real estate law

Same Sex Marriage Law May Require Tweaks in Title Search Practices

Standard

Males as well as females may change their names.

same sex marriage

On January 1, this blog discussed a South Carolina Department of Revenue Ruling (14-9) that impacts some areas of the real estate practitioner’s world. This Revenue Ruling was issued following the United State Supreme Court 2014 decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states.

The most significant changes to our practices from the Revenue Ruling include:

  1. A same-sex legally married couple may be able to qualify their home for the 4% assessment ratio.
  2. If each member of a same-sex legally married couple owns a residence, only one of those residences may qualify for the 4% assessment ratio since as a married couple they may have only one legal residence.
  3. Transfers of property between spouses of a same-sex couple may now be exempted from the assessable transfer of interest rules.
  4. Transfers of real property from one same-sex spouse to the other will now be exempted from the deed recording fee.

Now that dirt lawyers have had a chance to think about how same-sex marriage may otherwise impact our practices, some of us have come to the conclusion that title examiners should now take into consideration name changes for men as well as women. This change in practice may affect every title examination for individuals holding title since 2014.

hello my name isWe have always cautioned that a woman who holds title with two surnames, should be searched under both names. For example, Hillary Rodham Clinton should be searched as Hillary Rodham and Hillary Clinton.

Now consider the name Neil Patrick Harris. Not knowing whether Patrick is a middle name bestowed by parents at birth or a former surname, consider whether he should be checked by both Neil Patrick and Neil Harris.

Undoubtedly, this extra step will lead to many “false positives” with judgments, tax liens and other public record items. As always, the hits that are uncovered should be addressed by paying them at closing or eliminating them with the use of identifying information such as full names, addresses social security numbers, etc. And, when in doubt, get your title insurance underwriter to take the appropriate leap of faith with you.

Remember that buyers should be checked for judgments and tax liens because those matters will attach immediately when property is purchased. And also remember that purchase money mortgages will take priority over tax liens and judgments against buyers.

Unfortunately, it appears that searching titles isn’t getting any easier over time, despite the use of new and improved technology.  It’s public knowledge and common sense that Caitlyn Jenner should be searched as Bruce Jenner. But I have no advice about similar name changes in title examinations. It’s a brave new abstracting world!

Dirt Lawyers Will Like This Mortgage Satisfaction Case

Standard

S.C. Supreme Court holds equity lines are subject to the timely satisfaction statute.

In an opinion written by Justice Beatty, our Supreme Court held on August 5 that open-ended mortgages are satisfied in the same manner as conventional mortgages and under the same statutory requirement for timely satisfaction by lenders.

Regions Bank v. Strawn involved a mortgage foreclosure against Robert and Nancy Borchers. The Borchers counterclaimed seeking to recover from Regions Bank under §§29-3-310 and 29-3-320 of the South Carolina Code based on the bank’s failure to satisfy the mortgage within the three-month time period required.

mortgage jengaThe home had been purchased from Cammie Strawn, who had taken title from her then-husband, Richard Strawn. Mr. Strawn had previously obtained the home equity line of credit. At the time of the Borchers’ closing, the balance of the mortgage was $32,240.42. Immediately after the closing, the Borchers’ attorney, James Belk, had an employee deliver a payoff check and a mortgage satisfaction transmittal letter to Regions Bank. The check had the words “Payoff of first mortgage” typed on it.

Instead of satisfying the mortgage, the bank applied the check to the balance, bringing it to zero, and provided Richard Strawn with new checks even though he had not owned the home for more than two years. Mr. Strawn spent more than $72,000 on the equity line.

When Regions Bank attempted to collect on Mr. Strawn’s debt by foreclosing on the Borchers’ home, the Borchers answered, counterclaimed and moved for summary judgment. The bank argued that a revolving line of credit should be handled differently than conventional mortgages, and this particular mortgage could not be satisfied without instructions from Mr. Strawn.

The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Borchers. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Regions Bank made two basic arguments: (1) open ended mortgages are an exception to the statutory satisfaction requirement because only the original borrower is authorized to request a satisfaction; and (2) the Borchers could not assert a violation of the mortgage satisfaction statutes because their attorney had the authority to satisfy the mortgage pursuant to the attorney satisfaction statute (§29-3-330).

The Court affirmed and held that the first argument failed because the mortgage itself contemplated that the property may be sold and specifically stated that it would be binding on the mortgagor’s successors and assigns. Also, the court stated that anyone with an interest in mortgaged property is allowed to request a satisfaction upon payment, and there is no exception for equity lines of credit.

