Chicago Title

Waters Of The United States Redefined

Standard

South Carolina is among the states suing the Feds

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers published a Final Clean Water Act Rule defining “waters of the United States” on June 29. The effective date of the rule, which greatly expands the scope of jurisdictional waters, is August 28. The full text of the rule can be read here.

shutterstock_180127517The Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction relates to “navigable waters” which was previously defined simply as “waters of the United States or the territorial seas”.  This vague definition led to numerous lawsuits and much regulatory interpretation, but confusion persisted. For this reason, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers decided to resolve the uncertainty by promulgating a new definition by federal rule. Supporters say the true motivation for the rule is to protect the safety of drinking water and stream health.

The new rule will affect several industries, two of which are of particular importance to real estate practitioners:  construction and housing. The rule will undoubtedly lead to considerable additional costly federal permitting and is likely to slow development.

The rule deems all tributaries to traditional navigable waters with beds, banks and ordinary high water marks, as jurisdictional, regardless of size. The definition of “wetlands” has been expanded to include “neighboring” wetlands which incorporates all waters within the floodplain or within specified distances from the ordinary high water mark of traditional navigable waters, their tributaries and impoundments.

Of local significance, the rule extends protections to “Carolina Bays”, on a case-by-case basis, depending on the significance of their nexus to navigable waters. Carolina bays are defined as ponded depressional wetlands that occur along the Atlantic coastal plains.

shutterstock_147620981Two lawsuits were filed by 22 states on the day after the rule was published. South Carolina is a plaintiff in Georgia v. McCarthy, which claims the rule infringes on state sovereignty by eliminating the states’ primary authority to regulate and protect water under state standards. The lawsuit also alleges that the rule imposes significant new federal burdens on the states, homeowners, business owners and farmers by forcing them to obtain costly federal permits to continue to conduct activities on their property that have no significant impact on navigable, interstate waters.

The second lawsuit, North Dakota v. McCarthy, alleges that the rule harms states in their capacity as owners and regulators of waters and lands within their respective jurisdictions.

It is likely that other challenges to the new rule will follow.  In addition to the challenges by the states, the housing, construction, farming and oil industries are opposed to the implementation of this far reaching rule.

Hilton Head Timeshare Project Entangled In Consumer Litigation

Standard

Lawsuits involve tales of fraudulent sales tactics

Hilton Head’s Island Packet newspaper continues to report on approximately sixty state and federal lawsuits pitting disgruntled consumer purchaser plaintiffs against The Coral Sands Resort timeshare project on Pope Avenue in Hilton Head. The cases have been weaving their way through the court systems for three years.

shutterstock_47620291The lawsuits involve tales of fraudulent tactics by timeshare salesmen, such as promises of extra weeks in related projects that never materialize, promises of waived maintenance fees that never materialize, a pattern of baiting-and-switching units, promises that the developer will purchase timeshare units owned by the consumers in other projects as a sort of trade in, and sales of weeks that are available only every other year or every third year as if they were available every year. In short, the purchasers claim they were misled by sales pitches, and the documents they received did not reflect what had been told.

Most recently, Dan Burley reported on July 1 that two out-of-state couples received full refunds through arbitration. These two decisions are the first rulings in the various cases.

According to the July 1 article, separate arbitrators voided the couples’ contracts and ordered refunds because the contracts were determined to have violated aspects of the South Carolina Timeshare Act.

But the relief the consumers had requested went far beyond the refund of several thousand dollars. One of the cases was arbitrated by Hilton Head lawyer Curtis Coltrane. His twelve-page Award was attached to the news report and discussed allegations of common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy and Unfair Trade Practices, among others. All of those claims were dismissed for lack of evidence.  The arbitrator stated that the plaintiffs were intelligent individuals who should have been able to ascertain the contents of the documents by reading them.shutterstock_55553422

The second suit was arbitrated by Florence lawyer Richard L. Hinson with a similar result. As in the first case, all claims were dismissed except for the causes of action for Violation of the South Carolina Timeshare Act, in Mr. Hinson’s two-page award.

