CTIC

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

 

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!

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!

FHA Settlement Certification Will Require Tweaking After October 3

Standard

FHA answers a FAQ; it doesn’t officially change the certification

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) released a new settlement certification this summer in anticipation of the implementation of the TRID rules on October 3. The new certification is intended to replace FHA’s current addendum to the HUD-1 Settlement Statement and will be used for the new Closing Disclosures once the TRID rules become effective.

The new certification reads:

“To the best of my knowledge, the Closing Disclosure which I have prepared is a true and accurate account of the funds which were (i) received, or (ii) paid outside closing, and the funds received have been or will be disbursed by the undersigned as part of the settlement of this transaction. I further certify that I have obtained the above certifications which were executed by the borrower(s) and seller(s) as indicated.”

Please note that the new certification contains the language “which I have prepared”.  As we have all heard by now, many of the large lenders have indicated that settlement agents will not prepare the Closing Disclosures to be delivered to borrowers. Because of the perceived liability, several of the larger lenders have announced that they will prepare the deliver borrowers’ Closing Disclosures.

frustrated man paperworkSettlement agents (closing attorneys in South Carolina) will prepare and deliver sellers’ Closing Disclosures in all cases and will prepare the borrowers’ forms for the smaller lenders who are not taking the responsibility internally.

American Land Title Association reached out to FHA, the Mortgage Bankers Association and individual lenders to inform them that the new certification would be inaccurate in the cases where the lender prepares the Closing Disclosure.  FHA did not revise its certification, but, in connection with issuing an additional 120 new FAQs to its Single-Family Handbook Frequently Asked Questions, it answered the following question this month:

FAQ 347:

Q: “The Model Settlement Certification requires the Settlement Agent certifying that he or she has prepared the Closing Disclosure but the CFPB’s requirements for issuing the new TRID Closing Disclosure will make this unlikely to be the case. Should the Settlement Agent sign the form anyway?”

A: “FHA does not wish for anyone to make a false certification. Because this is a model component, FHA will accept the tailoring of this phrase to the actual circumstances. This if the Settlement Agent does not prepare the closing disclosure, he or she should remove or strike through the statement ‘which I have prepared’ before executing the Settlement Certification.

FHA is only providing this guidance through the FAQ. It is neither revising the certification nor clarifying the instructions on the certification itself.  As a result, closing attorneys will be required to educate their staff members about the necessity to revise the certification for FHA closings after the new rules take effect.

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!

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!

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!