Sale of a house. Object over whiteAs to the argument that the Borchers’ attorney could have satisfied the mortgage, the Court stated simply that this argument is without merit because the statutory framework does not exempt a mortgage holder of an equity line from the penalty provisions for failing to satisfy a mortgage within the required time frame.

This is a good opinion for South Carolina closing lawyers!

Small Bank Wins CFPB Challenge at the Appellate Level

Standard

Eleven states, including SC, lose in the same case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on July 24 in favor of a small Texas bank in its constitutionality challenge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

In State Bank of Big Spring v. Lew, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s holding that the bank’s claims failed for lack of standing and ripeness. Eleven states, including South Carolina, had joined the lawsuit, but the states’ claims were held to fail on the issues of standing and ripeness.

Big dog little dog aThe bank first challenged the constitutionality of the CFPB on the grounds that all independent agencies must be headed by multiple members, while the CFPB is headed by a single Director.

The Court held that the Bank had standing to raise this challenge because the Supreme Court holds that there is ordinarily little question that a regulated individual or entity has standing to challenge an allegedly illegal statute or rule under which it is regulated. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

On the issue of when the bank may bring its claim, the ripeness issue, the Court of Appeals again cited a Supreme Court case, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) for the proposition that regulated parties generally need not violate a law in order to challenge the law.

The bank then questioned the legality of President Obama’s recess appointment of CFPB Director, Richard Cordray. Mr. Cordray was nominated on July 18, 2011. When the Senate had not acted on the nomination by January 4, 2012, President Obama used his recess power to appoint Mr. Cordray during a three-day intra-session Senate recess. On July 16, 2013, after Mr. Cordray had been serving for 18 months, the Senate confirmed his nomination.

The bank alleges that the recess appointment and all the actions Cordray took before he was confirmed were unlawful because the appointment occurred during an intra-session recess of insufficient length. The Court held that the bank had standing on this issue, and that the issue is ripe.

pawn takes queenThe bank then argued that the Financial Stability Oversight Council created by the Dodd-Frank Act is unconstitutional. This council has authority to designate financial institutions as “too big to fail” and subject to additional regulation. The bank has not been designated as “too big to fail”, but its competitor, GE Capital Corporation, has. The bank argued that GE Capital receives a reputational subsidy as a result of its designation which allows it to raise capital at lower costs that it otherwise could, impacting the bank’s ability to compete for the same funds. The Court held that the bank does not have standing to assert this claim because the link between the enhanced regulation and any harm to the bank is too attenuated and speculative to support standing.

Eleven states challenged Dodd-Frank’s “orderly liquidation authority” which gives the Government broad power to liquidate failing financial institutions that pose a significant risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system. The states’ theory for standing and ripeness deals with the fact that the states and their pensions funds have invested in financial companies and their current investments may be worth less because of this authority.

The Court held that it is premature for a court to consider the legality of how the government might wield the orderly liquidation authority in a potential future proceeding. The states’ theory was held not to satisfy standing or ripeness requirements.

The case was remanded to the District Court on the bank’s challenges to the constitutionality of the CFPB and Director Cordray’s recess appointment.

It’s getting interesting out there!

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.

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!

Five Things Dirt Lawyers Need to Know Before August 1

Standard

Prepare now for a smooth transition to the new CFPB regulations and forms

Our company has put together some general information about the CFPB regulations that become effective on August 1. I’m sharing a few tips with the letstalkdirtsc.com audience in an effort to assist with a smooth transition.

1 HandWhat transaction types are affected and exempt? The new rules and forms apply to most closed-end consumer credit transactions secured by real property. The following types of loans are affected:

  • Purchase money mortgages;
  • Refinances;
  • Mortgages on 25 acres or less;
  • Mortgages on vacant land;
  • Mortgages for construction purposes only; and
  • Mortgages on timeshares.

Consumer loans exempted from the new rules and forms are:

  • Reverse mortgages;
  • Home equity lines of credit (HELOCs);
  • Loans on chattel-dwelling/mobile homes only; and
  • Loans by creditors who originate less than five loans in a calendar year.

Creditors will be required to use a TILA disclosure and Good Faith Estimate (GFE), and closing attorneys will be required to use a 2010 HUD-1 Settlement Statement on the exempt loans.

Loans in progress (applications submitted prior to August 1, 2015) are not subject to the new rules or the new forms.

