Chicago Title

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!

SC Supreme Court Crafts New Foreclosure Law

Standard

foreclosureFailure to file bond does not render appeal moot

In a case decided on November 4*, the Supreme Court of South Carolina interpreted S.C. Code §18-9-170** in a way that may come as a surprise to dirt lawyers.

The case arose from the foreclosure of an HOA lien. The absentee owner defaulted in the foreclosure and did not appeal. Instead, he moved to vacate the resulting sale. When his motion to vacate was denied, the master issued a deed to the successful bidder, and the defaulting owner appealed without filing an appeal bond.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the property owner failed to comply with the statute that would have stayed the sale, and, therefore the master-in-equity’s deed rendered the appeal moot.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for a decision on the merits.

Real estate practitioners have likely read §18-9-170 to mean that failure to file a bond in this situation renders the appeal moot. This case indicates that the failure to file a bond may not be an issue. If no bond is filed, the master may issue the deed to the successful bidder, but the appeal can proceed. By implication, if the appeal is successful, then the purchaser’s deed may be set aside. The Court specifically stated that the master’s deed does not moot the appeal, and the appellate court may reach the merits.

For title examiners and the lawyers who rely on title examinations, this case means that whether or not an appeal bond has been filed, we must pay attention to a case on appeal.

* Wachesaw Plantation East Community Services Association, Inc., v. Alexander, Appellate Case No. 2012-21340, Opinion 27585

** S.C. Code §18-9-170 reads in relevant portion: “If the judgment appealed from directs the sale or delivery of possession of real property, the execution of the judgment shall not be stayed unless a written undertaking be executed….”

Grace Period for TRID Enforcement? Sort of ….

Standard

hourglassOn October 1, Director Richard Cordray of the CFPB, responded to a request* from the American Bankers Association (ABA) for clarification on how the TRID rules will be enforced in the first few months of implementation. The answer was complicated but ultimately signified examiners will initially look at the good faith efforts of lenders to comply.

The letter, which copied 17 industry trade associations, recognized the burden on the mortgage industry to make significant systems and operational changes and engage in extensive coordination with third parties. Initially, according to the letter, examiners will evaluate a lender’s compliance management system, implementation plan, staff training and overall efforts to comply, recognizing the scope and scale of the necessary changes. The letter stated:

 “Examiners will expect supervised entities to make good faith efforts to comply with the Rule’s requirements in a timely manner.”

As a vote of confidence, the letter concluded that this examination process will be similar to the agency’s approach after the January 2014 effective date of several mortgage rules, where the experience was “our institutions did make good faith efforts to comply and were typically successful in doing so.”

No time limit was stated for this initial examination methodology.

On October 6, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac followed with announcements that they will not conduct routine file reviews for technical compliance with TRID but will evaluate whether correct forms are being used in the closing process. Fannie and Freddie expect lenders to make good faith efforts to comply with TRID. Failure to use the correct forms will be deemed a violation of the good faith effort standard.

Lenders were reminded that Fannie and Freddie have several remedies for a lender’s violation of law that may impair the ability to enforce notes and mortgages. But the announcements stated that the remedies will be used in two limited circumstances in connection with TRID: (1) where the required forms are not used; and (2) where a court of law, regulator or other authoritative body determines that a practice violates TRID and impairs the ability to enforce the note and mortgage or would results in assignee liability

No time limit was placed on this grace period.

On October 16, Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) Office of Single Family Housing announced that it will not include technical TRID compliance as an element of its routine quality control reviews, except to determine that correct forms were used, until April 16, 2016.

Efforts are underway in Congress to establish a formal grace period until January 1, 2016. The Homebuyer’s Assistance Act has passed in the House and is up for a vote in the Senate.

*The request was made by the ABA to FFIEC, which is comprised of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the CFPB, and the State Liaison Committee.

Dirt Lawyers: Beware of Marketing Services Agreements

Standard

beware pumpkinsThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is scrutinizing Marketing Services Agreements (MSAs) in a way that appears to be contrary to decades of HUD guidance. In addition to a significant number of enforcement actions involving MSAs, the agency issued Compliance Bulletin 2015-05 on October 8 which casts doubt about whether the CFPB would ever approve an MSA.

CFPB Richard Cordray was quoted:  “We are deeply concerned about how marketing services agreements are undermining important consumer protections against kickbacks. Companies do not seem to be recognizing the extent of the risks posed by implementing and monitoring these agreements within the bounds of the law.”

The bulletin began with a seminar message: “The Bureau has received numerous inquiries and whistleblower tips from industry participants describing the harm that can stem from the use of MSAs, but has not received similar input suggesting the use of those agreements benefit either consumers or industry.”

