Articles Posted in RESPA

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided updated RESPA Reform compliance guidance on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement three times in the last few weeks. The following frequently asked questions (FAQs) involve only the HUD-1 below and are in addition to the initial FAQs released. We will add the Good Faith Estimate frequently asked questions at a later date. These rules, bearing a miracle, will go into effect on Jan. 10, 2010.

HUD-1 GENERAL

Question:
May separate HUD-1s be given to the seller and borrower with only their own information on each HUD-1?

Answer:
Yes. It is permissible to have two separate HUD-1s in a transaction; one with the buyer’s credits and charges only, and one with the seller’s credits and charges only. The settlement agent must provide the lender with a copy of both HUD-1s when the borrower’s and seller’s copies differ.

Question:
If an addendum is used, can the following text be added to the HUD-1: “See attached addendum for additional information”?

Answer:
It is acceptable to insert such a reference where appropriate on the HUD-1 for the purpose of making it clear to the parties what the completed HUD-1 comprises.

Question:
How should payments by the seller or real estate agent that are for settlement services included on the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) be shown on the HUD-1?

Answer:
If a seller or real estate agent pays for a charge that was included on the GFE, the charges should be listed in the borrower’s column, with an offsetting credit reported in Lines 204-209 of the HUD-1, identifying the party paying the charge. For a seller-paid charge, the charge should also be listed in Lines 506-509. For a charge paid by the real estate agent, the name of the person paying the charge must also be listed.

Question:
The instructions in Appendix A to Part 3500 for completing the HUD-1 indicate how fees that are paid outside of closing should be designated on the HUD-1. Can the convention “P.O.C. (B*) be used instead, with the following footnote at the bottom of the page: *Paid outside of closing by borrower”?

Answer:
Yes, the HUD-1 Instructions require that P.O.C. items be listed on the HUD-1 by the settlement agent with an indication whether P.O.C. items are paid by the borrower, seller, or other party by marking the items paid for by whoever made the payment identified in the parentheses, such as P.O.C. (borrower) or P.O.C. (seller) as long as a footnote is added to the HUD-1 clearly noting the party paying for the items such as *Paid outside of closing by borrower or *Paid outside of closing by seller.

Question:
Where should fees for processing and administrative services be listed on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement?

Answer:
Processing and administrative services are services to perform origination and title service functions. For the loan origination function, charges for such services are included in the total on Line 801. For the title services function, charges for such services must be included in the title underwriter’s or title agent’s charge and are shown in the total on Line 1101. Examples of processing and administrative services include, but are not limited to, the following: document delivery, document preparation, copying, wiring, preparing endorsements, document handling, and notarization.

Question:
Where should the survey fee be disclosed on the HUD-1?

Answer:
The location of the survey fee on the HUD-1 is determined as follows:
(a) if the loan originator required a survey as a condition of the loan and the borrower selected the settlement service provider, the charge for the survey must be listed on a blank line in the 800 series in the borrower’s column;
(b) if the loan originator required a survey as a condition of the loan and the borrower selected the settlement service provider, the charge for the survey must be listed as part of the total in Line 1301 of the HUD-1 and itemized as applicable;
(c) if a survey was required to issue a lender’s or owner’s title insurance policy, the charge for the survey is part of the charge in Line 1101 and must be further itemized if performed by a third party;
(d) if the borrower elected to obtain a survey that was neither required by the loan originator nor required to issue a lender’s or owner’s title insurance policy, then the charge is listed in the borrower’s column on a blank line in the 1300 series.

Question:
May an addendum be added to the HUD-1 to list additional fees and other information?

Answer:
Yes, an additional page may be attached to the HUD-1 to add sequentially numbered lines as needed to accommodate the complete listing of all items required to be shown on the HUD-1, and for the purpose of including customary recitals and information used locally in real estate settlements (for example, breakdown of payoff figures, a breakdown of borrower’s total monthly mortgage payments, check disbursements, a statement indicating receipt of funds, applicable special stipulations between buyer and seller, and the date funds are transferred).

Question:
The General Instructions indicate that if a charge has been shown on the GFE as payable by the borrower but at closing it is paid by another person, including by the loan originator in a loan other than a no-cost loan, the fee should be shown in the borrower’s column on the HUD-1 and be offset by listing a credit to the borrower on lines 204-209 of the HUD-1. If a HUD-1A form is being used, lines 204-209 do not exist. How should the credit be shown on a HUD-1A form?