2 HandWhat are the new rules and forms? On November 20, 2013, the CFPB announced the completion of the new integrated mortgage disclosure forms along with their regulations (RESPA Regulation X and TILA Regulation Z) for the proper completion and timely delivery to the consumer.

The Loan Estimate – Currently, borrowers receive two forms from their lender at the beginning of the transaction: the GFE and initial TILA disclosure. For loan applications taken on or after August 1, the creditor will instead use a combined Loan Estimate form.

The Closing Disclosure – The HUD-1 Settlement Statement and the final TILA disclosure form have been combined into a single Closing Disclosure form. This new five-page form contains many loan terms and provisions in addition to the closing figures. Several earlier letstalkdirtsc.com blogs discussed which lenders that have announced they will prepare and deliver the Closing Disclosure. It appears that in all cases, closing attorneys will prepare the seller’s Closing Disclosure and a separate closing or disbursement statement to facilitate disbursement.

forms in out

3 Hand

How will the timing of a closing be impacted by Closing Disclosure delivery? The new rule requires borrowers to have three business days after receipt of the Closing Disclosure for review. The three-day review starts on the receipt of the form by the borrower. Absent some positive confirmation of receipt such as hand delivery, the form is “deemed received” three days after the delivery process is started (i.e., mailing). As a result, the combination of the delivery time period and the review time period results in six business days from mailing to closing.

After delivery of the initial Closing Disclosure, the following changes would require a re-disclosure and a new waiting period:

  • Increase of the APR by more than 1/8%;
  • Change in the loan program, for example, fixed rate to ARM; and
  • Addition of a pre-payment penalty.

Closing Disclosure Delivery Timeline Chart4 Hand

 

How will the communication of title and closing figures be handled? Lenders will continue to need accurate estimates of title and closing figures. Preparation of the Closing Disclosure will require a collaborative effort between lenders, closing attorneys and other vendors and may require fees to be submitted as early as two weeks prior to closing. Several lenders have announced that they will use electronic portals to send and receive information, eliminating the use of mail, e-mail and faxes between lenders and closing attorneys.

5 Hand

 

How are title charges reflected on the new forms? The list of charges involving title insurance and closing activities must be grouped together and preceded by the word “Title”.

The CFPB requires that the full premium, not the discounted simultaneous issue premium, must be disclosed for the loan policy. The owner’s policy premium will be shown as “optional” and will be the total cost of the owner’s policy discounted by the cost of the loan policy and adding the simultaneous issue premium. Confusing?  Yes!

The line numbers have been removed from the HUD-1 form, and there are now seven fee areas:

  • Origination charges;
  • Services borrower did not shop for;
  • Services borrower did shop for;
  • Taxes and other government fees;
  • Pre-paids;
  • Initial escrow payment at closing; and
  • Other

Charges within each of these major groupings are listed alphabetically. Columns are provided to separate charges of the buyer, the seller, and others, as well as columns for payments both before and at closing.

Software and title insurance companies are doing extensive training in the form of seminars, webinars and written communications. If you intend to be a residential dirt lawyer after August 1, get yourself and your staff trained!

SunTrust Requires ALTA Best Practices Compliance by July 1

Standard

… AND indicates it will produce and deliver Closing Disclosures.

suntan lotionMaking a significant announcement with a tight deadline, SunTrust Mortgage revealed in an April 22 letter to its settlement service providers (closing attorneys in South Carolina) that it will require them to comply with ALTA’s Best Practices and to complete an ALTA Self-Assessment no later than July 1, 2015.*

The letter also announced that SunTrust, following the lead of Well Fargo, Bank of America, CitiBank and Chase, will produce and deliver Closing Disclosures to borrowers and will require closing attorneys to provide complete and accurate title and settlement charges up to two weeks prior to scheduled closing dates.

SunTrust also plans to handle Closing Disclosure revisions and expects closing attorneys to provide timely notice of any changes in the closing numbers, including changes that occur after closing.

Closing attorneys will be responsible for preparing and delivering the seller’s Closing Disclosure on purchase transactions. A signed copy of the seller’s Closing Disclosure will be required by SunTrust as a condition of funding approval.

SunTrust will require an attestation form from closing attorneys for each closing, confirming the ability to comply with the new rules and expectations.

* The letter directed closing attorneys to www.alta.org/bestpractices/index.cfm for more information on ALTA’s Best Practices and offered assistance from SunTrust via e-mail at TitleSettlementMgmt@SunTrust.com and mail at Title/Settlement Management, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., Mail Code: VA-INSB-7882, 5600 Cox Road, Glen Allen, VA 23060.