real estate

New Penn Financial Announces Closing Portal

Standard

October 3Lender announcements are coming at a fast and furious pace now that we are within days of TRID’s October 3 deadline. Blogging about all of the broadcasts seems to be less than beneficial since most of them are repetitive at this point and since many of the regional lenders making announcements at this late date don’t appear to do business in South Carolina.

A new announcement from New Penn Financial, however, seems noteworthy for two reasons:  (1) this lender advertises it has an office in Murrells Inlet; and (2) the announcement includes news of a new closing portal and “closing agent portal job aid”. You can read the announcement in its entirely here, and follow its link to the “job aid”.

The lender indicates it has implemented the use of SmartGFE and Closing.com to provide more accurate fees to borrowers, and encourages all settlement agents (closing attorneys in South Carolina) to register with Closing.com as soon as possible. The initial and final Closing Disclosures will be sent to settlement agents through the DocuTech Closing Collaboration Portal (ConformX) for review and approval. No advance set-up is required to use this portal.

Interestingly, New Penn indicates it will offer both an E-signature process and a “wet” signature process as delivery and signing methods for the Loan Estimate and the Initial Closing Disclosure.  The memo states the disclosures will be delivered in accordance with CFPB’s timing requirements and that the delivery methods will ensure proof of delivery.

As we have spoken to closing attorneys and real estate agents across South Carolina in preparation for the new rules, there has been much speculation about whether lenders will shorten the six-day requirement by using methods of proof of delivery as an alternative to mail. This indication of an E-signature process would guessingsuggest that it may be possible to shorten the six-day delivery requirement with this particular lender. If other lenders follow suit, real estate professionals will be delighted that the waiting period can be shortened, at least under certain some circumstances.

I’m just guessing here (along with the rest of you), but I anticipate that the last quarter of 2015 may prove to be an interesting transition to our new normal, but after the first of the year, those of us who decide to remain in the closing “game” will have settled into a different, but manageable routine. Best of luck to all of you for getting through the next few months!  And remember, we will get through this together!

Still Need to Reach Out to Your Realtor® Partners About TRID?

Standard

toolboxSome new tools are available!

Residential dirt lawyers may still need to reach out to their real estate agent partners to discuss how the CFPB rules will affect closings after October 3. Some new resources are available to assist in that effort.

I previously blogged about five things real estate agents should know before the new rules become effective. Now there is more useful information in a format that is easy to share.

On September 17, Richard Cordray, Director of the CFPB, met with an officer of the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) to unveil online tools designated to help consumers and real estate professionals navigate the new closing procedures.

The CFPB had previously developed an array of online tools for prospective home buyers, the most important of which is an interactive resource called, “Your home loan tool kit, a step-by-step guide”. This guide allows consumers to perform calculations and obtain information to assist them in understanding their financial prospects for obtaining financing and avoiding pitfalls associated with the process.

The CFPB encourages real estate professionals to consider linking the toolkit on their websites to position themselves as trusted sources of information for consumers.  I encourage residential dirt lawyers to do the same to position themselves for their consumer clients.

Last week’s announcement included a new resource called “Guide for real estate professionals”, the goal of which is to “ensure smooth and on-time closings”.  I encourage real estate lawyers to use this new guide to connect with their real estate agent partners.  Link it on your website. Send the link to you best real estate agent contacts.  Offer to meet with them to answer questions. Your goal is to be perceived as a thought leader and problem solver when questions begin to surface after October 3rd.

we are here to helpSouth Carolina residential real estate lawyers should also keep in mind that their title insurance companies have prepared to assist in the transition. Don’t hesitate to use your title insurance company friends as valued resources. They are ready! Their goal, like yours, is to give their very best customer service as we all navigate these new closing rules together.

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!

Lender Challenges CFPB’s Constitutionality

Standard

On July 30, this blog discussed State Bank of Big Spring v. Lew, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on that day that a small Texas bank had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The same court was asked on August 5 by mortgage lender PHH Corporation to stay a final decision of the CFPB on constitutionality grounds.

The latter case follows the CFPB’s final decision in an enforcement action against PHH requiring the lender to pay $109 million in disgorgement. The lender was accused of illegally increasing consumers’ closing costs by requiring them to pay reinsurance premiums to PHH’s in-house reinsurance company. The CFPB classified the reinsurance payments as kickbacks.

The court granted the stay, holding PHH “satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal.”

PHH argues the CFPB is unconstitutional because Director Richard Cordray has the sole authority to issue final decisions, rendering the CFPB’s structure to be in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The petition states, “Never before has so much authority been consolidated in the hands of one individual, shielded from President’s control and Congress’s power of the purse.” The petition argues that the Director is only removable for cause, distancing him from the power of the President, and is able to fund the agency from the Federal Reserve System’s operating expenses, distancing him from Congress’s power to refuse funding.

dragon fighting knight a

The court issued a one paragraph stay order, and it is not clear whether the motion was successful based on the constitutionality argument because PHH had also argued that Director Cordray misinterpreted settled law on mortgage reinsurance and on how disgorgements are calculated.

The stay is in place pending the appeal. It will now be interesting to see whether the Court of Appeals will reach the constitutionality issue or decide the case on the legal interpretation issues. And, of course, it will be interesting to see whether future constitutionality challenges continue with regard to this powerful agency that is changing the rules for residential closings.

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!

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.

Waters Of The United States Redefined

Standard

South Carolina is among the states suing the Feds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hilton Head Timeshare Project Entangled In Consumer Litigation

Standard

Lawsuits involve tales of fraudulent sales tactics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other suggestions to guard against this fraud are:

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

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

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

ALTA Approves “Model” Settlement Statements

Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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