L to R, bottom: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Ginsberg; top: Sonya Sotomayor, Steven Breyer, Samuel Alito, Elana Kagan

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Edwards v. First American Title
In a case closely watched by the title insurance and real estate settlement services industry, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a class action which will decide whether consumers can sue under the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) over a title insurance referral arrangement that allegedly violated RESPA’s anti-kickback provisions. The case’s outcome could shield title insurers, banks and other lenders from litigation under RESPA and a wide range of federal and state laws. If First American wins this case, we could see title insurance companies in Mass. taking a much more active role in the operations of their favorite and most profitable agents.

The case is Edwards v. First American Title Co. For more coverage of the case, read the SCOTUS Blog summary here.

No Kickbacks

Class action attorneys file hundreds of cases each year on behalf of borrowers alleging violations of RESPA, which prohibits “any fee, kickback or thing of value,” in exchange for a business referral. RESPA also forbids that a “portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service” be paid for services that are not actually rendered to the customer. If a violation of the statute is proven, a court can award a plaintiff treble damages, or triple the amount, for any charge paid.

In a lawsuit filed in 2007, Denise Edwards claimed her title insurer, Tower City Title Agency LLC of Highland Heights, Ohio, entered into a “captive insurance agreement” with First American Title that was illegal under RESPA. The lawsuit said that because First American paid $2 million for a 17.5% minority interest in Tower City in 1998, it received the majority of the local agent’s referral business which violated RESPA. The suit sought class action status on behalf of all consumers who purchased title insurance through a title agency that was subject to an exclusive referral agreement with First American, and damages of up to $150 million.

The case went up to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals which sided with Edwards that “the damages provision in RESPA gives rise to a statutory cause of action whether or not an overcharge occurred.”

Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court will review the constitutional issue of whether consumers must prove they were actually injured under RESPA and other truth in lending laws. A favorable ruling for First American could mean a significant dent in costly class action suits under RESPA and TILA. Oral argument is expected in the Fall term, in October.

Massachusetts Impact: Cozier Agent Relationships?

Beyond curtailing or expanding consumers’ ability to bring all sorts of claims under RESPA and Truth in Lending (TILA), a favorable result for First American could enable title companies to get into much cozier relationships with attorney agents in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is a so-called attorney agency state, where attorneys issue title insurance policies. Title insurance companies in Massachusetts cannot (yet) legally invest in or own law firms (although this rule is being challenged nationally). So we don’t have a “captive insurance agreements” or the like. Certainly, some attorney agents prefer to give their business to one or two particular title insurance companies, but to my knowledge, there’s no formal agreement among insurers and agents here in Mass.

If First American wins this case, we could see title insurance companies in Mass. considering captive insurance agreements and taking a much more active role in the operations of their favorite and most profitable agents. We will see….

It’s that time again for our annual review of hot topics and top posts for the last year, 2010.

#5. The Great Flood of 2010. Ah, who can forget the flooding in the spring of 2010. I sure remember bailing out my flooded basement every 30 minutes through the night, into exhaustion. Good times… FEMA declared a “major disaster” and the IRS granted taxpayers in 7 counties an extension to file their taxes.

Read More: Federal Aid And Tax Extension To May 11 Available To Massachusetts Homeowners Affected By Flooding

#4. The Obama HAFA Short Sale Program. The Obama short sale program, announced at the end of 2009, was aimed to speed up short sales of homes and other loan modification alternatives to stem the rising tide of foreclosures. The Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (HAFA) provides financial incentives and simplifies the procedures for completing short sales, a growing practice in which a lender agrees to accept the sale price of a home to pay off a mortgage even if the price falls short of the amount owed. By all accounts, however, the HAFA program has been a dismal failure.

#3. On Jan. 1, new RESPA rules went into effect, significantly changing the way lenders disclose settlement services, in particular closing attorneys’ fees, and title insurance. Read more: New RESPA Rules 2010: Disclosure of Settlement Services, Closing Attorneys’ Fees, And Title Insurance .

#2. Our popular primers on the Massachusetts Offer to Purchase and the standard form Purchase and Sale Agreement, checked in with over 16,000 reads. Great to see posts about buying a new home ranking so highly. An indicator of the recovery of the Massachusetts real estate market perhaps?

