Lenders’ Closing Plans Solidify As August 1 Approaches

news news news Citibank recently notified settlement agents (closing attorneys in South Carolina) that they will be requested to register with the FPSDirect Vendor Website at the time they agree to handle a Citibank closing. This website was created to provide the bank’s settlement agents with an easy and efficient method of loan document delivery, closing date confirmation and funding approval, among other matters. The memo stated the bank’s goal is to save the time of faxing and the insecurity of email.

Wells Fargo issued a Settlement Agent Communication on March 16 indicating that, like Bank of America, it plans to integrate with Closing Insight™ with a goal of improving the way instructions, fees and other information is shared. The memo stated: “Unlike today where we typically use email to pass these important details back and forth, Closing Insight™ will support an interactive, online collaboration that includes a full view of information from both parties, and provides an audit trail and quality checks to reduce errors.”

We have learned and the Wells Fargo communication states that many closing attorneys will be able to access Closing Insight™ through connections with their existing software packages. Wells’ communication also states that attorneys without closing software packages will not be left out because a secure web portal will be available. Wells reiterated its goal of continuing to do business with local service providers, but emphasized that it expects closing attorneys to be ready, willing and able to comply with requirements and closing instructions.

Wells Fargo also answered four recent FAQs:

“If co-borrowers plan to sign the loan documents on different dates, which date applies for compliance with the three business day receipt requirement of the CD? The borrower’s CD must have been received not less than three business days before the earliest signing date. This question highlights the importance of communicating specifics about signing plans to your Wells Fargo closing contact, including cases when a mobile signing agent or mail away signing is being requested.

Will Wells Fargo be providing loan closing documents to the settlement agent at the same time the borrower’s CD is delivered? Our goal is to provide the closing documents to the settlement agent shortly after the borrower’s CD has been finalized and provided to the borrower. In most cases, you should receive the closing documents earlier than in the past.

Will Wells Fargo permit any other party to deliver the borrower’s CD to meet the three business day closing requirement for a rush closing situation? No. We have determined that we must be responsible for delivering the borrower’s CD to meet and track the three business day receipt requirement for all transactions We will continue to encourage all parties involved to stay in close communication and work together proactively to minimize the need for expedited CD delivery.

Is my company required to be ALTA Best Practices Certified by August 1 to continue to close Wells Fargo loans? No. Completing your certification by August 1 will not be a Wells Fargo requirement. However, we hope that if your company is not yet certified you will – at minimum – have already completed a self-assessment and addressed any identified gaps. As communicated in our March 6, 2014, newsletter, Wells Fargo supports the ALTA Best Practices as sound business practices that should ideally already be in place for businesses providing title and closing services to our customers.”

Wells Fargo also stated that it has entered into a business arrangement with ClosingCorp, a leading provider of fee management solutions, to obtain actual fee information from selected settlement agents who closing a high number of Wells Fargo loans.

Lenders Announce They Will Control More of the Residential Closing Process

Regional bank will require third-party BP certifications on a short time frame!

Let’s take the big bank first. Bank of America recently shared more details about changes in its closing processes after August 1, 2015. In addition to delivering Closing Disclosures, BofA will take the responsibility for complying with the three-business day waiting period. It will not require closing attorneys to monitor the timing of the delivery of the initial CD or any required re-disclosures.

BofA stated that close collaboration will be needed with closing attorneys for requests of information and notices of all loan and fee changes through its selected platform, RealEC® Technologies Closing Insight™. Closing attorneys will be notified of re-disclosure requirements and new closing dates through Closing Insight™.

BofA said it expects to engage closing attorneys to begin fee collaboration a minimum of ten calendar days prior to closing, and it intends to generate and send the CD six business days prior to closing.*

Now let’s look at an interesting announcement from a small bank, and please pay attention to the short time frame.

Mississippi based regional BancorpSouth announced in early March that its approved closing must comply with ALTA’s Best Practices through a certification from an independent third party vendor acceptable to the bank. Self-certifications will not be accepted.

