then marketing the property for sale to a different buyer prior to taking legal ownership of the property.” The definition further states that “wholesaling does not refer to the assigning or offering to assign a contractual right to purchase the real estate.”

The question has become whether an investor can avoid the technicalities of the statute by marketing an assignment of a contract rather than directly marketing the underlying real estate. Investors appear to be taking the position that this activity is not prohibited, but the Real Estate Commission appears to disagree.

Investors are apparently being reported to the Real Estate Commission for potential violations of the new statute, and the Real Estate Commission is purportedly sending out letters to enforce the statute.

It is likely that our courts will become involved in resolving this question.

Anyone who has been involved in attempting to pass legislation will understand that drafting, redrafting, and amending bills often leads to tricky language. My guess is that most dirt lawyers could have drafted a clearer statute, but the bargaining and back-and-forth nature of drafting legislation has likely resulted in the complicated language we have.

Stay tuned as the Real Estate Commission and our courts deal with this issue.

You have to love amusing HOA stories from Florida

Standard

Lots of entertaining real estate stories arise in the Sunshine State, and I say that fondly because I spent my middle school and high school years there. In fact, I’m heading down to Panama City for a milestone high school reunion in September.

This story was reported by ABC News and other sources. Florida passed legislation this year affecting homeowners’ associations that, among other consumer-protection efforts, prohibited associations from limiting the rights of owners to park personal vehicles, work vehicles, and assigned first responder vehicles in their driveways.

One news story I saw related the excitement of one resident of a restrictive HOA who was elated he could begin to park his work truck in his driveway. His alternative had been to park his truck almost a mile away from his home in a rented storage area and walk the distance in the Florida heat twice each workday.

But the legislation contained a “loophole” that allowed the HOA to keep the parking restrictions in place. The resident was crestfallen when he learned his neighborhood could keep rules in place that were effective when the legislation was enacted. He still has to park his truck a mile away and walk.

Another resident said she was upset because she must continue to pay $1,000 to park her Mercedes Sprinter that contains her mobile spa (the Maui Skin Bus) in a remote location and walk home after each break in her appointment schedule.

The goal of the HOA, according to its manager, is to keep the vision of the developer of the neighborhood in place. The developer saw beautiful homes, well-manicured lots, and only nice, personal vehicles parked in driveways.

The State reports Zillow is suing Richland County

Standard

The State newspaper reported on July 2 that the home-buying site Zillow is suing Richland County. The claim is that the County is violating public records laws by failure to reply to a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request for property tax data.

The article reports that in May, Zillow requested property assessment data from Richland County by submitting multiple FOIA requests. The County first responded that it did not have any records matching the request. Then, the County denied the request because the requested information is available online and argued that state law does not require the County to create new documents to fulfill a FOIA request.

Zillow argued, according to the article, that not all the assessment information for every parcel in the County is available online. Zillow had apparently requested an electronic copy of the assessment files for all the parcels instead of the option to search parcels one by one. The company apparently didn’t want to have to search titles in the manner of South Carolina real estate professionals.

Zillow also argued that it had received the requested information in prior years. Before 2022, the company said it had received the assessment date from the County each year in the format the company requested, which was an electronic file that contained all assessment information. The lawsuit claims the company paid about $8,800 per year for that information.

Zillow is now suing for the requested information and demanded that the County pay Zillow’s legal fees if the lawsuit is successful. We’ll see what happens with this one!

SC Legislature provides fix for MV Realty problem

Standard

This blog has previously discussed MV Realty, as title examiners reported finding “Homeowner Benefit Agreements” or “Exclusive Listing Agreements” filed in the public records as mortgages or memoranda of agreement. The duration of the agreements purported to be forty years, and searches revealed hundreds of these unusual documents filed in South Carolina. The documents state they create liens against the real estate in question.

The company behind these documents is MV Realty PBC, LLC which appeared to be doing business in the Palmetto State as MV Realty of South Carolina, LLC. The company’s website indicated the company would pay a homeowner between $300 and $5,000 in connection with its Homeowner Benefit Program. In return for the payment, the homeowner agreed to use the company’s services as listing agent if the decision was made to sell the property during the term of the agreement. The agreements typically provided that the homeowner may elect to pay an early termination fee to avoid listing the property in question with MV Realty.

The company has been the target of litigation and legislation in many states, and, thankfully, Governor McMaster signed South Carolina Code §27-28-10, et seq., into law on May 20. This legislation effectively bans these long-term listing agreements.

The legislation defines a real estate service agreement as a “written contract between a service provider and the owner or potential buyer of residential real estate to provide services, current or future, in connection with the maintenance, purchase, or sale of residential real estate.” Under the new law, a real estate service agreement is “unfair” and void if it is intended to be effective for more than one year; 1) expressly or implicitly purports to run with the land and bind future owners of the property; 2) allows for the assignment of the services contract without notice or consent of the owner; or 3) creates a lien, encumbrance, or security interest on the property.

Under the legislation, any recorded unfair real estate services contract is no longer effective as a lien, encumbrance or security interest against property. The recording of this type of document no longer serves as constructive notice to any interested party in the real estate. And no additional filing is necessary to void the unfair agreements or to clear the public records.