Representatives of the project are quoted as saying that thousands of customers are pleased with their Coral Resorts experience, and that owners who suffer from buyers’ remorse can ask for a refund within five days of signing the contract.

Mr. Burley’s previous articles in The Island Packet provide additional detail. I recommend the previous …and future articles on this litigation for interesting reading!

Be Vigilant to Prevent “Business E-mail Compromise” Scams

Standard

fraud alertWire fraud is on the rise! Train your staff!

United States business e-mail accounts are under attack by sophisticated fraudsters.

The FBI, Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC) and the United States Secret Service issued a financial services bulletin on June 19 warning against increasing wire transfer fraud against U.S. businesses referred to as “Business E-mail Compromise” (BEC) scams.

The bulletin warned that BEC is a type of payment fraud that involves the compromise of legitimate business e-mail accounts for the purpose of conducting unauthorized wire transfers.  Many compromised accounts belong to business CEOs or CFOs. The funds are primarily sent to Asia, but funds involved in these schemes have been diverted to locations around the globe.

BEC fraud compromises e-mail accounts through phishing, social engineering or malware used to obtain the user’s password. Once an e-mail account is compromised, fraudsters begin accessing and reviewing e-mails, including meeting and calendar information, contacts lists, and information concerning business partners, vendors and customers.

This activity enables the fraudsters to interject themselves into normal business communications masquerading as the person whose account was compromised. This reconnaissance stage lasts until the actor feel comfortable enough to send wire transfer instructions using either the victim’s e-mail or a spoofed e-mail account.   E-mails are typically sent to an employee with the ability to wire funds. A common tactic is to wait until the victim is away on legitimate business travel to send new wire instructions, making it more likely that individual would use e-mail to conduct business and making it more difficult to verify the transaction as fraudulent while the victim is in transit. The requests will sometimes state that the wire transfer is related to urgent or confidential business matters and must not be discussed with other company personnel.

Other incidents involve the compromise of a vendor or supplier’s e-mail account with the intention of modifying the bank account associated with that business. This scheme may also be labeled “vendor fraud” and often involves last minute changes of the bank and account number for future payments.

red-phoneThere is a relatively easy fix: all wire information received via e-mail should be verbally verified using established business telephone numbers.

Other suggestions to guard against this fraud are:

  1. Limit the number of employees with authority to handle wire transfers.
  2. Have a second employee designated as an approver for any wire transfer requests.
  3. Be careful opening attachments and clicking on links even if the e-mail appears to be from a legitimate source if you believe wire instructions may be included in the communication.
  4. Look out for e-mails that contain significant changes in grammar, sentence structure and spelling compared to previous communications.
  5. Look out for suspicious communications particularly toward the end of the week or the end of a business day. The fraudsters will have more time to access and divert funds.
  6. Maintain a file, preferably in non-electronic form, of vendor contact information, including telephone numbers.
  7. Look out for “spoofed” e-mail addresses that are made to look like the real addresses. Fraudsters use tactics like character substitution, addition and omission to make e-mails addresses appear legitimate. Here are some examples using a Chicago Title address, richard.roe@chicagotitle.com
  • roe@chicag0title.com
  • roe@chicagotit1e.com
  • roe@chicagotitlee.com
  • roe@chicagottle.com
  • roe.chicagotitle@gmail.com
  • roa@chicagotitle.com
  1. Be wary of wire transfers to countries outside of normal trading patterns.

ic3 circleIncidents should be reported to local offices of the FBI or Secret Service or to:

Dirt lawyers, protect your businesses and your clients’ funds by following these critical guidelines!

ALTA Approves “Model” Settlement Statements

Standard

paperworkThe more we delve into the intricacies of the new Closing Disclosure (“CD”), the more we recognize that we will not be able to disburse directly from this form when the new rules take effect later this year. A separate document will be needed to prove that receipts and disbursements match in each closing file.

Many commercial closing attorneys have developed their own buyer’s and seller’s closing statement and matching disbursement analysis forms, but many residential closing attorneys have relied primarily on the HUD-1 closing statement. In addition, some closing attorneys have voiced concern that the required treatment of title insurance premiums on the CD (showing the full cost of the loan policy despite the fact that we have a simultaneous issue rate) creates the need for a separate form that will accurately reveal the cost of title insurance.