Read More:

• There’s Nothing Standard About The Massachusetts Standard Purchase and Sale Agreement
• The Massachusetts Offer To Purchase: A Binding Contract

#1–Fannie Mae & FHA Condominium Regulations:  Our series on the Fannie Mae and FHA strict new condominium lending rules were incredibly popular, combining for over 25,000 reads during 2010.  The new guidelines had condominium developers and associations, buyers and sellers in a tizzy, as Fannie and FHA imposed much tougher pre-sale requirements, condominium financial guidelines and the imposition of unit owner HO-6 insurance policies, among other requirements.

Read More:

• The Catch-22 Impact of New Fannie Mae Condominium Regulations.
• New FHA Condominium Lending Guidelines Sure To Slow Financing and Chill Sales
• HO-6 Policies Required By Fannie Mae & FHA

Honorable Mention: With Old Man Winter upon us, our post on the changes in Massachusetts snow removal law is very popular:  Massachusetts Property Owners Now Have Legal Responsibility To Shovel Snow & Ice.

What To Expect In 2011

Final Ruling In the Ibanez Foreclosure Case

Early 2011 should bring the final word from the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court on the very controversial foreclosure case of U.S. Bank v. Ibanez which invalidated foreclosures across the state for sloppy paperwork. Thousands of property owners and their ownership rights to their homes hang in the balance. Click Here For Our Entire Series Of Post On the Ibanez Case.

Fate Of Real Estate Attorneys

Year 2011 should also bring the final word in the The Real Estate Bar Association of Massachusetts, Inc. (REBA) v. National Real Estate Information Services, Inc. (NREIS) case. This case pits Massachusetts real estate closing attorneys versus out of state non-attorney settlement service providers which are attempting to perform “witness or notary” closings here in Massachusetts. At stake is merely the billion dollar Massachusetts real estate closing industry.

What are your predictions for 2011?

A lot more than you might think. Plus, Massachusetts law now requires attorneys to preside over residential real estate closings.

Many buyers and sellers often wonder what a real estate closing attorney does other than conduct the closing. Well, quite a bit of work actually.

The closing attorney acts as the “quarterback” of the closing process, performing many time consuming tasks preparing a transaction from intake to closing. (Important note: many borrowers don’t realize that they may request to select their own closing attorney instead of the bank attorney. The new RESPA rules which went into effect on January 1 encourage lenders to allow borrowers to select from a list of attorneys or their own personal attorney. This will most often save you several hundred dollars because you won’t have to hire a separate attorney to review/negotiate the purchase and sale agreement.

Intake/Title Examination

When the title order arrives from the lender, the closing attorney first orders a municipal lien certificate, which verifies the real estate taxes and other municipal charges on the property. Insurance binders and payoffs of mortgages are also ordered.

The closing attorney is responsible for examining the title to the property. For purchases, the title is researched going back 50 years. The closing attorney carefully reviews the title examination to ensure there are no title defects; if there are any issues, the attorney will work with all parties to resolve them. Some title defects are extremely difficult to resolve. (By law, the closing attorney must provide new home buyers with a certification of title).

Title Insurance

The closing attorney also coordinates the issuance of title insurance to the lender and the new home buyer. I always recommend that buyers obtain their own title insurance policies because even with the most accurate title examination, there can be hidden title defects that could derail a later sale or refinance. Look no further than the Land Court Ibanez foreclosure mess for what can happen when you don’t get an owner’s title policy.

The Closing

As the closing day approaches, the closing attorney will coordinate with the lender for the preparation and delivery of numerous documents to be signed at closing, including the mortgage, promissory note, truth in lender disclosures, and most importantly, the HUD-1 Settlement Statement. The closing attorney will also coordinate with the seller to receive the deed to the property, final utility bills, smoke detector/CO2 certificates and condominium 6(d) certificates. As outlined in the Settlement Statement, the closing attorney is responsible for handling a number of issues at closing:

• Payoff and discharge of mortgages
• Payment and allocation of real estate taxes and utilities (water, oil, etc.)
• Payment of realtor commissions
• Disclosure and payment of lender fees and closing costs
• Funding of mortgage escrow account
• Payment of transfer taxes and recording fees
• Payment of pre-paid interest
• Distribution of sale proceeds
• Title V septic certification and condominium 6(d) certification

The closing attorney then conducts the closing. He will explain the numerous loan and closing documents signed by buyer and seller, collect and distribute all funds, and otherwise ensure that the closing is properly conducted.

Post Closing

After the closing, the attorney processes the loan funding, performs a title rundown to ensure there are no changes in the title, then records the deed, mortgage and other recordable instruments. The attorney will also ensure that all paid off mortgages and liens are discharged. Title insurance policies are issues several weeks after the closing.