The Bureau’s position appears to be that MSAs serve no useful purpose.

Let’s look at the background. First, the prohibition against kickbacks: Section 8(a) of RESPA prohibits giving or accepting “any fee, kickback or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or a party of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.” Second, the carve out that MSA participants have relied upon: Section 8(c)(2) provides “(n)othing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the payment of bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed.”

Based on years of HUD guidance and legal advice from industry authorities, many lenders, real estate agencies, law firms, title agencies and other providers have routinely entered into agreements to pay each other marketing fees. The entities often share office space as well as sophisticated marketing efforts.

The advice of HUD and the experts was, generally:

  • don’t tie the relationship or compensation to sales, referrals or productivity;
  • limit the services to marketing;
  • avoid exclusivity provisions;
  • value marketing services objectively. This requirement was often the sticking point because shared marketing campaigns are difficult to value. Some experts suggested hiring auditing or actuarial companies; and
  • track the services in the event proof is needed.

The bulletin suggested that the kickbacks and referral fees associated with MSAs may result in consumers paying higher prices for mortgages, and that the practice of steering business may indirectly undermine consumers’ ability to shop for mortgages.

Running afoul of the CFPB in this area has resulted in injunctive relief including bans on entering MSAs, bans on working in the mortgage industry for up to five years, and penalties totaling more than $75 million.

Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Prospect Mortgage have announced decisions to discontinue MSAs. The Mortgage Bankers Association, which had asked the CFPB for guidance on this topic, has now warned its members to take the bulletin very seriously because it appears to be a series of warnings rather than the requested guidance.

Because of the possibility of enormous potential liability, I urge South Carolina real estate lawyers to completely avoid MSAs in the current regulatory environment, at least until more guidance is provided either by the CFPB or court action.

At the Intersection of Football and Mortgage Fraud

Video

Five time NFL Pro-Bowler jailed

football fieldIt’s a sad day in South Carolina! Post-flood, many South Carolinians are reeling from the damage to their homes and businesses. Many are dealing with insurance companies and FEMA, and more continue to boil water and dodge blocked roads and bridges. And in the midst of our State’s recovery, legendary Coach Steve Spurrier is hanging up his visor after eleven years coaching our beloved Gamecocks. As I was thinking about the idea of loss today, I decided to write about a place where football and real estate (in this case real estate fraud!) intersect.

We need only look back as far as October 2, when retired NFL wide receiver Irving Fryar was sentenced to five years in prison by a state court in New Jersey on charges of conspiracy and theft by deception. Fryar’s mother, Allene McGhee, was given three-years’ probation on the same charges.

Irving Fryar was the first wide receiver to be the NFL’s number one draft pick in 1984 when the New England Patriots made him their top selection. In his remarkable 17-year career, he played for the Patriots, the Dolphins, the Eagles and the Redskins. He played in Super Bowl XX with the Patriots and scored the Patriots’ only touchdown in that game in their loss to the Bears. He made it to the Pro Bowl five times and retired in 2001.

He was, at times, a troubled player. In 1986, he missed a game after being injured in a domestic dispute with his pregnant wife. In 1988, he was arrested on weapons charges. There were also headlines involving drug use, depression and even attempted suicide. But he purportedly turned his life around. While still playing, he received a Ph.D. from the North Carolina College of Theology and became a minister. After retirement from the NFL, he founded New Jerusalem House of God in his home town, Mount Holly, New Jersey, and became its preacher. He was also a regular speaker at the NFL rookie symposium and a high school football coach. His message in all these capacities was “don’t do what I did”, and “it’s never too late for salvation”.

So where did this redemption story run off the rails? Prosecutors argued in a three-week jury trial that Fryar and his mother, along with a financial advisor who testified against them, used false employment and income information to close six home equity loans on Ms. McGhee’s home in Willingsboro, New Jersey in 2009 in a six-day period.  Loan applications stated that Ms. McGhee earned $6,000 per month as an events coordinator at her son’s church. Each lender agreed to make a loan on the belief that it would be in first lien position. Four of the loans were closed in a single day! Only a few payments were made, and the lenders had to either foreclose or write off their loans.

This mortgage fraud scheme will sound familiar to Columbia lawyers. Matthew Cox a/k/a Gary Sullivan moved to Columbia in the summer of 2004, buying two homes in northeast Columbia communities. He convinced the sellers in both transactions to enter into seller financing transactions. He forged mortgage satisfactions on the sellers’ mortgages and subsequently obtained multiple institutional mortgages on both properties within several days in February of 2005, amounting to more than $1 million. He then disappeared. This scam was widely reported in the real estate community in Columbia and in newspapers in three states. Matthew Cox was a former Tampa mortgage broker who was eventually convicted of mortgage fraud in Florida, South Carolina and Georgia and served time in federal prison.