The announcement stated that Memphis Consumer Credit Association and many of the large accounting firms have agreed to provide the certification. The bank asked closing attorneys to advise by March 23 whether they intend to obtain the certification. And the deadline for obtaining the certification was stated to be July 31.

*In almost all South Carolina transactions, we expect the “consummation date” to be the same as the closing date and the same as the date BofA refers to in this memorandum as the signing date.

Three Lenders Make CFPB Announcements

Two additional lenders will deliver the borrower’s Closing Disclosure

Citi and Chase have joined Well Fargo and Bank of America by announcing that they will deliver borrowers’ Closing Disclosures after the CFPB rules take effect on August 1, 2015.

Citi’s announcement was made on January 28, 2015, followed by Chase’s announcement on February 26. Both lenders stated that closing attorneys will continue to be responsible for sellers’ Closing Disclosures in purchase transactions. Closing attorneys will be required to deliver copies of sellers’ Closing Disclosures to the respective lender.

Citi’s announcement shared some information with its settlement agents that has previously been made clear by the rule itself. That is, there will be several weeks or months after August 1 when the old forms will be used because it is the application date as of August 1 that triggers the use of the new forms, and early use of the Closing Disclosure is not allowed. Citi also pointed out that the new rules do not apply to home equity loans.

Closing attorneys should note that their software systems will have to accommodate old and new versions of the forms because of the transition and because all loans will not be subject to the new rules.

Union Bank announced on February 26 that it will use the web-based tool Closing Insight™ to simplify the multi-party closing process and support efforts to ensure regulatory compliance. The announcement stated that no other means of communication or document delivery will be accepted.

We will continue to read and keep you informed!

Collaboration is King!

ALTA’s CFPB webinar emphasizes that the exchange of data will be the biggest challenge to the closing process after August 1, 2015.

American Land Title Association’s value to closing attorneys grows each day as August 1, 2015 approaches. Closing forms will change dramatically later this year, and ALTA is valiantly attempting to keep those of us who plan to remain in this game ahead of the learning curve.

South Carolina has strong representation in ALTA! Cynthia Blair, a real estate attorney in Columbia, sits on ALTA’s board and participated in this webinar. Each time Cynthia said, “In my state” we knew we were about to receive information specific to us. This local support at this critical time is invaluable, and I strongly encourage South Carolina closing attorneys to join ALTA.

Yesterday, ALTA hosted an excellent webinar entitled “5 Key Areas to Prime Your Operation for the New Closing Process”. The webinar was attended by more than 1,100 of us! The strong message was “Collaboration is King”.

Closing attorneys and lenders will work more closely together than ever to manage and share information. Some lenders have indicated they will deliver the Closing Disclosure to the borrower, but others will require the closing attorney to deliver it. The seller’s form will be prepared by the closing attorney, and a copy of it must be provided to the lender.

The underlying information for the closing documents will be located in two systems: (1) the lenders’ loan origination systems (LOS) will contain the loan-centric information; and (2) the closing attorney’s systems (sometimes referred to as the “title platform”) will contain the property-centric information. Large lenders are likely to utilize entirely electronic systems that will avoid rekeying of information to reduce the possibility of errors. The two systems will talk to each other via platforms that are now being developed.

Closing Attorneys and Paralegals: Want to toss and turn at night?

Read about this costly law firm mistake.

(This case makes my stomach hurt because a developer client of mine once declared bankruptcy. Everything I had done for that client for the prior three years was scrutinized, and I spent some sleepless nights!)

On January 21, 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan decided a direct appeal from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court involving a mistaken UCC-3 termination statement.* This case involves the General Motors bankruptcy.

The facts concern a 2008 payoff by GM to JP Morgan Chase of a $300 million synthetic lease. GM contacted its outside counsel to prepare the necessary documents. A partner assigned the work to an associate and instructed him to prepare a closing checklist and drafts of the necessary documents. The associate asked a paralegal who was unfamiliar with the transaction to perform a UCC search that search identified three UCC-1s. Two of the UCC-1s related to the subject loan. The third, however, was related to a term loan between the same parties. The law firm prepared UCC-3 terminations for all three financing statements.