Further, the property owner of the real estate may collect actual damages, costs and attorneys’ fees resulting from the filing of the contract. Such contracts are expressly stated to be in violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Contact your friendly title insurance company underwriter if you have questions about these documents, but these documents should no longer create title problems for South Carolina dirt lawyers. Some things do work out as they should!

Department of Justice can reopen investigation of National Association of Realtors

Standard

I was in Washington D.C. last week with one husband and four grandchildren under 12. To see as much as we could, we walked about ten miles per day. One day, we passed the Department of Justice and the National Association of Realtors. Coincidentally, on that same day, I received word from the Chicago Title office in Columbia that the D.C. Circuit Court had ruled that the DOJ’s Antitrust Division can reopen its investigation against the NAR.

This investigation dates back to a 2005 lawsuit challenging the NAR’s operation of its multiple-listing services (MLS). The suit claimed that internet competitors and their clients were blocked from having full access to listings. This practice, the lawsuit claimed, reduced competition and kept real estate agents’ commissions high.

The parties entered into a settlement in 2008, which expired in 2018. The DOJ began its investigation again and issued two subpoenas to the NAR. One subpoena sought information about the NAR’s “participation rule” which requires listing brokers to offer the same commission to all buyer brokers using the MLS. The other subpoena sought information about the NAR’s “clear cooperation policy”, which requires listing brokers to post properties on the MLS within one day of the beginning of marketing. The DOJ claimed both policies limited competition.

In 2020, the parties agreed to a Consent Judgment. This document contained a reservation-of-rights provision that allowed the DOJ to continue to investigate and bring additional litigation. The settlement documents did not mention the participation rule or the clear cooperation policy. But the DOJ sent a letter to the NAR stating it had closed its investigation into those two rules and that the NAR was not obligated to respond to the subpoenas. The letter contained a no-inference clause providing that no inference could be drawn from the closing of the investigation.

In 2021, after unsuccessfully attempting to renegotiate the reservation-of-rights clause, the DOJ withdrew the Consent Judgment. The DOJ also dismissed the complaint and issued new subpoenas. The NAR petitioned the Circuit Court to set aside one of the subpoenas on the grounds that it breached the settlement agreement. The Court agreed. A two-judge panel of the Court reversed, relying on the “unmistakability” principle, which requires courts to refrain from interpreting a contract to cede a sovereign right of the United States unless the government waives that right unmistakably. The no-inference clause, according to the court, explicitly disclaims that intent.

The Court allowed the investigation to continue but expressed no opinion about whether any laws have been violated by the NAR. This case is different from recent actions claiming the NAR’s policies on commissions are anti-competitive.  We can expect much more litigation involving the NAR.

Is your insurance company spying on your house?

Standard

This blog has discussed several times the difficulty of getting and maintaining homeowner’s insurance in some locations, especially coastal areas. This appears to be an extremely difficult issue in Florida, and I have heard similar concerns along South Carolina’s coast.

The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that insurance companies are increasingly using aerial images from drones and balloons as a tool to cancel insurance on properties deemed as higher risk. You can read the article here. Googling the topic also reveals several related stories.

Apparently, angry homeowners are reporting losing coverage because of images reflecting damaged roofs, debris in yards, and undeclared hazards such as swimming pools and trampolines.

Consumer advocates object to this tactic on privacy and other grounds. For example, the images could be outdated or otherwise inaccurate. Time frames for correcting the problems may be too short. And the secrecy of the “inspections” may be deemed to be unfair.

State law may require inspection reports to be delivered to the consumer, and some state laws may limit the reasons insurance companies may use to fail to renew coverage.

According to the articles, insurance companies find the use of aerial images is an efficient way to capturing data. The technology is sophisticated and continues to improve. The companies also claim that weeding out risky properties through visual inspections helps everyone by decreasing claims.

Of course, this issue arises as we are seeing increasing premiums in homeowner’s coverage.  Count on homeowner’s coverage continuing to be in the news.

National Association of Realtors announces $418 million settlement

Standard

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) announced a proposed settlement on March 15 of four large antitrust suits involving buyers’ brokers commissions. The monetary settlement is set at $418 million. The settlement also involves a new rule prohibiting offers of compensation to buyers’ brokers on the MLS.

This dirt lawyer does not have the legal ability to discuss the antitrust issues involved in these lawsuits. The speculation about how this settlement will ultimately affect the housing industry is widely varied among experts in several professions.

The impetus for the original complaints was to lower housing costs artificially inflated by commissions which seem to be set in stone at six percent. Some experts suggest that our housing market will be completely remodeled, with the end product being lower home prices.

Other experts suggest that buyers will be crippled by having to either forego the assistance of a real estate agent or by agreeing to pay commissions out of pocket. Some of these writers even suggest that home prices will increase as a result of these machinations.

I’ve seen several suggestions that home buying will remain virtually the same by use of several work arounds. But I’ve seen other experts suggest that the proposed work arounds may also violate antitrust laws.