I will never forget the phone call from a Columbia lawyer who said courthouse abstractors discovered this scheme on the day of the closings by conferring about the name of the borrower whose title they were all updating!

SpurrierNo dirt lawyer looks back with nostalgia at those days of loose lending practices that were a major factor in the global financial crisis. But Irving Fryar’s story is a reminder that the clean-up from those days is not over!

Now back to football. Steve Spurrier is an outstanding coach who has done a remarkable job in our state. I wish him good luck and God speed in retirement. Now, let’s find our next great coach!

SC Real Estate Lawyers: Prepare To Advise Clients Struck By Disaster

Standard

 _SC Flood 2015Our hearts are breaking for our family members, friends and neighbors who have lost so much in this flooding disaster. Charleston and Columbia and the boroughs, towns, cities and counties between will rebuild, but it will take time, resources and patience. Many have lost everything and are without insurance coverage because flooding was so unexpected in many areas. Many are without power and water. Many are in shock. And we are being told the flooding will get worse before it gets better.

For those of us old enough to remember, this disaster feels incredibly like the aftermath of hurricane Hugo in 1989. As I think back to the beautiful areas in 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 yesterday.

Dirt lawyers are in an exceptional position to support clients who are not familiar with the assistance that may be available to them. I challenge each of us to educate ourselves to be available to offer the valuable advice that will be needed in the days, weeks and months to come. I am not knowledgeable on these topics at this point, but I am beginning to learn today and will pass information along via this blog. If anyone already has a wealth of information and is comfortable with sharing it, please pass it along to me, and I will get it out. Here are a few points I’ve learned so far.

_SC Flood 2015 2The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has announced that federal emergency aid has been made available to areas affected. President Obama authorized FEMA to coordinate disaster relief efforts and to identify, mobilize and provide, at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. W. Michael Moore has been named the Federal Coordinating Officer for the federal response operations in the affected area. For more information, go to www.fema.gov.

Governor Hailey has announced that South Carolina will act closely with the federal government to protect the citizens of South Carolina. At this point, the State is dealing with road closures, emergency responses, and water power issues, but announcements are already being made about disaster relief. We should all remain vigilant about ways our clients may obtain assistance.

Clients should begin now to make inventories and take pictures of damage. FEMA teams are on the ground now and will (slowly) begin to work with individuals and businesses. Clients should get in touch with their insurers as soon as possible.

Those with mortgages should contact lenders who may provide relief in the form of loan modifications, restructuring, temporary suspension or reduction in payments, waivers of late payments and/or suspending delinquency reporting to credit bureaus. To begin researching some of the options your clients may have, check out Fannie Mae’s site: http://knowyouroptions.com and Freddie Mac’s site: https://ww3.freddiemac.com. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages following natural disasters as long as the property is:

  • within the boundaries of a presidentially declared disaster area, and
  • the property was directly affected by the disaster.

The time period may be extended if:

  • the disaster affects a large area, or
  • is especially severe.

If a client’s property was not damaged by the disaster, but the disaster did affect his or her financial viability, your client might also qualify for a moratorium.

During times of natural disasters, the Veteran’s Administration (VA) encourages lenders and servicers to:

  • establish a 90-day moratorium on initiating new foreclosures, and
  • help individuals affected by a natural disaster by offering forbearance or modification of veterans’ loans.

Advise clients to gather information like credit reports, proofs of employment and income.

_SC Flood 2015 3Unfortunately, some clients may need to be advised to contact a bankruptcy lawyer. Chapters 7, 11 or 13 may be alternatives that should be considered, depending on circumstances. I always tell real estate lawyers that they should know just enough bankruptcy law to know when to call in a bankruptcy practitioner. This may be one of those times for numerous clients.

Let’s rise to this occasion, real estate practitioners, and provide the best advice we can for our clients who are in dire need at this time.

New Penn Financial Announces Closing Portal

Standard

October 3Lender announcements are coming at a fast and furious pace now that we are within days of TRID’s October 3 deadline. Blogging about all of the broadcasts seems to be less than beneficial since most of them are repetitive at this point and since many of the regional lenders making announcements at this late date don’t appear to do business in South Carolina.

A new announcement from New Penn Financial, however, seems noteworthy for two reasons:  (1) this lender advertises it has an office in Murrells Inlet; and (2) the announcement includes news of a new closing portal and “closing agent portal job aid”. You can read the announcement in its entirely here, and follow its link to the “job aid”.