No one at GM, its law firm, JP Morgan or its law firm noticed the error. When the loan was paid, all three
UCC-3s were filed.

The mistake was not noticed until GM filed bankruptcy in 2009.

In litigation with the unsecured creditors, JP Morgan argued that the third UCC-3 was unauthorized and ineffective because it intended to terminate only the liens that related to the synthetic lease. The Bankruptcy Court agreed on the grounds that no one at JP Morgan or its law firm intended to terminate the third UCC-1.

The Second Circuit certified a question to the Delaware Supreme Court, asking, basically, whether a termination is effective when a lender reviews and knowingly approves a termination statement for filing or whether the lender must intend to terminate the particular security interest. The Delaware Court replied that intent is not necessary, stating, “If parties could be relieved from the legal consequences of their mistaken filings, they would have little incentive to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in their UCC filings.”

The Second Circuit agreed, indicating JP Morgan authorized the termination even though it never intended to.

Lawyers and paralegals: be careful, be careful, be careful! And now try to get a good night’s sleep!

* Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Company v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Docket No. 13-2187, January 21, 2015.

Need to Foreclose a Mortgage Securing an eNote?

Indiana case may provide guidance

South Carolina has no reported opinions concerning mortgage foreclosures involving eNotes, and little authority exists elsewhere on what a holder must prove to successfully foreclose a mortgage secured by an electronic note in a judicial state. Until we see opinions closer to home, an Indiana case may provide the best guidance. Solid evidence of control of the note seems to be the key factor, according to this case.

In Good v. Wells Fargo Bank, 18 N.E.3d 618 (Ind. App. 2014), Wells Fargo acted as servicer for Fannie Mae, the owner of an eNote that was registered with MERS. The original lender had been Synergy Mortgage Group, Inc. MERS, as nominee for Synergy, had assigned the mortgage to Wells Fargo.

An officer of Wells Fargo executed an affidavit in support of summary judgment stating that Wells was the servicer, that it maintained a copy of the note, that its systems provided controls to assure that each note was maintained accurately and protected against alteration, and that the paper copy of the note attached to the affidavit was a true and correct copy.

The affidavit was bolstered by testimony at the bench trial that Wells Fargo controlled the note and was entitled to enforce it as the holder pursuant to 15 U.S.C §7021 (a section of the eSign legislation). Wells’ underlying position appeared to be that the normal requirements of the UCC-3 governing negotiable instruments (delivery, possession and an endorsement), were not required in the case of an electronic note.

15 U.S.C. §7021 creates the concept of a note as a “transferable record”, a single authoritative copy, which is unique, identifiable, and unalterable. The legislation establishes that the holder must have control of the note in the sense that the system for tracking it must reliably establish that the person seeking to enforce it is the person to whom the record was transferred. Also, the authoritative copy of the record itself must indicate the identity of the most recent transferee.

The Indiana appellate court found Wells’ affidavit insufficient to support a grant of summary judgment on the issue of Wells’ holder status and its evidence on the matter at trial “conclusory”.

The court said it was unclear from the affidavit whether Wells was claiming to have possession of an endorsed paper copy or the electronic note itself. The affidavit was also found lacking because it did not assert that Wells had control of the record (the eNote), either by maintaining the single authoritative copy in its own system, or by being identified as having control of the single authoritative copy in the MERS system.

The court indicated the eSign statutes require the party enforcing the note to provide reasonable proof of its control of the note through detailed evidence, not merely “conclusory statement”. The court specifically pointed to the lack of evidence in the Wells’ affidavit as it related to a transfer or assignment to Wells Fargo or Fannie Mae of the note from the original lender.

We are likely to see similar cases from other jurisdictions, including South Carolina, with the increasing use of eNotes. Stay tuned!

Don’t Expect Uniform Closing Procedures in 2015

And … Bank of America makes a big announcement.

