BB&T Follows the Lead of Other Large Lenders

It will produce and deliver Closing Disclosures

BB&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 tuned BB&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!

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 parachute Residential 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:

“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

Dirt lawyers: Your CPA should be able to assist!

accountant guy The 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!

Five Things Dirt Lawyers Need to Know Before August 1

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.

What 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.

What 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Attorney Fakes Title Insurance Documents and Gets Disbarred

Think you’ve heard it all? Listen to this!

The South Carolina Supreme Court disbarred a lawyer last month for fraudulently producing title insurance commitments and policies.*

By way of background, the vast majority of real estate lawyers in South Carolina are also licensed as title insurance company agents. In other parts of the country, lenders receive title insurance documents directly from title companies’ direct operations. In South Carolina, title companies run agency operations, supporting their networks of agents, almost all of whom are South Carolina licensed attorneys.

Lenders require closing protection letters for closings involving agents. Stated simply, these letters inform lenders that the insurer may be responsible in the event a closing is handled improperly by the closing attorney.

Title insurance company agents also produce title insurance policies and commitments, following the guidelines of their insurance underwriters, and using software programs designed to support the production of these documents.

Some closing attorneys are not agents but instead act as approved attorneys for title insurance companies. Approved attorneys can obtain closing protection letters from their title companies, but they are not able to issue their own title insurance documents. Instead, they certify title to a title insurance company or to a title company’s agent.

If an attorney cannot provide lenders with closing protection letters, that attorney generally cannot close mortgage loans in South Carolina.

In 2007, Mr. Davis was canceled as an agent by his title insurance company.** After that cancelation, he was able to legitimately obtain title insurance commitments and policies through an agent. In 2011, however, Mr. Davis was canceled as an approved attorney. He didn’t let that fact stop him though. He began to fraudulently produce title insurance documents, making it appear that the title insurance company was issuing closing protection letters, commitments and policies for his closings. He also collected funds designated as title insurance premiums, but he never paid those premiums to the title insurance company. He continued to handle closings using fraudulent title insurance documents until his actions were discovered and he was suspended from the practice of law by the South Carolina Supreme Court in 2013. In 2015, Mr. Davis was disbarred.

I suppose I should close by saying don’t do this! Please!

* In the Matter of Davis, S.C. Supreme Court Opinion 27480 (January 21, 2015)

** In the interest of full disclosure, I work for that company.

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.

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.”

Lions, and Tigers and Seller Financing, Oh My!

If you are closing seller financed transactions on primary residences including contracts for deed (hereafter referred to as seller financing), or if you have clients who are accepting seller financing, you should take the time to educate yourself and your clients on the current pitfalls. Please refer to Martha McConnell’s excellent article entitled “Seller Financing – the New ‘Jabberwocky’!” in the Summer 2014 issue of Chicago Record Title for a detailed report on what has led to this serious concern.

Because it is a complicated issue, I am not sure I can express a bottom line in any kind of succinct manner, but I will attempt to do so here.

The CFPB has been given the power to supervise and regulate laws that impact seller financing, including the SAFE Act, TILA, the Ability to Repay and Qualified Mortgage Rule, HOEPA and the Loan Originator Rule.

Under the applicable federal rules, it is possible that sellers engaging in seller financing may have to become licensed as “loan originators” or “mortgage brokers”. The loans may have to be fully amortized, and it is possible that these seller/lenders may have to make determinations and disclosures that have not previously been required. Certain exclusions are available, but the rules are complex and detailed, and should be handled with care.

Inconsistencies between the federal and state versions of the SAFE Act, both of which require licensing and registration of loan originators, is another area of concern.

Clients who fail to become licensed or to fall into an exclusion may find they are unable to foreclose, and may, along with the attorneys who closed the transactions and the title policies that insured them, be subject to claims and litigation. In addition, the CFPB has broad enforcement powers including the power to impose civil monetary penalties ranging from $5,000 to $1 million per day.

This is an area of the law that is going to require monitoring and thought in the coming months. Legislation in South Carolina to address the inconsistencies in our version of the SAFE Act may be one avenue for improvement. In the meantime, please take great care if you or your clients venture into seller financing.

	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 lawyer