Chicago Title Insurance Company

American Land Title Association is Working for Us

Standard

Letter to CFPB asks for clarity.

mountain climbers helping handAmerican Land Title Association’s January issue of TitleNews reports that ALTA reached out to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by letter dated Nov.23, asking for clarity in three areas of the TRID regulations.

The first area of concern is generating a great deal of angst among South Carolina closing attorneys, that is, the attempt by lenders to shift liability to settlement agents for all compliance issues, including compliance with the new federal law.

Here in South Carolina, we are seeing modified closing instructions that explicitly shift this liability to closing attorneys and often include indemnity language. The attorney is being asked to indemnify the lender for the liability the federal law has clearly imposed on lenders.

By the way, I urge South Carolina real estate lawyers to become members of the South Carolina Bar’s Real Estate Section. The Real Estate Section provides its members with access to its Listserv, which can be found at realestatelaw@scbar.org. The forum is a great place for South Carolina real estate lawyers to share ideas and frustrations as well as a place to seek information and advice from peers.

The frustration of real estate lawyers regarding this issue is obvious in that forum. It is a great place for lawyers to share their ideas as well as their frustration.

Michelle Korsmo, ALTA’s Executive Director, said in the Nov. 23 letter to the CFPB, “These instructions are in contrast to the clear public policy underpinning this rule, as well as language in the rule stating that lenders bear ultimate liability for errors on the Closing Disclosure form.” According to TitleNews, ALTA provided the CFPB with several examples of the offending closing instructions.

The second area of concern is the disclosure of title insurance premiums on the Closing Disclosure and particularly the very odd negative number that appearing for the cost of owner’s title insurance. The calculation methods of the CFPB seem to be dictating this negative number in many cases, but in what world is that logical? And how does that negative number supply clarity to consumers?

The third and final area of concern expressed ALTA’s Nov. 23 letter is the confusion surrounding seller credits on the Closing Disclosure. Lenders and closing attorneys are struggling with whether to list seller credits as individual line items on the CD or to consolidate them and disclose them under a general “seller credits” heading.

All of us in the industry should be appreciative of ALTA’s efforts to assist in this push for clarity. I urge South Carolina lawyers to join ALTA and to pay attention to and support its efforts in our behalf.

County May Owe Duty to Lot Owners in Failed Subdivision

Standard

Infrastructure regulations were not followed

scales - blue backgroundOn January 6, the S.C. Court of Appeals reversed the Georgetown County Circuit Court’s directed verdict and remanded a case involving failed West Stewart Subdivision.* The developer, Harmony Holdings, LLC, went belly up in 2007, leaving the lot owners without roads and utilities after the County failed to follow its own regulations that provided a safety net for such catastrophes.

The plaintiff owned two lots in the subdivision, and filed a negligence action, arguing that Georgetown County had a “tort-like” duty to lot owners under the plain language of its development regulations. The County denied that it owed a duty to lot owners.

The County attorney explained the administrative issues at trial. He testified that in South Carolina, a developer is generally not allowed to sell lots that do not have infrastructure (roads, water and sewer). County regulations, however, allow the County to accept cash, bonds, financial guarantees or letters of credit to ensure money is available to complete infrastructure in case a developer fails.

Under the regulations in question, the County had discretion to accept a letter of credit equal to 125% of the cost estimate to complete the infrastructure. In this case, the developer posted a letter of credit on May 23, 2006 in the amount of $1,301,705 based on a cost estimate of $1,040,000.

Also under the regulations, the County had the power to approve reductions in the letter of credit upon receipt of an engineer’s certification that a certain amount of the work had been completed and sufficient funds were available for the remaining work. Other technical procedures were also required. The County allowed for a reduction in the letter of credit on July 20, 2006, October 9, 2006 and November 8, 2006, reducing the letter of credit to $553,370. In December of 2006, the County was advised that the estimated cost to complete the infrastructure was $1,153,205, which was higher than the original estimate. Despite this information, the letter of credit was reduced again on March 9, 2007 to $156,704.

The letter of credit expired in May of 2007, and the developer gave the county a check for $140,000. In August of 2007, the developer informed the County that it no longer had the financial means to complete the construction. Then the developer declared bankruptcy.

Repko described his lot as “woods” accessible by a path but inaccessible by a road. He testified that he believes his property is valued at “zero”. He said he pays property taxes on his lot, but the County will not allow him to build because of the absence of basic utilities.