Lenders will not collaborate on a standard and consistent process for closings under the new CFPB rules effective August 1, 2015, at least not according to Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo’s December 10, 2014 Settlement Agent Communication answered nine FAQs from settlement agents, the first of which sought confirmation on whether to expect standard closing procedures from lenders. Wells responded with a “no,” and stated that each lender is accountable and must determine its own method for achieving compliance.

This mega lender had announced on September 24 that it will control the generation and delivery of the buyer/borrower Closing Disclosure (“CD”), the form that will replace the HUD-1 Settlement Statement. The stated rationale was that the new CD is governed by the Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), not the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and the risks and penalties for lenders are more severe under TILA.

Bank of America announced on December 17 that it will follow suit by generating and delivering the buyer/borrower CD. Both banks have indicated settlement agents will generate the seller’s CD. Other lenders have not announced whether they will follow this procedure. It is entirely possible that settlement agents (closing attorneys in South Carolina) will prepare the CDs for other lenders.

The December 10 memo did state that Wells will work closely with settlement agents to determine fees, prorations, and other content required for the CD and, importantly, Wells will not assume the responsibility for disbursing loans. This quote from the Communication provides some comfort with regard to Wells’ attitude about keeping local settlement agents involved in the closing process:

“The settlement agent is critical and continues to be responsible for executing the closing including document signing, notarization, disbursement of funds, document recordation and delivery of final documents post-closing.”

Also comforting was the promise of training plans for settlement agents in collaboration with American Land Title Association, title underwriters and other service providers. The plans are said to include many educational communications and an information guide.

Bank of America stated that it will use Closing Insight™, an industry tool developed by Real EC Technologies®. All documents, date and information will be exchanged through Closing Insight™, discontinuing the use of e-mail, fax and other document delivery methods.

Bank of America also indicated that the requirement for the buyer/borrower to receive the CD three business days prior to closing will intensify the need for the bank to work very closely with the settlement agent to schedule the details of the closing.

For more information about Real EC ® Technologies and Closing Insight™, Bank of America invited settlement agents to visit their website at www.bkfs.com/realec. The December 17 memo indicated that many title and escrow production systems are working with RealEC® Technologies to enhance current integrations in support of Closing Insight™. The bank suggested that settlement agents reach out to their title and escrow production system provider directly.

Stay tuned!

Mobile Home Claims Continue

What do a hurricane, a tornado and a redneck divorce have in common?
Somebody’s fixin’ to lose a mobile home!

That joke may be attributable to Jeff Foxworthy, Lewis Grizzard or some other Southern comedian. Regardless, a large number of South Carolinians lost mobile homes during the economic downturn, most often as a result of foreclosures rather than the disasters in the joke. Foreclosures uncover title issues that lead to title insurance policy claims. Because our office continues to see mobile home claims on almost a weekly basis, this reminder might be in order for residential real estate practitioners.

When sales and mortgages of real estate including mobile homes are closed, titles to the mobile homes should be retired, and ALTA 7 series endorsements should be issued.

If a title examination reveals a recorded Manufactured Home Affidavit for Retirement of Title Certificate, it is advisable to request from the Department of Motor Vehicles a letter confirming that the title has been placed on the DMV’s list of retired vehicles.

If no Manufactured Home Affidavit has been filed locally, then follow our statutory process to retire the title. The Affidavit requires the owner to:

install the home on the real property;
remove the wheels, axles and towing hitch;
attach proof of ownership (the deed);
attach a copy of the certificate of occupancy; and
pay the recording fee.

Surrendering the certificate of title to the DMV requires:

a filed copy of the Manufactured Home Affidavit from the ROD;
the original certificate of title with either releases of liens or consents of secured parties;
a copy of the most recent tax receipt for the manufactured home; and
payment of the DMV fee.

When the title is retired, it is safe to issue an ALTA 7 series endorsement. Your title company will appreciate compliance with these guidelines.

