The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act “RESPA” regulations set to take place on January 1, 2010 has purportedly been delayed by HUD for six months. We are now waiting for an official announcement to take place by HUD to officially confirm the six month delay which should make the new implementation date on or around July 1, 2010.

We don’t know what precipitated this possible delay by HUD but the real estate industry has stepped up their criticisms on the new rule, including a recent letter sent to HUD by numerous trade organizations, issues with the new Truth In Lending Act form “TILA” integration, and other federal enforcement agencies concerns about the transparency of the new HUD-1 have forced HUD to re-evaluate parts of the new rule. Of course one of the other problems is that many in the real estate industry are still very much unaware or uneducated on the new RESPA Rule.

UPDATED at 10:39 PM:

Housing Wire reports that Rep. Gary Miller (R) of California’s bill to sunset the HVCC in HR 3126 passed the House Financial Services Committee this week. Several industry associations have quietly confirmed to me that the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC) will soon be dead. The HVCC under HR 3126 sunsets through the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). Many observers believe the sunsetting of the HVCC under the CFPA is instrumental in getting the CFPA passed in congress.

The CFPA bill passed the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 39 to 29 which was a major victory for Rep. Barney Frank (D). Many observers believe the HVCC will still be quickly phased out even if the CFPA doesn’t win as congress is quickly growing weary of the consumer and industry complaints about some Appraisal Management Companies (AMC). Consumers, local taxing bodies, and some in the real estate industry point to increased appraisal fees and unqualified appraisers from distant states appraising local property with unsubstantiated valuations which they believe is further deteriorating the real estate markets across the United States.

The Federal Reserve Board is proposing the most significant change to Regulation Z of the Truth In Lending Act that we have seen since the law was introduced. The change severely limits compensation that banks, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers can earn in connection with a closed-end mortgage and home equity line of credit (HELOC). The proposal essentially bans yield spread premiums (YSPs), service release premiums (SRPs), origination percentage fee, and gives the FED control over all loan compensation issues.

Mike Anderson (President of Essential Mortgage, Louisiana Mortgage Lenders Association Past President, and the National Association of Mortgage Brokers Co-Chair of Government Affairs) testified before the Federal Reserve Board today on this issue. To see Mike Anderson’s testimony today please click here.
Continue reading

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

HUD released the following information today with regards to the HUD-1 Settlement Statement in order to help consumers and industry better understand the new RESPA rules that will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2010. We will list below all FAQ’s HUD released with regards to the HUD-1 Settlement Statement.

If you have questions or comments please feel free to ask in our RESPA Blog comment section.
Continue reading

The Federal Housing Administration recently announced significant changes to FHA Condominium financing. The FHA condo approval changes go into effect on October 1, 2009 and the ramifications for developers, condominium associations, buyers, and sellers could be serious.

Some of the highlights of these changes include:
1. Any condominium development approved prior to October 1, 2008 (10/1/2008) loses its FHA approval and must formally re-apply.
2. No spot approvals, all applications must go to FHA directly but DE lenders can approve but with enormous liabilities if they miss one item.
3. Existing condominiums, regardless of whether they were FHA approved prior to October 1, 2008 or not will have to reapply for HUD approval. This means if a seller wants to sell their condominium unit, even if they received an FHA loan in 2006, that a new borrower won’t be able to get an FHA loan on your unit unless your condominium has been re-approved by HUD.

FHA’s actions could be disastrous for condominium sales across the United States especially given the fact that most loans today are FHA loans. If you think the HUD approval process is quick, think again, because most lawyers estimate that it takes them six months to get HUD approval. If this guideline change isn’t implemented then I’m sure the approval process will become inundated so fast that it could overwhelm the process even further causing delays that could quickly reach a year or more. A borrower can still qualify for a Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, VA, or USDA loan but if Freddie and Fannie are the borrower’s only option to get condo financing they should prepare themselves to pay significantly higher fees for the same loan that FHA would have provided to them had the Condo been FHA approved.

To see if your Condominium will be affected by the new FHA Approval process please go to this website and see if your condominium is listed.

See below for the entire letter.
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

The Sterbcow Law Group would like to Congratulate Dave Stevens who was confirmed as the new Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) on Friday, Dave Stevens is a phenomenal choice to help turn FHA around. Long & Foster’s loss is America’s gain and judging by our experience with Mr. Stevens on the Real Estate Services Providers Council (RESPRO) the real estate industry and consumers will be better off with his policy making decisions in the near future.

David H. Stevens was the past President & COO of Long & Foster Realtors; Vice President of Mortgage, Title, and Insurance Division for Longer & Foster; Executive Vice President for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; on the Lender’s Advisory Council for the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA); on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB); on the Board of Directors of the Real Estate Services Providers Council (RESPRO).

The United States Supreme Court shocked the national banking industry today in their ruling in the case CUOMO V. CLEARING HOUSE ASSOCIATION, 08-453. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that state regulators have the authority to investigate national banks for lending discrimination. In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a regulatory change that made it extremely difficult for state regulators to enforce state laws against national banks. The Cuomo v. Clearing House Association case is a tremendous decision for consumers and state regulators because the OCC.

The OCC has been routinely criticized for not investigating consumer complaints against national banks. This decision means that states can now enforce their own state laws against national banks so long as they follow due process procedures set forth under state law. This is an enormous victory for not only consumers but also state bank regulators.
Continue reading

Contact Information