The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the County on the grounds that the regulations do not create a private duty to lot owners. (Other issues were argued that will not be discussed here.) The Court of Appeals agreed with the lot owner that the County owed a special duty to him with respect to the County’s management of the financial guaranty that allowed the developer to sell lots.

inigo montoya memeThe County had relied on a 1993 Hilton Head case.** In that case, the preamble to the development ordinances stated, “The town council finds that the health, safety and welfare of the public is in actual danger….if development is allowed to continue without limitation.” When the development failed, a lot owner sued the Town, claiming it had negligently administered its ordinances. The Supreme Court held that the ordinances did not create a special duty to lot owners because their essential purpose, according to the preamble, was to protect the public from overdevelopment.

The Court of Appeals in the current case held that, unlike the Hilton Head ordinances, the Georgetown County regulations contained no express language declaring their purpose, but reviewing them as a whole, the purpose is to protect lot owners in the event the developer does not complete infrastructure.

I expect we have not seen the end of this case!

* Repko v. County of Georgetown, Opinion 5374, January 6, 2016.

** Brady Development Co. v. Town of Hilton Head Island, 312 S.C. 73, 439 S.E.2d 266 (1993).

Creative Use of Google AdWords Gets SC Lawyer in Hot Water

Standard

Supreme Court is not amused by timeshare attorney’s advertising technique


yellow card - suitThe South Carolina Supreme Court handed down a public reprimand last year against a Hilton Head lawyer for his resourceful use of Google AdWords.*

According to the Court, Google AdWords is an Internet marketing technique in which the advertiser places bids for “keywords”. When a Google search includes the advertiser’s keywords, the search results list may or may not include the advertiser’s ad. The advertiser pays Google for clicks on the ad from the search results.

The lawyer and his partner (the “law firm”) handled timeshare litigation and had filed numerous lawsuits against a particular timeshare company. The law firm bid on key words including the timeshare company’s name and the names of three lawyers who represented that company. The law firm’s ad appeared in some Internet search results when those names were used. The ad read:

“Timeshare Attorney in SC – Ripped off? Lied to? Scammed” Hilton Head Island, SC Free Consult”

Sometimes the law firm’s ad appeared as the first result and other times, it appeared later in the list. The law firm paid for its advertisement each time an Internet searcher clicked on the firm’s ad.

The Court held that the attorney violated the Lawyer’s Civility Oath by using the names of opposing parties and their counsel in this manner. By taking the oath, a lawyer pledges to opposing parties and their counsel fairness, integrity, and civility in all written communications and to employ only such means consistent with trust, honor and principles of professionalism.

Marketing is now virtually a necessity for successful lawyers. Attorneys are exploring many avenues in their marketing efforts, including numerous Internet marketing techniques. But, beware, this one is not a good idea!

 

*In the Matter of Naert, S.C. Supreme Court Opinion No. 27574, September 30, 2015.

So You Say Ninety Percent of TRID Loans Contain Violations?

Standard

Worse than rocket science? Perhaps.

thumbs downAccording to a news report from American Land Title Association, Moody’s Investors Services has written that several third-party firms found TRID violations in more than 90% of the loans that were audited.

ALTA states that Moody’s report indicates that this “informal feedback” was based on reviews of around 300 mortgages from around a dozen unidentified lenders, and that many of the violations were “only technical in nature”, like spelling errors. But Moody’s is apparently concerned that the secondary market may be affected by the sheer number of violations.

There appears to be a disconnect between this reporting and the perception of Director Richard Cordray of the CFPB. In a speech at the Consumer Federation of America, Director Cordray recently said that the housing industry’s concerns about TRID appear to have been “overblown”. He said that reports from industry participants across the market seem to be indicating that implementation of the new rule is going “fairly smoothly”. He even stated that the anxieties in the market were much like the predictions of technological disasters stemming from Y2K, which never materialized.

What do we, as South Carolina attorneys, do with this information?

  1. Take some comfort in the fact that we are not the only ones struggling with TRID.
  2. Do the best we can to comply with TRID rules.
  3. Do the best we can to comply with South Carolina Supreme Court requirements that we fully disclose all funds involved in closings. I believe we must prepare and deliver closing statements, in addition to TRID required Closing Disclosures, to make the proper disclosures. ALTA’s closing statements, which should be available on all the closing software programs, are excellent forms to use.
  4. Talk to each other about the struggles. Collectively, we should be able to resolve some of the problems.
  5. If you need backup on a position, call your title insurance company lawyers. They are hearing it all these days and may be able to help with a particular lender or an odd position.
  6. Lenders are attempting to shift the burden of compliance to closing attorneys through indemnity
    language being inserted in closing instructions or by separate letter. Closing attorneys should resist
    agreeing to this additional liability if at all possible. Negotiate! Be strong!