To answer the need for new forms, the American Land Title Association (ALTA) board adopted four new model settlement statements in May:

  • ALTA Settlement Statement Combined;
  • ALTA Settlement Statement Seller;
  • ALTA Settlement Statement Borrower/Buyer; and
  • ALTA Settlement Statement Cash.

The documents may be downloaded from ALTA in Excel, Word and PDF formats. The closing software companies should also have versions in their systems.

At least one bank has addressed the use of the ALTA model settlement statements. Bank of America was asked whether it would require the use of the ALTA model forms, and it stated in a June 9 memo that it prefers the ALTA model if a closing attorney chooses to use a settlement statement to supplement the CD, but specified that the settlement statement figures must reconcile to the CD and a copy of the settlement statement must be provided to the bank. The bank also stated that all revisions to fees and costs will require bank approval and an amended CD. In other words, closing attorneys will not be allowed to revise fees and costs by simply supplementing the CD with a settlement statement.

We expect other banks may make similar statements as implementation approaches.

Another Lender Communication to Settlement Agents…

Standard

… And a denial from the CFPB.

newsBank of America answered several frequently asked questions from settlement agents by memo dated June 9.

Significantly, BofA indicated that agents will not be allowed to accept its title or closing orders if they are not registered with Closing Insight™. Because BofA and several other lenders will require Closing Insight™,  South Carolina closing attorneys who have not yet registered should follow this link to do so.

Asked whether BofA will require the use of ALTA model settlement statements, the bank responded that it prefers the ALTA model form if a closing attorney chooses to use a settlement statement to supplement the Closing Disclosure (“CD”), but specified that the settlement statement figures must reconcile to the CD and a copy of the settlement statement must be provided to BofA. The memo also stated that all revised fees and costs will require both bank approval and an amended CD. In other words, fees and costs cannot be revised by simply supplementing the CD with a settlement statement.

ALTA’s settlement statements are available for review and use at this link.

The memo confirmed our thinking that separate CDs will be provided to the buyer and the seller. BofA added that the buyer and seller will not sign the same form nor see the contents of the other party’s CD. Further, BofA will instruct the closing attorney to prepare and deliver the seller’s CD and to provide copies of CDs to the real estate agents.

Finally, the bank clarified its process for making post-disbursement fee modifications. If the closing attorney identifies the need for a change in the numbers reflected on the CD, the attorney must request that the “collaboration session” be reopened in Closing Insight™, and the bank will review the update made by the attorney to determine whether a revised CD is necessary. The party in possession of any excess funds will be responsible for sending the funds to the buyer/borrower, while BofA will prepare and send the revised CD to the buyer/borrower. The closing attorney will be responsible for revising and delivering the seller’s revised CD, if necessary.

cfpb-logoIn related news, on June 3, the CFPB released a fact sheet in response to “much information and mistaken commentary” surrounding perceived closing delays that will be caused by the implementation of the new rules. The CFPB denied that the new CDs will delay closings “for just about everybody.” In response to the belief that any change in the CD will cause a new 3-day review period, the CFPB clearly stated that only the following matters will trigger an additional 3- day wait:

  1. The new APR (annual percentage rate) increases by more than 1/8 of a percent for fixed-rate loans or ¼ of a percent for adjustable loans. A decrease in the APR will not require a new 3-day review if it is based on changes to interest rate or other fees.
  2. A prepayment penalty is added, making it expensive to refinance or sell.
  3. The basic loan product changes, such as a switch from fixed rate to adjustable interest rate or to a loan with interest-only payments.

The following circumstances will not require a new 3-day review, according to the fact sheet:

  1. Unexpected discoveries on a walk-through such as a broken refrigerator or a missing stove, even if they require seller credits to the buyer.
  2. Most changes to payments made at closing, including the amount of the real estate commission, taxes and utilities proration, and the amount paid into escrow.
  3. Typos found at the closing table.

