Chicago Title

Into the mystic: Fannie and Freddie predict what is in store for housing in 2017.

Standard

businessman-crytal-ball

In a sign that the average cost of houses is increasing across the country, the conforming loan limit for loans to be purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will increase in 2017 for the first time in ten years.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency has announced the maximum conforming loan in most parts of the country (including South Carolina) will increase from $417,000 to $424,100. Stated another way, a borrower will not have to qualify for a “jumbo loan” unless the amount to be borrowed exceeds $424,100.

This change should help qualified buyers, particularly in our coastal areas where home prices are higher, obtain mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even though credit remains tight and interest rates are likely to increase.

This is the time of the year when all of us involved in the housing industry are charged with looking into the proverbial crystal ball and projecting how we think the real estate market for the new year will compare with the current year.  For what it’s worth (and this and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks), I’m projecting around a 3 percent increase for next year in South Carolina. Let me know what your crystal ball is disclosing!

What’s in Store for Dodd-Frank and Seller Financing?

Standard

The Washington Post and The New York Times are both reporting on potential restructuring of the financial system when the new administration takes over in January.

We all heard President-Elect Donald Trump call the Dodd-Frank Act a “disaster” during his campaign. The Washington Post article reports his transition team has a stated goal, “to dismantle the Dodd-Frank Act and replace it with new policies to encourage economic growth and job creation.” What, exactly, does this mean?  At this point, we don’t know.

But The New York Times article states Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, has long been an opponent of Dodd-Frank and has introduced his idea for reform, the Financial Choice Act. “Choice”, according to the article, stands for Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs.

financial-systemIt seems clear that the Republican controlled Congress will work hard to make sweeping changes to this legislation that has basically rocked our collective worlds with the implementation of new forms and rules for closings. We promise to keep everyone up to date as this drama unfolds. We can only hope that, from a closing standpoint, the changes won’t be as sweeping as those we have just tackled!

In other CFPB news, the Bureau is investigating seller financing situations involving National Asset Advisors LLC, National Asset Mortgage LLC and Harbour Portfolio LLC. Orders involved in these investigations can be read on CFPB’s website.

We should pay attention to these enforcement proceedings because seller financing for residential owner-occupied residences has become a concern in South Carolina as a result of the interplay of the federal and state SAFE Acts, HUD’s final rule, released in 2011, and Dodd Frank’s Consumer Financial Protection laws.

The interplay between these laws appears to require licensing and registration of mortgage loan originators for mortgages of owner-occupied residences other than the sale of the seller’s residence. Clients who fail to become licensed as loan originators or fall into an exemption may find they are unable to close, and may, along with the attorneys who closed the transactions, be subject to claims and litigation.

The CFPB has broad enforcement powers, including the power to impose civil monetary penalties ranging from $5,000 to $1 million per day. South Carolina’s legislature could improve this situation greatly by addressing certain inconsistencies between our version of the SAFE Act and the federal version. Again, we will attempt to keep everyone up to speed on this issue as it develops.

Cyber Incident Preparedness for Closing Attorneys

Standard

And what to do if you suspect a compromise

With the increase in wire fraud that is happening in closing offices around the country, our company recently shared two documents that I thought would be beneficial to pass along to all South Carolina dirt lawyers .

The first document is a Public Service Announcement from the FBI dated August 27, 2015 concerning Business Email Compromise (BEC). BEC is defined as a sophisticated scam targeting businesses working with foreign suppliers and businesses that regularly perform wire transfers. Legitimate e-mail accounts are compromised through social engineering and computer intrusion to conduct unauthorized wire transfers.

We have seen this happen in more than one law firm in South Carolina!

cyber-fraud-theif

This PSA states that the total number of victims from October 2013 through August 2015 was 8,179 and the total exposed dollar loss was $798,897,959!

The second document was prepared by Linda Grahovec, the Director of Education and Marketing for our company. This document provides two cyber incident checklists, one for use in preparing, and the other for use if your office is attacked.

Here are three pieces of advice for all closing attorneys:

  1. Use an e-mail system that requires two-factor authentication;
  2. Never wire funds based on the content of an e-mail. Always assume e-mail has been compromised, and validate the information by phone. A good practice would be to refrain from sending wiring instructions by e-mail.
  3. If you suspect fraud, contact the bank immediately.

Please remain vigilant! Read everything you can on this topic, and continue to update and guard your systems. One incident could easily put a law firm out of business. Title insurance companies are excellent sources of information and training on these topics! Call on them!

What’s Happening with Our Nation’s Malls?