We are experienced Massachusetts real estate closing attorneys. Please contact us if you need legal assistance with your purchase, sale or refinance transaction.

Here is a great video outlining the closing process from our underwriters at Westcor Land Title-New England.

Lenders have been using the new Good Faith Estimate for a little over one month now. Gauging from the vociferous complaining in the lender blogosphere, it is an understatement to say that many lenders believe HUD really blew it with this new form. One would think that the new 3 page GFE would provide everything a borrower needs to know about what she’ll pay at closing, yet the new GFE inexplicably fails to provide at least 5 critical pieces of information for home buyers:

• the total monthly mortgage payment (including escrows, taxes and insurance)
• total cash needed to close
• escrow amounts for real estate taxes, hazard insurance, and PMI
• seller paid closing costs
• Loan-to-value ratio/down payment

The GFE’s failure to provide this essential data about the loan is why one mortgage lender called the new GFE “the single worst government form dumped on the real estate industry.”

Surely, every borrower wants to know their total monthly mortgage payment month and how much cash they’ll need to bring at closing. Borrowers also want to know ahead of time how much the tax and insurance escrows will be since they have to pay several months in advance at the closing. Since the new GFE doesn’t provide this important information, lenders are filling in the gaps with their own custom made loan worksheets.

Some have complained that these worksheets are a work-around the new rules, but lenders have an obligation to provide borrowers with the full financial picture of the loan. The criticism is unfair, in my opinion, if the intent is to fill in the informational gap of what the GFE fails to provide.

The new GFE may be an overall improvement to the hodge-podge of good faith estimates previously used by lenders, but it’s certainly not the Messiah that HUD billed it out to be.

My post on lenders using loan cost worksheets and estimates was the featured post on ActiveRain yesterday, spawning over 140 comments by last count. It turned into quite a lively discussion by mortgage lenders about how frustrated they are with the new Good Faith Estimate and RESPA rules. After digesting all the comments, I have to say that I completely understand mortgage lenders’ frustration, and that worksheets are a necessary evil, if you will, due to HUD’s failure to get the new GFE right.

As my mortgage lender friends point out, the new GFE inexplicably fails to provide some of the most important information for homebuyers: (1) the total monthly mortgage payment (including escrows, taxes and insurance), (2) total cash needed to close, and (3) seller paid closing costs. Every borrower wants to know how much they are paying a month and how much they’ll need to bring at closing. Since the new GFE doesn’t provide this important information, lenders are filling in the gaps with loan worksheets. This why one mortgage lender called the new GFE “the single worst government form dumped on the real estate industry.”

Here are a few of the comments from mortgage lenders:

Ted Canto of Academy Mortgage writes:

Hi Richard,

Timely and important post. Thank you!

We are a company that does provide a worksheet/ summary of the costs but that is before the triggers take effect (Quoting stage).  Our worksheet is actually based off all the costs that we input into the file and we are in compliance to the new rules. Once the triggers are set we immediately send them the new GFE.

The problem with the new GFE is that it doesn’t provide any uniformity to the quoting stage of the conversation between lender and client.  This causes almost all lenders to create their own idea of what constitutes a quote or a GFE.  I have seen a bunch of them and I can say that many of them are deceitful as they do not come close to disclosing the actual costs that the client, ultimately, will have to pay.

Chris Richter, Chicago Mortgage Loan writes:

Richard, Nice post.  I can’t figure out if I 100% agree or disagree with you.

I 100% agree with your position against the homemade comparison charts.  I saw a mock excel worksheet yesterday from one of the two big bailout recipient banks yesterday.  It had costs that did not pass through on the =sum() function and the rates were .5% higher than market.  It was deceptive at best.

I am not going to contend that the new rules are not without fault.  I agree that, if it was issued, the new GFE would be a fantastic apples-to-apples comparison. As a lawyer, if XYZ Bank was your client, would you advise them to issue a GFE when they don’t have to and can’t reasonably measure their exposure?

Personally, I think they missed an opportunity to create a standardized preliminary document.  I think the best part of the GFE is that it won’t vary in form or function between lenders.  Yet the preliminary estimate sheets will vary infinitely and that defeats the entire spirit of the changes.

As for the complaints about cash-to-close and monthly payment, that is simply not the purpose of the document.  I’d argue that information should not be on the GFE.  It is a GFE “of settlement costs” not “of everything you’d want estimated all rolled up onto one page.”

An overpriced lender can no longer redirect the consumer’s attention by talking about the monthly payment or cash-to-close. I don’t see how that is bad.