The CFBP’s denial notwithstanding, we are all naturally concerned about other matters that will cause delays during the transition period, particularly the steep learning curve that must be overcome by everyone involved in closings. But we will all work hard to get through the transition period together! We’re predicting that closings will be much smoother by the beginning of 2016.

CFPB proposes TRID delay until Oct. 3

Standard

stay tuned

Quick note to get this information out quickly: Today the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau announced that it will be issuing a proposed amendment to delay the effective date of the new mortgage disclosure rule from August 1 to October 3.

More to follow!

Donut Fridays

Standard

Ethics Opinion gives them a thumbs up!


donutsSavvy residential dirt lawyers continue to explore innovative marketing methods. A recent Ethics Advisory Opinion (15-02) issued by the Ethics Advisory Committee of the South Carolina Bar blessed the following scenario, with a few caveats:

“Law Firm would like to pursue a practice referred to as “Donut Friday,” where an employee of Law Firm visits the Firm’s existing vendors (e.g., banks, real estate agencies, etc.) and delivers a box of donuts to these vendors. Included with the box of donuts are a dozen koozies bearing the name of Law Firm, as well as a fee sheet, a pamphlet containing information about Law Firm and its staff, and a coupon for $50.00 off Law Firm’s fee for a consultation or real estate closing. None of the marketing materials is addressed or directed to any one person, nor does the material request that existing vendors refer business to Law Firm, although the intent is to receive referrals.”

The Committee stated as a preliminary matter that the mere delivery of gifts or other marketing materials to a business generally without delivery to specific individuals does not constitute solicitation. For that reason, Rule 7.3 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility does not apply. Enclosing law firm materials in a donut box does constitute lawyer advertising, making the remainder of the advertising and communication rules (7.1, 7.2, 7.4 and 7.5) apply.

Because the donut box recipients are existing law firm vendors who refer closing business to the firm, the specific rule at play, according to the Committee, is Rule 7.2(c), which prohibits giving “anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services.”  The Committee specified that as long as the weekly donut boxes are delivered regardless of whether the lender or real estate agency had referred clients to the law firm that week, and regardless of how many, then the requisite quid pro quo for a Rule 7.2 (c) violation does not exist. The rule would be violated, however, if the delivery of donuts was contingent on the referral of business.

keep_calm_and_eat_a_donut

The Committee said that only the donuts, koozies and coupons (not the fee sheets or pamphlets) would be considered things “of value” under Rule 7.2 because the rule contemplates value to the recipient and not cost to the sender. Finally, the Committee stated that although the Rules of Professional Conduct are “rules of reason”, the prohibition on giving “anything” of value contains no explicit de minimis exception.

Kudos to the law firm that devised this marketing ploy and received the blessing of the Ethics Advisory Committee!

BB&T Follows the Lead of Other Large Lenders

Standard

It will produce and deliver Closing Disclosures

BB&T logo 2BB&T announced on May 26 that it will be responsible for completing and delivering borrowers’ Closing Disclosures after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) TILA-RESPA Integrated Mortgage Disclosures (TRID) rule becomes effective on August 1.

By making this announcement, BB&T joins Bank of America, Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, SunTrust and Freedom Mortgage in removing the responsibility for preparing the borrower’s settlement statement from the hands of settlement agents (closing attorneys in South Carolina). Closing attorneys will prepare the seller’s CD as well as other forms necessary for disbursement. It is clear that the borrower’s CD will not contain sufficient information for disbursement, which will continue to be the responsibility of the closing attorney.

Like the other lenders, BB&T confirmed in its announcement that it will continue to work with closing attorneys to determine the fees and other information required for the Closing Disclosure.

stay tunedBB&T also announced, like several other large lenders, that it will use the web-based portal, Closing Insight™, to gather the information and data required to complete the CD. Closing attorneys were encouraged to register with Closing Insight™ immediately.

BB&T promised to provide further communications and training to settlement agents prior to August 1.

Heads Up Residential Dirt Lawyers: Use Engagement Letters!

Standard

August 1 changes will make them even more important.