Standard

Three recent Realtor® Magazine articles explore the rise and fall of our nation’s malls. I highly recommend that you read the interesting articles entitled “Dying Suburbia Malls Become Housing Mecca” (October 7); “Will the Death of Malls Save the Suburbs?” (October 6); and “The Nation’s Malls are Getting Major Redo” (July 19) for the full story. The October 6 article, the most comprehensive, was written by Clare Trapasso.

empty-mall

Northland Center, largest mall in the world when it opened in 1954, is now closed.

Summarizing, enclosed malls are basically a post-World War II American phenomenon. These hulking projects vary in size but may be as large as 1.2 million square feet of shopping, dining, movie and other recreation space. In 1970, there were around 300 enclosed malls across the country. By 1996, this number had increased to around 1,040.  Now major stores are closing, and many malls are going dark.

The October 7 article quotes Ellen Dunham-Jones, an urban design professor at Georgia Tech, with the statistic that around 200 malls have closed down in the past two years.

What happened to our malls? It’s a simple answer: the internet.

More and more shoppers are skipping brick-and-mortar retailers to shop online. The malls that are surviving appear to be those with high-end shops that provide luxury experiences shoppers can’t get online. Dunham-Jones pointed to valet parking and chic boutiques with fitting rooms that can take pictures from different angles.

Landlords who once courted department store anchors are now looking for funky boutiques and innovative restaurants. The prediction is that more and more enclosed malls will close, and the question becomes, what will happen to the underlying real estate?

These articles, targeting Realtors®, indicate readers may be renting and selling these properties for mixed-use purposes, including housing! Some malls are being converted into public parks, office space, medical complexes, sports facilities, micro-apartments and condominiums. The theory is that a person can live in an apartment or condo in one of these retrofitted malls and walk to shopping, movie theaters and doctors’ offices.

Some developers like the idea of transforming these acres of flat real estate with existing infrastructure. Malls often contain 50 to 100 acres, including the massive parking lots, and that’s the size of many planned communities and subdivisions. In some areas desperate for housing space, malls may provide a sensible solution.

In one California location, a 30-acre “green roof” is being considered, which would include almost 4 stay tunedmiles of public trails, vineyards and a wine bar.

It sounds as if future potential uses of our dying malls may only be limited by the imagination of developers. The developers I know and love have great imaginations, so stay tuned!

Just in Time for Halloween, SC Supreme Court Declines Frightening Request to Compel Random Lawyer Trust Account Audits

Standard

pumpkin

The South Carolina Supreme Court amended the rules that govern lawyer discipline on October 25.* The big news here is not the very minor amendments that were adopted but rather the major requested amendments the Court declined to adopt.

The Commission on Lawyer Conduct and the Commission on Judicial Conduct proposed a rule amendment that would have imposed mandatory random audits of lawyer trust accounts. Without comment, the Court declined to adopt this rule change after “careful consideration”.

The Court also declined without comment an amendment that would have required a new position, a presiding disciplinary judge to act as a hearing officer to preside over disciplinary and incapacity hearings.

I have no idea why the Court made these decisions, but my guess is that the motivation revolved around the additional funds that these proposals would have required.

*Appellate Case No. 2015-0002336

Dirt Lawyers: Prepare to Advise Clients Struck by Disaster

Standard
hurricane-matthew-georgetown

Georgetown, South Carolina (Image by abcnews.go.com)

Just prior to the destruction brought on by Hurricane Matthew to our beloved state on October 8th, I saw two funny quips, which proved that humor is not always lost in the face of disaster. A friend posted on Facebook a football metaphor, hoping Matthew’s aim would be “wide right”.  That didn’t happen. And a preacher friend of a friend put up a sign at his church:  “Mark, Luke and John, please come get your boy.”  That didn’t happen either.

What did happen, according to CoreLogic was $4-6 billion in damage from wind and storm surge damage in all states affected by Matthew. CoreLogic’s media advisory, which compares the destruction of Matthew to Katrina in 2005, Sandy in 2012, Floyd and 1999 and David in 1979, can be read here.  The damage from Katrina, for example, was in the range of $35-40 billion. Of the $4-6 billion damage from Matthew, 90 percent of insurance claims are expected to be related to wind and 10 percent to storm surge, according to the article.

hurrican-matthew-myrtle-springmaid

Springmaid Pier rubble, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (Image by myrtlebeachonline.com)

Our hearts are breaking for our family members, friends and neighbors who have lost so much in this disaster. Some have not yet been able to return home and don’t know the extent of the damage at this point.

It was just one year ago that South Carolina was forced to begin recovery efforts from the 1,000 year-flood, and those efforts are far from complete. I said in a blog about the flood, and I will repeat here that for those of us old enough to remember, this disaster feels incredibly like the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo in 1989.