Answer:
Use of the HUD-1A form is an optional form to be used by the settlement agent in a transaction in which there is not a seller and as otherwise appropriate. If the use of a HUD-1A form is not appropriate, such as if there is a credit given by a loan originator or other party, the settlement agent must use the HUD-1 form.

Question:
In a transaction that is closed in the mortgage broker’s name but is table funded by the lender, must the name and address of the funding lender be shown in Section F (consistent with definition of “lender” under 24 CFR §3500.2(b)) or may the mortgage broker’s name and address be shown?

Answer:
The HUD-1 Instructions for Section F state that the name and address of the lender must be stated in this section. Therefore the name of the lender and not the mortgage broker must be stated in Section F on the HUD-1.
Continue reading

On July 30, 2009, some of the provisions of the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 (MDIA) go into effect and lenders, mortgage brokers, title agents, real estate agents, and real estate brokerages need be alert as to these new federal governmental regulations. Here are the details for the MDIA:

1. The 3/7/3 Rule requires a seven business day waiting period once the initial disclosure is provided before closing a home loan (business days are everyday except Sundays and Holidays). This means that before a borrower can close on a transaction the borrower must receive the initial Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and initial TIL statement disclosing the final Annual Percentage Rate (APR) seven days prior to closing.

2. If the final annual percentage rate APR is off by more than .125% from the initial GFE disclosure then the lender must re-disclose and wait yet another three business days before closing on the transaction.

3. The consumer has the right to cancel and not proceed with the transaction if they so choose.

4. Lenders are forbidden from collecting money for appraisals, loan applications, etc. prior to the delivery of the Truth In Lending (TIL). Lenders can only collect from the borrower the credit report fee at the time of prior to delivery of the final TIL. No other fees are permitted to be collected at the time of application. If the TIL is sent by mail, additional charges can occur after the 3rd business day after the borrower receives the TIL in the mail.

5. The following language must be clearly written on the initial and final TIL: “You are not required to complete this agreement merely because you have received these disclosures or signed a loan application.”

If you are a real estate agent or title agent you need to manage the process very carefully by:

A. Making sure that you check the initial Good Faith Estimate and Truth In Lending form for your buyers and look for discrepancies in charges. The new rules were put in place to protect consumers from being low balled one figure by a loan officer only to find out at the closing table that the fees charged were much higher. The new MDIA rules will absolutely delay closings if these steps are not followed carefully.

B. Buyers, sellers, and real estate professionals should not schedule a closing until the borrower has completed the seven day waiting period as required in the initial TIL.
Continue reading

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank officially introduced legislation to create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). The legislation, which is backed by the Obama Administration, would consolidate the consumer protection powers of the fifty various federal financial regulatory agencies by creating a single regulatory agency. The creation of this single regulatory agency is the single most important aspect of the proposed 229 page Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal.

The current financial governing system encourages abuses in the industry to take place because of the loopholes created by an inefficient and ineffective regulatory structure. The loopholes are exploited even further by the mass infighting that many of the governmental regulatory bureaucracies regularly display. The consolidation of these various federal agencies into one rule-making and investigative federal division should provide more uniform rules for those in the real estate industry and for consumers of real estate products.

The CFPA will have sole authority to draft and interpret regulations under the existing consumer financial services and fair lending statutes. The recent Good Faith Estimate/HUD-1 Settlement Statement forms developed by HUD and the Truth In Lending Act form is a prime example of decisions being made by one federal agency without input from a completely different agency. The biggest benefit consolidation presents to the industry and to the consumer is that this will increase the number of enforcement investigators. The consolidation of regulatory investigators is crucial because quite often investigators in one agency stop investigating abuses that relate to other agencies due to a myriad of reasons.
Continue reading

Reporter Kate Moran of the Times Picayune wrote a terrific article on a lawsuit the Sterbcow Law Group LLC and Melancon Rimes LLC filed on in behalf of their client and plaintiff Sarada LeBourgeois who was the victim of mortgage fraud.

Lawsuit alleges that a loan originator stole money from a client” was published on May 12, 2009 and briefly describes the events surrounding the lawsuit. The federal case was recently remanded back to Civil District Court in New Orleans by U.S. District Judge Lance Africk.