Lenders will no doubt be more in control of the closing process when the CFPB rules take effect in August. Several major lenders have announced that they will produce and deliver the borrower’s Closing Disclosure, the form that will replace the HUD-1. This form will be delivered to borrowers at least three business days prior to closing. This change may limit the closing attorney’s involvement with clients early in the closing process.

house parachuteResidential real estate lawyers will need to use engagement letters more than ever to establish that important attorney-client relationship, to explain the new closing environment and to quote fees and costs. These matters are too crucial to leave in the hands of lenders!

Also, a major change in the treatment of owner’s title insurance by the CFPB will require that attorneys explain the importance of the one document in the stack of closing papers that protects the purchaser. An engagement letter sent early in the process is the ideal place for this essential explanation. The closing table may be too late!

The CFPB will require that the full premium, not the discounted simultaneous issue premium, must be disclosed for the loan policy on the CD. The owner’s policy premium will be shown in the “Other” section of the CD and will be reflected as “Optional”.  The cost of the owner’s policy will be the total premium discounted by the cost of the loan policy and adding the simultaneous issue premium.  Some lenders may even show the full premium for the owners and loan policies on page two of the CD and a “rebate” for the discount on page 3. Confusing?  Definitely!

Purchasers strapped for funds may be tempted to skip this “optional” charge. Attorneys will need to explain how title insurance protects their clients. Savvy attorneys realize that owner’s title insurance protects them, too. It has even been suggested that it may be malpractice for an attorney not to recommend owner’s title insurance.

In this environment, I’m providing my dirt lawyer friends with a couple of paragraphs that can be edited to explain the importance of owner’s title insurance in engagement letters:

house protection hands“Title insurance protects the ownership of your home. The purchase of a home may be the largest transaction you’ll make during your lifetime. For a relatively low, one-time premium of $____, you can be protected against legal problems over property rights that could cost thousands of dollars, and even result in the loss of your home.

Lender’s title insurance is required for this transaction, but it does not protect your equity. You must purchase owner’s insurance for that valuable protection. We will perform a title examination for you, but the most thorough and competent title examination cannot protect against loss from hidden title defects created by misfiling and misindexing in the public records. Risks not created in the public records, such as fraud and forgery, are also covered by title insurance. Dollar for dollar, an owner’s title insurance policy is one of the most cost effective forms of insurance available to homeowners. I highly recommend that you purchase an owner’s policy and will make it available to you unless you let me know otherwise.”

When the closing process changes, let’s make sure important relationships are established and clients are protected early in the closing process!

Accountants Develop ALTA Best Practices Guidelines

Standard

Dirt lawyers: Your CPA should be able to assist!

accountant guyThe American Land Title Association announced on April 28 that the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has issued guidelines for CPAs to verify whether closing attorneys comply with ALTA’s Best Practices.

The guidelines provide a uniform framework to ensure CPAs will perform ALTA Best Practices compliance testing and reporting in the same manner and in accordance with AICPA standards. By engaging a CPA who will use the new guidelines, closing attorneys should be confident about the quality of the assessment process.

We are not aware of any lenders doing business in South Carolina who have indicated at this point that they will require third party certifications. However, Mississippi based regional BancorpSouth announced in early March that its approved closing agents must comply with Best Practices through a certification from an independent third party vendor acceptable to the bank. The deadline for obtaining the certification was stated to be July 31.

Wells Fargo announced it supports ALTA’s Best Practices as sound business practices that should already be in place. Wells stated in a memorandum to its closing agents that completing a certification by August 1 will not be a requirement, but the bank hopes closing agents will, at minimum, have already completed a self-assessment and addressed any identified gaps by that date.

SunTrust Mortgage announced that it will require closing agents to complete an ALTA Self-Assessment no later than July 1, 2015.

Lenders will likely refine their requirements as we get deeper into implementation. It would not be surprising to hear that any lender who does business in South Carolina will require third party certifications, particularly since CPAs are now “in the loop” and able to make assessments.

The bottom line at this point is that all residential closing attorneys who plan to remain in the business should become Best Practices compliant as soon as possible so they will be able to meet any requirements along these lines that their lenders may impose.

If you need help with Best Practices compliance, call your title insurance company! They are able, willing and ready to assist!