And if all else fails, I understand that NASA is taking applications for the next class of astronaut candidates. Maybe alternative employment is possible.

astronaut

 

Federal Housing Finance Agency Announces Conforming Loan Limits for 2016

Standard

The maximum remains the same in most markets

FHFA LogoSpeculation earlier this year was that the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) would increase the limits for conforming loans in 2016 above the current amount of $417,000. But FHFA recently announced that the current limit would remain in place for most of the country.

The limit is increased above $417,000 in only 39 counties in the United States. The so called “high cost” counties are located in the metro areas surrounding Denver, Boston, Nashville and Seattle as well as four counties in California.

By way of background, a conforming loan is a mortgage loan that meets the guidelines established by government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Conforming loans require uniform mortgage documentation and national standards dealing with loan-to-value ratios, debt-to-income ratios, credit scores and credit history. Conforming loans are repackaged to be sold on the secondary market. Because Fannie and Freddie do not purchase non-conforming loans, there is a much smaller secondary market for those loans.

The FHFA publishes conforming loan limits each year. Loans above the conforming limit are considered jumbo loans, which cannot be purchased by Fannie and Freddie and which typically have higher interest rates.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 established a baseline loan limit of $417,000 and required that after a period of housing price declines, the baseline loan limit cannot be increased until housing prices return to pre-decline levels.

A Short Time Ago in a Revenue Office Not Far Away …

Standard

Check them out in DOR Information Letter #15-20

The South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) issued a Revenue Ruling and an Information Letter in 2015 addressing deed recording fees and the affidavits that must accompany deeds.

Revenue Ruling #15-3, issued earlier this year, contains a comprehensive treatment of the subject, and Information Letter #15-20, issued on December 11, creates new affidavit forms, the Affidavit for Taxable or Exempt Transfers and the Affidavit for Exempt Transfers. Former affidavits, created in 1996, and using the term “arm’s length transaction” were decertified.

darth vader

“Luke … I am your lawyer.”

Deed recording fees of $1.35 (state) and $.55 (county) per $500 or any fractional part of $500 of the value of the real estate are imposed by §12-24-10 of the South Carolina Code for the “privilege” of recording a deed. This has not changed. Also unchanged is the list of 15 exemptions, and the statement that deeds of distribution and deeds transferring property from a trust to a trust distributee upon the settlor’s death are not subject to the fees.

One statutory change from 2015 was addressed in the Information Letter. Code §2-59-140 was amended in June to provide in subjection (E) that deductions from “value” include “any lien or encumbrance on realty in the possession of a forfeited land commission which may subsequently be waived or reduced after the transfer under a signed contract or agreement between the lienholder and the buyer existing before the transfer.” This change was added to Item 5 of the Affidavit for Taxable and Exempt Transfers.

Real estate practitioners can find the Revenue Ruling and the Information Letter at www.dor.sc.gov. Be sure to use the new forms!

Trulia’s Blog Paints a Rosy Picture of Housing in SC for 2016

Standard

Charleston is identified as the second hottest market in the country! Columbia is seventh!

_SC FlagIt’s budget time for me and for many real estate professionals. We are reading everything we can uncover on economic forecasts, and for me, the focus is real estate in South Carolina. Today, an interesting blog entitled “Housing in 2016—hesitant households, costly coasts, and the bargain belt” popped up in my newsfeed in Facebook. The blog, dated December 3, was written by Ralph McLaughlin of Trulia, the online residential real estate site for buyers, sellers, renters and real estate professionals.

As a part of its annual forecast for housing, Trulia commissioned Harris Poll to conduct a survey in November of about 2,000 Americans concerning their hopes and fears on housing. The survey indicated that the American Dream of home ownership is alive and well and continues its resurgence since the economic downturn.  The blog states that the percentage of Americans who dream of owning a home is up 1 point to 75% and up 2 points among millennials to 80%. But 22% of Americans believe it will be harder to get a mortgage in 2016.