And here’s a practice tip. Our former boss, Nancy Booco, always said, “If it looks like a mobile home, it probably is one.”

Georgia On My Mind

GA Supreme Court takes a page from our playbook and prohibits “witness only” closings

On September 22, 2014, The Supreme Court of Georgia issued an opinion approving the State Bar’s Formal Advisory Opinion No. 13-1, which states that a Georgia licensed lawyer may not ethically conduct a “witness only” closing.

The Court indicated a “witness only” closing occurs when an individual presides over the execution of closing documents but purports to do so merely as a witness and notary and not as someone who is practicing law. In order to protect the public from those not properly trained or qualified to render these services, lawyers are required to “be in control of the closing process from beginning to end,” according to the opinion.

The opinion also requires the closing attorney to review the closing documents, resolve errors in the paperwork, and detect and resolve ambiguities in title and title defects, indicating, “A lawyer conducting a real estate closing may use documents prepared by others after ensuring their accuracy, making necessary revisions, and adopting the work.”

The closing lawyer must “review and adopt” the work used in a closing, even if he or she didn’t prepare that work. Georgia law allows title insurance companies and others to examine title records, prepare abstracts and issue related insurance. And other persons may provide attorneys with paralegal and clerical services, so long as “at all times the attorney receiving the information or services shall maintain full professional and direct responsibility to his clients for the information and services received.”

The obligation to review, revise, approve and adopt documents used in closings applies to “the entire series of events that comprise a closing.”

I’m a South Carolina dirt lawyer, so I don’t have the background to comment at length on this opinion, but from my bank of the Savannah River, it seems this opinion places closing lawyers in a precarious position, not unlike the position of our practitioners. We don’t necessarily have to perform all aspects of closings, but we do have to supervise and take professional responsibility for the entire closing. We have learned how difficult it is to supervise third parties and take responsibility for their work. The Georgia Bar asked for this opinion. I hope they like it!

Surely Dave Whitener is smiling down from heaven at this effort to rein in the unauthorized practice of law!

Who Will Get On the Wells Fargo Wagon?

Wells Fargo announces it will generate and deliver the Closing Disclosure

Wells Fargo announced on September 24, 2014 that it will generate and deliver the borrower’s Closing Disclosure when the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule becomes effective on August 1, 2015.

Software companies, title insurance companies and closing attorneys have been speculating about this for many months. Now we have an answer, at least as to this mega-lender. Whether other lenders will fall in line remains to be seen. The stated rationale is that the process will allow Wells Fargo to consistently meet compliance and regulator expectations.

The announcement stated that Wells will continue to collaborate with closing attorneys to determine fees and other content required for the Closing Disclosure and to ensure that the lender has accurate information.

For purchase transactions, the closing attorney will continue to be responsible for the seller’s information and will prepare and deliver the seller’s Closing Disclosure. A copy must be provided to Wells Fargo.

The Closing Disclosure must be delivered three business days prior to the closing, and Wells Fargo anticipates this requirement will require that all the parties work together more than ever on scheduling closings.

Conducting closings will continue to be the responsibility of closing attorneys, but with increasing focus on compliance with the lender’s closing instructions, according to this announcement.

This announcement has a huge impact on the closing process. The closing attorney will continue to be responsible for gathering information required to generate the document that replaces the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, but Wells Fargo, not the closing attorney’s office, will actually generate and deliver the form.

Please recall that Wells Fargo is the lender that endorsed ALTA’s Best Practices. My best advice for residential closing attorneys in South Carolina who want to remain in the game after August, 2015? Get your office in compliance with Best Practices now so you will be prepared to implement the hardware/software changes this announced “collaborating” with lenders will require.

	jonathan Hammer levy on Department of Justice takes la…
	Claire Manning on Department of Justice takes la…
	Dennis on Department of Justice takes la…
	Henrietta Gill on CFPB issues Advisory Opinion o…
	Claire Manning on Richland County passes short-t…

Let's Talk Dirt

A discussion of real estate, SC law, title and all things dirt-y.

Real Estate Closings