Gerard Ladalardo, Bank of America

I agree with most of the comments about the new GFE. While the intentions were good and warranted, it does fall short of simplifying all the fees to the borrowers. It seems like it’s even more confusing for borrowers, lenders and realtors. I had lunch with a very experienced, extremely intelligent broker friend of mine last week and he said that some lenders aren’t even allowing them to send out GFE’s because they are completely confused on the correct way to have them completed correctly and they are also afraid of the potential liability.

At Bank of America our Closing Cost Worksheet (CCW) DOES DISCLOSE the total closing costs broken down individually, the seller credit (if any), the cash to close and the total PITI mortgage payment. This is what we send to the borrowers when they are qualified to buy a home prior to the disclosures being mailed out by our processing staff. You can be completely confident that working with a B of A loan officer that your client will get a great loan! We have low rates, we never, ever charge origination fees, low lender fees and we can’t get overage/rebate at all. (you can’t selll the borrower a higher rate and get paid on this overage/rebate- if there’s any at all, it goes back to the borrower to pay closing costs).

And to sum up, as Mark Aalto of First Pacific Mortgage so succinctly does:

It does no one any good to just gripe about the new form.  It’s here in it’s present form and the best policy is to do what we can to live with it and to understand what it is and what it isn’t all about.

Lenders, what are your thoughts about the new GFE? How has it changed the manner in which you assist borrowers with pre-approvals, if at all? What should HUD fix next go-around with the new forms?

The Los Angeles Times and other media outlets are claiming that lenders’ use of loan cost worksheets and estimates are a “sidestep” of the new RESPA mandated Good Faith Estimate which went into effect on January 1. HUD officials say they plan to conduct a review of the growing use of “worksheets” and “fee estimate” forms by mortgage lenders providing quotes to home buyers and refinancers. Lenders vehemently deny that they are doing anything wrong; in fact, they argue, cost worksheets are necessary because of several glaring deficiencies with the new Good Faith Estimate. This is all part of the shake-out during the first 30 days of the new RESPA reform which went into effect on January 1.

The new closing cost rules under the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) significantly changed the manner in which lenders are required to estimate loan and closing costs. Many charges cannot deviate at all, or at most by a 10%, from the Good Faith Estimate to the closing. That’s in stark contrast to earlier rules, which essentially allowed some lenders to quote low estimates of total costs, with no responsibility for the final dollar charges at closing, HUD contended.

Lenders — many of whom are feel the new GFE is the single worst government form ever to hit the real estate industry — respond that since the new GFE has a number of major deficiencies, such as not providing a total monthly cost payment, seller paid items and most importantly cash-to-close, it justifies the worksheets/estimates. (And if you can believe this, there’s no place on the GFE for the borrower to sign!).

Lenders, what are your complaints with the new GFE? (Try to keep them under 10!). Do you think providing these worksheets will ultimately help consumers? Are the criticisms about the worksheets unfair? Did HUD get it wrong with the new GFE? (I think I know the answer to that!). What can HUD do to improve it?

There is nothing explicit in the new RESPA rules prohibiting the use of these cost worksheets/estimate. Since this practice is on HUD’s radar, my recommendation to lenders is to explain clearly to the customer, preferably with a written disclosure right on the estimate, that this is not binding and not a substitute for the new GFE. That way, if HUD comes knocking on the door, you’ve covered yourself.

My goal with this post is to get the conversation going on the new GFE, not to rail against the mortgage industry. I’m on your side! As Jerry Maguire said, “Help me, help you…help me, help you!”

On a related note, as buyer’s counsel I now insert a rider provision into the P&S providing that the seller agrees to an extension (up to 7 days) of the closing date due to any RESPA/GFE related delays.

David Gaffin, Greenpark Mortgage

I’m pleased to welcome another guest blogger, David M. Gaffin, a licensed Loan Officer with Greenpark Mortgage Corp. of Needham MA. Dave is licensed to originate in MA, NH and FL. You can visit him at Greenpark Mortgage or through his LinkedIn profile.

The new 2010 RESPA rules are all the rage right now. So I’m especially pleased to have a mortgage industry veteran like Dave to offer his views on the new rules, especially the new Good Faith Estimate (GFE).

So, you thought getting a home loan for purchase or refinance before was confusing? Well, I’ve got GREAT NEWS for you. Your government has heard you and has come to help! (Insert Sarcastic Mental Voice.)  The federal Housing and Urban Development agency (HUD) has dismantled the previous 1 page Good Faith Estimate that itemized most of the settlement charges for your loan and created a new 3 page “simplified” GFE to “help borrowers understand and compare the costs associated with obtaining a mortgage.”