Kelly McCarel with RESPA News also wrote an excellent article on the case on Feb. 12, 2009 entitled Louisiana case ties RESPA violations to alleged mortgage fraud”

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley has introduced two new legislative bills that the real estate industry and public need to be keenly aware of: Senate Bill 911 known as The Transparency for Homeowners Act and Senate Bill 912 known as The Promoting Mortgage Responsibility Act. Sen. Merkley believes that abolishing the Yield Spread Premium (YSP) will stop the real estate mortgage problems in the United States because by eliminating the YSP will kill off the mortgage brokerage industry who rely on the YSP as part of their compensation. There have been abuses with the YSP and never was that more apparent during the sub-prime mortgage craze but if Senator Merkley was really interested in reigning in abusive practices they why didn’t he address the Service Release Premium (SRP) abuses which far exceeded the abuses of the Yield Spread Premium? Robert Blake of the Mortgage Insider criticizes both bills as an attempt by the banking lobby to kill off their competition.
Continue reading

The Obama Administration is pushing new legislation which would create a financial services regulatory commission. The commission would be called “The Financial Product Safety Commission” and it would regulate all mortgages, credit cards, and mutual funds. The Washington Post’s Zachary A. Goldfarb, Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho wrote an article on May 20, 2009.

The Senate version of this bill under Section 10: Enforcement has some very strong criminal and civil money penalties that could further strengthen consumer protections against businesses. The current senate & house versions of the bill could add considerable consumer protections against loan servicing companies which under Section 6 of RESPA offer consumers very little protection from some mortgage servicing companies abusive practices. This is definitely one of those bills to keep an eye on as the ramifications could be huge for businesses and consumers.
Continue reading

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama’s Southern Division handed down a decision on April 20, 2009 in the Vicki V. Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc. d/b/a RealtySouth case. The case centered on Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and whether Administrative Brokerage Commissions (ABC Fees) are illegal.

United States District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins ruled the ABC Fees that RealtySouth charged consumers in a residential real estate transaction involving a federally related mortgage was nothing more than an unearned fee because the ABC fee would not be linked to a bona-fide settlement service that RealtySouth performed in the transaction.

The Birmingham News “Homebuyers were unfairly charged fee, federal court in Birmingham rules” by Russell Hubbard broke the story.

Freelance reporter Marcie Geffner for Bankrate.com had a story picked up by the Seattle Times’ titled “New appraisal rules may hurt home buyers” with respect to the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC) which goes into effect on May 1, 2009. The rule which takes effect on all Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae loans is highly controversial in the real estate industry.

The appraisal industry could see an increase in the number of national Appraisal Management Companies at the expense of the independent appraisal company. The concern that many in the real estate industry have towards the HVCC is the potential ramification that a national appraisal management company will not understand a local real estate market. The lack of local appraisers in a particular real estate market could further depress home prices because the fear is that a national appraisal management company would create a home valuation process that is determined by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae not by what the true value of the immovable property actually is.

As to how this relates to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), many appraisal management companies are owned by lenders or other settlement service providers. Lenders & title insurance underwriters can own appraisal management companies so long they disclose their ownership relationship within twenty four (24 hours) of the referral and their use is not required. Many are under the impression that lenders or other settlement service providers are forbidden from owning their own appraisal management company but that is inaccurate as this practice is completely legal under RESPA.

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has a mechanism for consumers and others to file a complaint with RESPA if RESPA violations are being committed or you believe that RESPA violation is being committed. If a complaint is going to be filed with the RESPA division please make sure you follow the following steps so your complaint gets the most attention from the investigators:

1. List the names,addresses, and phone numbers of the alleged violators of RESPA;
2. Write a detailed summary of what happened or what’s happening that leads you to believe that a violation is taking or has taken place;
3. Make sure you list the specific section of the RESPA statute that was violated. Often times regulators or investigators will miss even the most generic of violations so listing the appropriate violations will help them do their job better;
4. Check your spelling and make sure the complaint is coherent and easily understood to the reader; and 5. Include your name, phone number, and address in the complaint so that an investigator can contact you for more information, if they need to contact you. RESPA Complaints can be submitted confidentially to HUD as well. If you believe you have a potential litigation matter with RESPA to HUD, I would recommend that you submit your complaint to your attorneys prior to submission to the HUD office or let your attorneys file the complaint for you.
Continue reading

The American Land Title Association (ALTA) sent a letter to the Federal Housing Administration asserting that Department of Housing and Urban Development is violating Section 9 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) with regards to the HUD-designated closing agent stipulation on all HUD properties for sale.

Section 9 of RESPA prohibits the seller of property from requiring the use of a particular title company unless the seller pays for all the borrowers title closing costs. Housingwire.com has more information on the letter sent to HUD by ALTA.

Contact Information