As we think back to the beautiful areas of South Carolina that were hardest hit then and reflect on those areas today, it seems that almost all of them are better and stronger and more beautiful than they were before the disaster. South Carolinians are strong and resilient, and we are stronger today than we were last year.

hurrican-matthew-charleston-market

Historic City Market under water in Charleston, South Carolina (Image by abcnews.go.com)

Dirt lawyers are in a unique position to advise clients who are not familiar with the assistance that may be available to them. I challenge each of us to pass along the information that will assist in recovery efforts.

For example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wrote press releases reminding mortgagors of the options available for mortgage assistance in the affected areas. Those press releases can be read here and here.  FEMA resources are outlined here.

As always, I have confidence that South Carolina real estate lawyers will rise to the occasion and provide the best advice available for their clients. I am proud to be associated with this dedicated group of lawyers.

CFPB Structure Held Unconstitutional in PHH Case

Standard

Don’t get excited; this shouldn’t change much for SC dirt lawyers.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously on October 11 that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau allows its director to wield too much power.

This highly publicized case began when PHH Corp. was ordered by CFPB Director Richard Cordray to pay $109 million in restitution resulting from illegal kickbacks to mortgage insurers pursuant to Section 8 of RESPA. An administrative law judge had ordered a $6 million penalty at the trial level, but Director Cordray apparently wanted to set an example and ordered the “ill-gotten gains” to be disgorged. The trial court had limited the violations to loans that closed on or after July 21, 2008. Director Cordray applied the fines retroactively.

scales - blue background

PHH brought suit, arguing that the CFPB is unconstitutional because Director Cordray has the sole authority to issue final decisions, rendering the CFPB structure to be in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The petition stated, “Never before has so much authority been consolidated in the hands of one individual, shielded from the President’s control and Congress’s power of the purse.” The petition argues that the Director is only removable for cause, distancing him from the power of the President, and is able to fund the agency from the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses, distancing him from Congress’s power to refuse funding.

The Court agreed. It wrote, “Because the Director alone heads the agency without Presidential supervision, and in light of the CFPB’s broad authority over the U.S. economy, the Director enjoys significantly more unilateral power than any single member of any other independent agency.”

The restriction that the Director can only be removed “for cause” was severed, giving the President the power to remove the Director at will. This decision effectively makes the CFPB an agency of the Executive Branch rather than an independent agency.

The Court did not agree with Director Cordray imposing the huge fine retroactively. The Court explained:

“Put aside all the legalese for a moment. Imagine that a police officer tells a pedestrian that the pedestrian can lawfully cross the street at a certain place. The pedestrian carefully and precisely follows the officer’s direction. After the pedestrian arrives at the other side of the street, however, the officer hands the pedestrian a $1,000 jaywalking ticket. No one would seriously contend that the officer had acted fairly or in a manner consistent with basic due process in that situation. Yet that’s precisely this case. Here, the CFPB is arguing that it has the authority to order PHH to pay $109 million even though PHH acted in reliance upon numerous government pronouncements authorizing precisely the conduct in which PHH engaged.”

It is not likely that this landmark decision will make any changes in our current closing practices. The Court stated specifically that the ongoing operations of the agency will not be affected. The Court vacated the CFPB’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. We might also see an appeal. Regardless, the CFPB is still in charge of the closing process, and all the rules remain in place.

Court of Appeals Revises Opinion, but not Result, in Arbitration Case

Standard

It seems the arbitration cases are all over the place in 2016. We’ve discussed three cases so far this year*, and the opinion in one of these cases has been withdrawn, substituted and refiled**, but the result did not change.

The South Carolina Court of Appeals decided to make a few changes in its opinion in One Belle Hall. The earlier opinion, filed June 1, held that an arbitration clause in a roofing supplier’s warranty provision was not unconscionable. The trial court had ruled that the supplier’s sale of shingles was based on a contract of adhesion and that the injured property owners lacked any meaningful choice in negotiating the warranty and arbitration terms, which were contained in the packaging for the shingles.

The Court of Appeals indicated that the underlying sale was a typical modern transaction for goods in which the buyer never has direct contact with the manufacturer to negotiate terms. The Court found it significant that the packaging contained the notation: “Important: Read Carefully before Opening” providing that if the purchaser is not satisfied with the terms of the warranty, then all unopened boxes should be returned. The Court pointed to the standard warranty in the marketplace that gives buyers the choice of keeping the goods or rejecting them by returning them for a refund, and blessed the arbitration provision.

knotted-road-sign

In the later opinion, filed September 28, the Court of Appeals addressed the South Carolina Supreme Court’s July 6, 2016 opinion in Smith v. D.R. Horton (cited in the footnote, below). In D.R. Horton, which this blog discussed on July, 14 the Supreme Court held that a national residential company’s contract contained a number of “oppressive and one-sided provisions”, including an attempted waiver of the implied warranty of habitability and a prohibition of awarding money damages of any kind. The Supreme Court held that the home purchasers lacked a meaningful ability to negotiate their contract, the only remedy through which appeared to be repair and replacement.