In my opinion, HUD is trying to do at least 2 things for consumers:

1. Protect the consumer from dealing with shady mortgage companies that will disclose certain fees on the GFE, and then charge higher or additional fees at the closing table and

2. Encourage consumers to use the GFE as a shopping tool to ensure a fair deal.

An informed consumer will typically make better choices than an ill-informed one, so the premise behind the changes to the new GFE is a worthwhile one. However, there are several areas where a consumer may not be able to compare the costs of loan programs on an equal basis and thus make the most appropriate loan choice.

Page 1 of the new GFE groups together all of the “Adjusted Origination Charges” (e.g. processing and underwriting fees, points, doc prep, etc.) as one figure and the Charges for All Other Settlement Services (e.g. closing attorney fees, title insurance, recording fees, etc.) associated with closing your loan as another figure and adds them together to come up with the Total Estimate Settlement Charges.

The new GFE also spells out your loan amount, loan term, interest rate and the initial monthly payment for principal interest and any mortgage insurance.

However the new GFE does not include expected expenses for monthly real estate taxes, homeowners insurance, or home owner’s association dues. Nor does it inform the borrower about expected funds needed to close the loan. Because all the origination charges are lumped together, the new GFE is not specific in disclosing the number of points required to close the loan. It also does not include the Annual Percentage Rate, or APR.

Escrow funding for reserves of real estate taxes, home owner’s insurance and mortgage insurance are included on page 1.

However, despite the fact that this total sum should be uniform across lenders, the new GFE allows the lender to quote whatever number of months of reserves they choose, resulting in a variance of hundreds or thousands of dollars when comparing GFEs. This is not a borrower savings from lender to lender. At settlement these charges will be the same for all lenders.  This could result in the borrower unexpectedly bringing additional funds to the closing.  Some mortgage companies will try to gain a competitive advantage by initially disclosing lower escrow totals.  This would be an unfair and deceptive trade practice to the consumer.

Page 2 breaks into sections the charges for All Other Settlement Services which will include such newly disclosed charges as Owner’s Title Insurance, (which is an optional, but recommended purchase) and Transfer Taxes.  In many states, the Transfer Taxes are disclosed as a borrower–related cost, even though the borrower may not be responsible for this cost, thereby inflating the Total Charge Estimate.

Page 3 gives the consumer information about which expense items on the GFE cannot increase at settlement, which one’s can have a total increase of a 10% increase and which ones can change without limit. The origination charges cannot change at settlement.

Lenders who allow borrowers to choose settlement service providers will receive a Page 4 to the new GFE which will list those providers.

Analysis:  Does the new GFE Help Consumers Or Is It Just Another Complicated Form?

I have been in the mortgage industry for many years and have advanced educational degrees. I have passed my required national and state licensing exams and even I find this form to be confusing and not very helpful when comparing loans. My job as a loan consultant is to inform and educate my clients so that we arrive at the best loan program for them with the least costs based on their needs. I use different tools to compare programs, including cost/benefit analysis, total interest paid comparisons, length of loan term reviews, etc., but, with the new GFE rules, I must disclose 1 loan program within 3 business days of collecting 6 points of entry for an application. If I fail to do so, even if the borrower and I have not determined the best program for them yet, I am in violation of the law. I do not see how this helps the borrower determine the best loan program.

I will give HUD credit for trying, and as this is now the law of the land it is what we must all work with, however, given the vast departure from the look and feel of the previous form, it is going to take a lot of education on the part of loan officers, realtors and attorneys to establish a comfort level with the borrower’s understanding of the form.

When a borrower chooses a lender, they should be referred by someone they trust, should check out the lender’s and loan officer’s reputation by reviewing its website or other public information and feel comfortable that the loan officer is knowledgeable, understands their needs and has the borrower’s best interests in mind.  Then a GFE received from that company can be viewed as a Good Faith Accurate, and not just a Good Faith Estimate.

Dave, thanks so much for your insightful analysis! This is a great post and a boon for our readers. This underscores why borrowers must have an experienced and knowledgeable loan officer such as David Gaffin on their team.

I have certainly spend a fair amount of time digesting the new changes, but perhaps that is because I am so used to the old forms. The irony may well be that many consumers will be seeing the new GFE for the first time and may not be as confused as some of us industry veterans. Adjusting to major changes to long standing practices is always difficult.