The lender indicates it has implemented the use of SmartGFE and Closing.com to provide more accurate fees to borrowers, and encourages all settlement agents (closing attorneys in South Carolina) to register with Closing.com as soon as possible. The initial and final Closing Disclosures will be sent to settlement agents through the DocuTech Closing Collaboration Portal (ConformX) for review and approval. No advance set-up is required to use this portal.

Interestingly, New Penn indicates it will offer both an E-signature process and a “wet” signature process as delivery and signing methods for the Loan Estimate and the Initial Closing Disclosure.  The memo states the disclosures will be delivered in accordance with CFPB’s timing requirements and that the delivery methods will ensure proof of delivery.

As we have spoken to closing attorneys and real estate agents across South Carolina in preparation for the new rules, there has been much speculation about whether lenders will shorten the six-day requirement by using methods of proof of delivery as an alternative to mail. This indication of an E-signature process would guessingsuggest that it may be possible to shorten the six-day delivery requirement with this particular lender. If other lenders follow suit, real estate professionals will be delighted that the waiting period can be shortened, at least under certain some circumstances.

I’m just guessing here (along with the rest of you), but I anticipate that the last quarter of 2015 may prove to be an interesting transition to our new normal, but after the first of the year, those of us who decide to remain in the closing “game” will have settled into a different, but manageable routine. Best of luck to all of you for getting through the next few months!  And remember, we will get through this together!

Still Need to Reach Out to Your Realtor® Partners About TRID?

Standard

toolboxSome new tools are available!

Residential dirt lawyers may still need to reach out to their real estate agent partners to discuss how the CFPB rules will affect closings after October 3. Some new resources are available to assist in that effort.

I previously blogged about five things real estate agents should know before the new rules become effective. Now there is more useful information in a format that is easy to share.

On September 17, Richard Cordray, Director of the CFPB, met with an officer of the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) to unveil online tools designated to help consumers and real estate professionals navigate the new closing procedures.

The CFPB had previously developed an array of online tools for prospective home buyers, the most important of which is an interactive resource called, “Your home loan tool kit, a step-by-step guide”. This guide allows consumers to perform calculations and obtain information to assist them in understanding their financial prospects for obtaining financing and avoiding pitfalls associated with the process.

The CFPB encourages real estate professionals to consider linking the toolkit on their websites to position themselves as trusted sources of information for consumers.  I encourage residential dirt lawyers to do the same to position themselves for their consumer clients.

Last week’s announcement included a new resource called “Guide for real estate professionals”, the goal of which is to “ensure smooth and on-time closings”.  I encourage real estate lawyers to use this new guide to connect with their real estate agent partners.  Link it on your website. Send the link to you best real estate agent contacts.  Offer to meet with them to answer questions. Your goal is to be perceived as a thought leader and problem solver when questions begin to surface after October 3rd.

we are here to helpSouth Carolina residential real estate lawyers should also keep in mind that their title insurance companies have prepared to assist in the transition. Don’t hesitate to use your title insurance company friends as valued resources. They are ready! Their goal, like yours, is to give their very best customer service as we all navigate these new closing rules together.

National Association of Realtors® Reports on TRID Survey

Standard

Real estate practitioners should expect changes in contracts

NAR

The Research Department of the National Association of Realtors® surveyed members in August about their awareness and preparation for the changes in residential closings being implemented by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in October of 2015. The most dramatic change is eliminating the current disclosure forms in favor of a Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure, collectively called the TILA RESPA Integrated Disclosures (TRID).

The results of the survey were detailed in an Executive Summary entitled “TRID: REALTORS® and the New Closing Process”.

The best news from the report is that 71.2% of the respondent members rated their level of preparedness as average or better. Many stated they are taking action and working with their industry partners to prepare for a smooth transition. More than 80% of respondents indicated they have taken some form of TRID training.

Dirt lawyers should expect to see changes in residential form contracts. More than half of respondents indicated they will adjust contracts to reflect longer closing time frames, and almost a third indicated they plan to adjust contracts to include new contingencies.

Take a look at the following chart for more information on how Realtors® plan to deal with the new rules.

NAR Realtors Chart

Although it is anticipated that the changes may introduce new burdens on lenders, closing attorneys and REALTORS®, many of the respondents indicated the number of delayed closings has been low in the past, and they will continue to work with their industry partners to help make the transition smooth.

Real estate lawyers who have not reached out to their REALTOR® contacts should do so soon and often to assist with the transition!