Category Archives: Main

Does RESPA Allow Sellers to Charge Buyers a Per Diem Penalty for Not Closing? | eHow.com

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, protects consumers against practices that make it difficult to understand the cost of settlement services and that raise the cost of these services. RESPA accomplishes this by requiring that lenders disclose their relationships with settlement service providers; disclose estimated closing costs; prohibit or limit certain fees; and create a process by which borrowers may file complaints against lenders who violate RESPA rules.

  1. RESPA Coverage

    • RESPA applies to home mortgage loans for one- to four-family residences. Covered loans include new mortgages; assumed, or transferred loans; home equity loans and lines of credit; and property rehabilitation loans such as the Federal Housing Administration’s 203b rehab program. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development enforces RESPA.

    RESPA Exclusions

    • RESPA doesn’t limit or prohibit fees that lenders, settlement companies or others charge borrowers for the services they perform, nor does it address fees charged by sellers. In fact, the sales contract lists charges the seller imposes on the buyer, such as a per diem in the event that the buyer extends the closing date. The buyer accepts these charges when she signs the contract.

    RESPA — Required Disclosures

    • At the onset of the loan application process, the lender must give the buyer a special information booklet that explains the real estate settlement process. The lender also prepares a good faith estimate of closing costs, which gives the borrower a close approximation of how much cash he needs to close. In addition, RESPA requires that the lender inform the buyer about whether the lender will administer the loan or transfer it to another lender. If the lender has a business relationship with the settlement company or other service providers, it must disclose the nature of the relationships. The buyer must have the option of choosing his own settlement company.

    Limited and Prohibited Fees

    • RESPA prohibits kickbacks, which it defines as “anything of value in exchange for referrals of settlement service business,” for mortgages backed by the federal government. Such mortgages include those insured by the Federal Housing Administration or guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also prohibits service providers from charging fees unless they’ve actually provided services. Further, RESPA limits the amount that lenders can require borrowers to place in escrow accounts for fees such as property tax and homeowner’s insurance. This is true even when the lender requires escrow for these items.

Posted via email from Title Insurance
Continuing Ed for Title Agents

New York Appeals Court Rejects MERS Foreclosure – Daniel Fisher – Full Disclosure – Forbes

NEW YORK - JUNE 09:  Bank of New York Mellon C...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

 

A New York appeals court has thrown out a foreclosure proceeding involving MERS, the national registry for mortgages that tracks millions of individual loans behind mortgage-backed securities. The case sets a bad precedent for MERS in New York, but may not cause upheaval nationwide.

In a 7-page ruling issued Friday, the New York appellate court threw out Bank of New York’s foreclosure suit against Stephen and Frederica Silverberg, who were allegedly behind on $479,000 in loans. Bank of New York is the trustee for the trust containing mortgages, one them presumably the Silverberg’s, that were bundled together and sold to investors as bonds. Unfortunately for the bank, the court ruled that MERS, the bookkeeping entity set up to keep track of those mortgages in land-records offices around the country, couldn’t give BONY the authority to foreclose because it didn’t possess the underlying note, or Silverberg’s promise to pay.

“A transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is acquired by it,” the court ruled.

Public Citizen said the decision could have “far reaching consequences,”  but not everyone agrees this is a big deal. Even the lawyer for the Silverbergs, Stephen Silverberg himself, acknowledged his was an unusual situation. Bank of New York “admitted it didn’t have the note” proving it was the rightful owner of the collateral, Silverberg told me.

“They’ve had three years to find it and they haven’t,” he said. Without both the note and the mortgage, or legal document establishing the home as collateral for the note, the court said a lender can’t foreclose.

Judges in other states have made similar rulings, but in states with non-judicial foreclosure rules the courts aren’t involved. MERS was formed in 1993 by lenders to track mortgages and serve as a nominee in land records. That way, the lenders would have a central registry and wouldn’t have to pay transfer fees each time the underlying loans were sold and packaged into pools. The pools, in turn, are managed by a trustee who processes the payments and routes the money to holders of various securities created from them.

The New York appeals court acknowledged it could be creating trouble for those investors.

This Court is mindful of the impact that this decision may have on the mortgage industry in NewYork, and perhaps the nation. Nonetheless, the law must not yield to expediency and the convenienceof lending institutions. Proper procedures must be followed to ensure the reliability of the chain of ownership, to secure the dependable transfer of property, and to assure the enforcement of the rules thatgovern real property.

Silverberg, who represents other homeowners in foreclosure actions, was similarly unapologetic. He declined to say whether he was paying his mortgage, or intended to do so.

“The question here is some bank is coming forward saying the homeowner owes them hundreds of thousand of dollars but can’t present any evidence of ownership,” he said. “In New York, in order to evict the owner you must prove you have right to do so. This is the law and no apologies for enforcing your rights. They really pushed when they had nothing behind them.”

Posted via email from Title Insurance
Continuing Ed for Title Agents

U.S. Supreme Court Poised To Decide whether To Review RESPA Standing Case

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on whether it will review a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not need to show she was overcharged to have standing to assert a claim based on a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act’s (RESPA) anti-kickback prohibition.

RESPA Section 8 prohibits the payment or receipt of kickbacks in exchange for referrals of “business incident to or part of a real estate settlement service” and imposes statutory damages equal to three times the amount of the charge for the settlement service. In First American Financial Corporation v. Edwards, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiff could assert a RESPA claim whether or not an alleged unlawful referral agreement between her settlement agent and her title company increased the amount she paid for the title insurance. According to the Court, the plaintiff’s allegation that her title insurance payment was based on an unlawful referral agreement established sufficient injury to give her standing.

In response to a Supreme Court invitation, the Acting U.S. Solicitor General filed an amicus curiae brief on May 19, 2011, to provide the Obama administration’s view on the case. The brief urged denial of the certiorari petition on the grounds that the Ninth Circuit had correctly decided the case. It also disagreed with the title company’s argument that the RESPA question presented a circuit conflict because decisions of the Seventh and Fifth Circuits have interpreted Section 8 to provide a cause of action only to a plaintiff who has suffered concrete economic injury. According to the brief, the Seventh Circuit did not adopt the title company’s Section 8 reading and the Fifth Circuit’s decision was nonprecedential. The brief argued that because the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was consistent with the only precedential court of appeals decisions, those issued by the Third and Sixth Circuits, there was no conflict warranting Supreme Court review.

Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group is nationally recognized for its guidance in structuring and documenting new consumer financial services products, its experience with the full range of federal and state consumer credit laws throughout the country, and its skill in litigation defense and avoidance (including pioneering work in pre-dispute arbitration programs). The Group has been actively involved in defending many RESPA cases, including cases raising the standing issue. For more information, please contact group Chair Alan S. Kaplinsky, 215.864.8544 or kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com; Vice Chair Jeremy T. Rosenblum, 215.864.8505 or rosenblum@ballardspahr.com; John L. Culhane, Jr., 215.864.8535 or culhane@ballardspahr.com; Martin C. Bryce, Jr., 215.864.8238 or bryce@ballardspahr.com; Mercedes K. Tunstall, 202.661.2221 or tunstallm@ballardspahr.com; Keith R. Fisher, 202.661.2284 or fisherk@ballardspahr.com; Barbara S. Mishkin, 215.864.8528 or mishkinb@ballardspahr.com; or Mark J. Furletti, 215.864.8138 or furlettim@ballardspahr.com

 

Posted via email from Title Insurance
Continuing Ed for Title Agents

Posts navigation