Hesitant households in the title of the article is a reference to the obstacles consumers perceive to buying a home:  down payments, credit history, qualifying for a mortgage and increasing home prices are the top four.

Costly coasts are the expensive metro markets in the West and Northeast. Trulia is expecting those markets to cool because affordability has decreased, homes are staying on the market longer, and saving for a down payment is taking decades. In addition, consumers in those markets are pessimistic about housing.

The good news for us in The Palmetto State is that we are located in the so-called bargain belt, the highly affordable markets in the Midwest and South, where the survey shows consumers are upbeat about housing and where Trulia is expecting growth housing.

Trulia also identifies ten markets with the strongest potential for growth in 2016, and two of them are ours:

  1. Grand Rapids, Wyoming
  2. Charleston, South Carolina
  3. Austin, Texas
  4. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  5. San Antonio, Texas
  6. Colorado Springs, Colorado
  7. Columbia, South Carolina
  8. Riverside-San Bernardino, California
  9. Las Vegas, Nevada
  10. Tacoma, Washington

Everyone paying attention is aware that the Federal Reserve has expressed a commitment to raising interest rates either by the end of the year or early in 2016, and we have seen the stock market respond each time Janet Yellen speaks on this topic. But if this projection and others that indicate the market in South Carolina will be strong in 2016 are correct, we should expect a strong 2016. Perhaps by the end of the first quarter, we will begin to feel the worst of the TRID transition is behind us, and we will be ready to embrace the growth we are anticipating.  Let’s all look forward to the ride!

Paralegal Certification Program Established in SC

Standard

The new program should not disrupt current employment of paralegals.

The South Carolina Supreme Court, acting on the request of the Chief Justice Toal’s Commission on the Profession, adopted a voluntary program for paralegal certification on November 12.

The stated purpose of the program is to assist in the delivery of legal services to the public by identifying individuals who are qualified by education, training and experience and who have demonstrated knowledge, skill and proficiency to perform substantive legal work under the supervision of licensed attorneys.

certified - stampThe program is voluntary in that the Court’s directive makes it clear that no person will be required to be certified as a paralegal to be employed by a lawyer as a paralegal. Thankfully, this program should not disrupt any South Carolina lawyer’s current employment of paralegals.  Dirt lawyers are already in a transition period because of the new CFPB rules. Adding a mandatory paralegal certification may have pushed some of us over the proverbial edge!

At the time of an application to be a “South Carolina Certified Paralegal”, the individual must be designated as a Certified Legal Assistant (CLA)/Certified Paralegal (CP) or PACE-Registered Paralegal (RP).  The designation is valid for a one-year period. To qualify for renewal, an applicant must obtain twelve hours of approved continuing paralegal education (CPE), at least one hour of which shall be devoted to the areas of professional responsibility or professionalism.  Any CLE program approved for lawyers in South Carolina will be acceptable for CPE, but other programs may be approved as well.

The Court’s order establishes a Board of Paralegal Certification which will, among its other duties, prepare and publish applications and other forms to facilitate this program. Regulations for the program may be established by the Court or the board.

SC Court of Appeals Upholds Developer’s Plan for Tailgate Condo Project

Standard

The SPUR avoids kiddie condo status.

In a case decided in the midst of a wretched Carolina football season, the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a restriction against rentals to students in a condominium project that was clearly built to accommodate terrific tailgate parties.

williams brice condoLalla v. The SPUR at Williams Brice Owners Association, Inc.* involved a three bedroom condominium in the shadow of Williams Brice stadium purchased in 2007 for $470,000. Mr. and Mrs. Lalla purchased the condo intending to enjoy football games and to allow their daughter and two roommates to live there during college.  However, the great market decline beginning in 2008 spoiled their plans.

The Master Deed contained a prohibition against renting to any student enrolled in a two or four year college. But owners could allow their children or grandchildren to reside in or rent a unit along with rent-paying roommates.

When the market declined, the value of the condominium substantially decreased in value, and the Lallas unsuccessfully attempted to sell it. At the time of the appellate court hearing in 2014, the condo had been on the market for four years.

During the summer of 2010, the Lallas notified the owners’ association of their decision to rent to college students and began to do so. In June of 2010, the board of the association met and considered a comment card from a unit owner complaining that the association was allowing the project to turn into a dormitory.  Following this meeting, the board sent out a notice to each owner indicating the restrictions would be enforced and giving owners until May of 2011 to terminate any violating leases.