Some suggest that buyers, sellers and real estate agents will simply negotiate commissions.

One thing that is not in question is that the settlement must be approved in court. The settlement suggests that the new rules will become effective in July, but settlements in these large cases often take months to approve, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see delays beyond this summer.

This blog earlier discussed the $1.8 billion verdict in federal court in Missouri against the NAR and two brokerage firms. Other lawsuits followed this verdict, and this settlement intends to bring all the suits to a conclusion.

The industry may be in transition as all the experts digest the settlement and as we await court approval. There is no shortage of articles on the topic. I encourage dirt lawyers to keep their fingers on the pulse of these issues as the litigation dust settles.

Biden administration announces plans to lower housing costs

Standard

ALTA says the attack on title insurance offers a false promise of savings

This blog never intends to discuss politics, so don’t interpret this post to take a political position. The intent is to inform real estate lawyers of news affecting our industry.

Just ahead of the State of the Union Address, President Biden announced plans to lower housing costs, calling on federal agencies to take all available actions to lower costs of consumers at the closing table and to help more Americans access homeownership. You can read the President’s Fact Sheet here.

Congress is asked to pass a mortgage relief credit that would provide middle-class first-time homebuyers with an annual tax credit of $5,000 a year for two years. Congress is also asked to provide a one-year tax credit of up to $10,000 to middle-class families who sell their starter homes, defined as homes below the area median home price in the county, to another owner-occupant. The intent of this proposal is to offset the loss of a lower interest rate when a homeowner sells. Congress is also asked to provide up to $25,000 in down payment assistance to first-generation homebuyers.

The President also proposes an expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to build or preserve 1.2 million more affordable rental units. He also proposes a new $20 billion competitive grant fund to support communities to build more housing and lower rents and homebuying costs. Each Federal Home Loan Bank will be asked to double its annual contribution to the Affordable Housing Program. The intent will be to support the financing, acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental units and homes for sale.

Honestly, a lot of this seems like government-speak. We will have to wait to see the language of the actual proposals to form opinions, but lowering housing costs and providing more housing for low-income consumers is a great theory.

The one proposal that should concern practitioners is a pilot program to reduce closing costs by waiving the requirement for lender’s title insurance. At this point, the proposal only covers refinances, and the Fact Sheet indicates closing costs would be reduced by an average of $750. American Land Title Association (ALTA) issued a press release on March 7 stating that this proposal is a false promise of savings.

When I was in private practice, the cost of title insurance was less than the cost of an attorney’s opinion letter, and I believe lawyers would have to raise their charges to cover the additional liability. I’ve spoken many times and written many articles about the advantages of title insurance over title opinions, and I won’t repeat these arguments here. I am confident ALTA and title insurance companies will make those arguments plainly in opposition to this plan.

Some IRS forms must be filed electronically as of January 1, 2024

Standard

Chicago Title recently published an update on an IRS regulation, and I wanted to make sure readers of this blog have the most current information. Dirt lawyers know that cash payments greater than $10,000 must be reported to the IRS through form 8300.

For a primer on this requirement, review IRS Publication 1544 here. The government’s stated goal in imposing this requirement is to detect money laundering and to catch tax evaders, terrorists and those who profit from the drug trade.

Effective January 1, 2024, the IRS updated its regulations to require businesses that file 10 total information returns (such as 1099, W2 and, now 8300) to files these forms electronically unless the business requests and receives a waiver each tax year. You can view the revised regulations here.

FinCEN’s proposed reporting rule targets residential real estate cash closings

Standard

On February 7, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the stated purpose of combatting money laundering in residential real estate transactions. You can review the proposed rule and a related fact sheet here.

The proposed rule would require certain professionals, including attorneys, involved in real estate closings to report information to FinCEN about cash transfers of residential real estate to legal entities and trusts. The agency’s press release indicates the proposal is tailored to target transfers that are high-risk for money laundering. No reporting would be required for transfers to individuals.

The information to be reported would include:

  • Beneficial ownership information for the legal entity or trust receiving the property;
  • Information about individuals representing the transferee legal entity or transferee trust;
  • Information about the business filing the report;
  • Information about the real property being sold or transferred;
  • Information about the seller; and
  • Information about any payments made.

A Geographic Targeting Order program has been in place for several years requiring this type of reporting in certain high-priced locations. The new rule would replace the Geographic Targeting Order with nationwide reporting.

FinCEN recognizes that the beneficial ownership information required under this proposed rule is also collected under the new Corporate Transparency Act, but states that the information will serve two different purposes.

The proposed rule would require reporting on single-family houses, townhouses, condominiums and buildings designed for occupancy by one to four families. It would also require reporting on transfers on unimproved land that is zoned or permitted for occupancy by one to four families.

Transfers would be reportable regardless of price. Gifts and other transactions where no consideration is exchanged are reportable. Exempted transactions include easements, transfers resulting from the death of the property owner, transfers resulting from divorce, and transfers made to a bankruptcy estate.

The agency encourages written comments in response to the proposed rule for 60 days. Closing lawyers, I encourage you to read the information at the links above and to make comments.