The difference in the two cases appears to be the location of the offending provisions. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that an arbitration agreement is separable from the contract in which it is embedded, and the issue of its validity is distinct from the substantive validity of the contract as a whole.*** The arbitration provision in D.R. Horton was construed in its entirety because various subparagraphs addressed warranty information and contained cross-references to each other. In addition, the contract did not contain a severability clause.

In the second opinion in One Belle Hall, the Court of Appeals admitted, as the supplier had conceded, that the agreement at issue was a contract of adhesion, but noted that our Supreme Court has stated that adhesion contracts are not per se unconscionable. The Court recognized that the roofing supplier’s contract continuously used language to the effect that any attempted disclaimer or limitation did not apply to purchasers in jurisdictions that disallowed them. The Court also found it significant that the agreement contained a severability clause.

In other words, since the objectionable provisions of the contract were outside the arbitration provision, and the arbitration provision is severable from the objectionable provisions, the arbitration clause is enforceable. The Court repeated its earlier point that the arbitration provision facilitates an unbiased decision by a neutral decision maker in the event of a dispute.

I believe we will see more of these cases, and I caution lawyers to be extremely careful in their drafting endeavors.

 

*  One Belle Hall Property Association v. Trammel Crow Residential Company, S.C. Ct. App. Opinion 5407 (June 1, 2016); Smith v. D.R. Horton, Inc., S.C. Supreme Court Opinion 27642 (July 6, 2016); and Parsons v. John Wieland Homes, S.C. Supreme Court Opinion 27655 (August 17, 2016).

**  One Belle Hall Property Association v. Trammel Crow Residential Company, S.C. Ct. App. Opinion 5407 (September 28, 2016)

***  Prima Paint Corporation v. Flood Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967)

New Settlement Agent Communication from Wells Fargo

Standard

Seller CD must be provided to Wells prior to disbursement

Wells Fargo communicated with its settlement agents (closing attorneys in South Carolina) by memo dated September 22. In case you missed it, you can read it in its entirety here.

The biggest news is that Wells will now require a copy of the seller Closing Disclosure along with the other documents required prior to disbursement. Apparently, receipt of the seller CD has been a challenge, necessitating the procedural modification.

StageCoachLogo

Another challenge has been the process for handling changes to the borrower’s CD. The memo stated that any changes known prior to closing, including changes to the closing numbers, the closing date and the disbursement date, must be communicated to the Wells Fargo closer.  Wells Fargo’s closer will provide an updated borrower CD and any other updated documents for closing.

Any changes detected at or post-closing should be communicated to:  SAPostClosingCommunications@wellsfargo.com.

The memo also discussed the phased rollout in progress for delivering training materials and other support for the use of Closing Insight™.  We encourage closing attorneys to read and comply with this information to avoid being left out when this process is fully implemented.

Ransomware: A Scary Prospect for Dirt Lawyers

Standard

The Cyberdivision of the FBI is serious about ransomware!  An FBI speaker last Friday at the SC Bar’s excellent tech seminar, an annual seminar I highly recommend for solo and small firm lawyers, emphasized awareness and employee training are critical to prevent data losses in your operation.

Ransomware is a form of malware that is most often delivered through spear phishing e-mails. Spear phishing is a type of e-mail fraud that seeks unauthorized access to confidential data. Ransomware is what it sounds like. Once the fraudster gains access, your system is locked down, and money is demanded to provide access. You have to pay for your own data!

hacker

“H4ck3rz R Us, how can I help you?”

The FBI recommends prevention, business continuity and remediation, but suggests that there is no guarantee of prevention even with the most robust controls in place. Methods of prevention include:

  • Provide extensive awareness and training for your staff.
  • Use strong anti-virus and anti-malware solutions that are set up to update automatically.
  • Regular scans should be conducted of the anti-virus and anti-malware solutions.
  • No user should be assigned administrative access unless that access is absolutely needed.
  • Those with administrative accounts should only use them when necessary.
  • Keep access to a minimum. If a user only needs specific files, he or she should not have access to other files.
  • Ask your IT professionals to implement controls to avoid common ransomware techniques.

But since prevention is not guaranteed, the most attention should be paid to business continuity and remediation. In short, back up your data regularly and regularly verify the integrity of the backups.  Secure backups. Ensure backups are not connected to the computers and networks they are backing up.

The FBI does not endorse paying a ransom to the fraudsters and teaches that paying the ransom does not always ensure regaining access to data.

The FBI encourages victims to contact a local FBI office immediately to report a ransomware attempt and to request assistance. Victims are also encouraged to report cyber events to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (www.ic3.gov.)