When the rules were not followed by Mr. and Mrs. Lalla, the association filed a declaratory judgment action seeking interpretation and enforcement of the master deed. The Lallas answered and counterclaimed, seeking a ruling that the restrictions were null and void because of changed circumstances. The association prevailed in the circuit court, and the Lallas appealed, asserting that the restrictions discriminated against a specific class of individuals (college students) and are unreasonable because the violation caused no damage to other property owners.

football tailgateThe discrimination argument failed because ”college students have not faced a long history of discrimination, are not an insular minority, and have not been classified according to an immutable trait acquired at birth.” In other words “college students” is not an inherently suspect class. The purpose of the restriction, to insure the comfort and safety of the residents and to protect the investment of the property owners by minimizing the risk of creating a dormitory-like atmosphere, was held to be rational.

The Court of Appeals also held that the economic change in circumstances failed to support the termination of the restriction because the declining market had no effect on the association’s need to minimize the risk that the project might develop a dormitory-like atmosphere.

South Carolina dirt lawyers like to see restrictive covenants enforced as written, so this case matches our world view.  And the Carolina fans among us dream of an outstanding replacement for Steve Spurrier so those terrific tailgate parties can resume!

The Strange Appearance of Title Insurance Rates on the New Closing Disclosure

Standard

calculator paperIs this what the CFPB intended?

South Carolina closing attorneys are in the throes of their first closings under the new CFPB rules. Title insurance company offices are fielding all kinds of unusual questions as everyone works through their first few sets of documents. And our collective eyes are having difficulty adjusting to the appearance of title insurance rates on the new Closing Disclosure.

Under the filed rates of the title companies in South Carolina, we have a simultaneous issue rate of $100 for a second policy in a transaction. Typically, the owner’s liability amount and premium are higher, so the simultaneous issue rate of $100 is the charge for the loan policy.

The South Carolina Department of Insurance (SCDOI) requires us to disclose the true cost of an owner’s policy over the cost of the loan policy. We have been accustomed to referring to this charge as the “difference plus $100” because we take the difference in the full cost of both policies and add the $100 simultaneous issue fee to arrive at the number the SCDOI requires.

Let’s look at an example:

In a purchase transaction, the sales price is $455,000, and the loan amount is $409,500.  The full premium for the ALTA Homeowner’s policy is $1,290.60, and the full premium for the loan policy is $981.00. In the past, the title and software companies’ rate calculators would have shown:

ALTA Homeowner’s policy rate: $1,290.60 (full premium)
Loan Policy (standard rate): 100.00 (simultaneous issue fee)
$1390.60 (total)

For the SCDOI required disclosure, we would have shown:

ALTA Homeowner’s policy rate: $409.60 (difference plus $100)
Loan Policy (standard rate): 981.00 (full premium amount)
$1390.60 (total)

The total of the two calculations was always consistent.

Now, the CFPB requires that the total cost of the loan policy be disclosed and any simultaneous issue discounts must be shown against the owner’s policy. That’s ok with our South Carolina eyes because we can use our “difference plus $100” calculation to reach the same result.

The problem occurs where there is a reissue credit. While the CFPB never specifically addressed how to handle a reissue credit, the agency was clear that the loan policy premium had to be reflected in full. So most of the title and software companies have decided to take the reissue credit from the owner’s policy premium as well.

In our example, let’s assume that there was a prior ALTA Homeowner’s policy in the amount of $315,000. The reissue credit would be $468.90 (half the full premium for $315,000), so the new total cost would be $921.70 ($1,390.60 – $468.20), and this is where the problem becomes more challenging:

ALTA Homeowner’s policy rate: $ -59.30 ($409.60 minus the credit of $468.90)
Loan Policy (standard rate): 981.00 (simultaneous issue fee)
$921.70 (total)

The total is the same (and correct in our collective view), but notice the negative number as the cost of the owner’s policy.

We have decided in our office to think about it this way. The Closing Disclosure is not a replacement for the HUD-1, and it is not a closing statement. It is simply what it is entitled, a closing disclosure that the CFPB requires for the consumer borrower.

We are going to have to prepare other documents (closing statements, disbursement analyses) that will allow us to properly disburse and to completely disclose each disbursement as required by the SCDOI, not to mention the South Carolina Supreme Court! And our eyes are just going to have to adjust to those negative numbers!

Thanks to Cris Garrick, the IT guru in our office who figured this out and convinced me it’s correct!