settlement Archives - Real Estate News and Commentary

November 8, 2019November 8, 2019

Ask About Closing Fees

To help home buyers understand the costs of buying a home, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov) rolled out the Know Before You Owe initiative in 2015. The intention was to help home buyers understand and ask about closing fees. The project actually has deeper roots in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Dodd-Frank created the CFPB and mandated that the Bureau “shall publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions” in a “readily understandable language” so borrowers can understand the financial aspects of their loan.

Prior to Know Before You Owe the home buyer would receive a Good Faith Estimate from the lender and a proposed settlement statement (which was on the HUD-1 form) from the title company. The pre-HUD, gave a fairly close estimate of the amount they needed at closing but could change depending on final lender charges. If the amount was a little short, the buyer would write a check to cover the difference. Sometimes the buyer would get money back at closing because the amount they needed was less than the amount the title company actually collected. Regulations dictated when the buyer received a lender’s Good Faith Estimate and settlement costs. If the HUD-1 was delayed, home buyers didn’t have much time to ask about closing fees.

But in the aftermath of the financial and foreclosure crises, there was concern that home buyers didn’t get accurate and fair closing costs disclosure. Know Before You Owe changed the process of disclosing closing cost estimates to provide more accurate closing cost figures. A new Closing Disclosure (CD) was devised to be consumer friendly. The process of closing cost disclosure changed such that the lender is now responsible for providing the buyer the CD (in lieu of title company’s HUD-1). However, the role of the title company (or closing agent) is still to conduct the settlement. The standardization of the closing form allowed time to ask about closing fees.

Unfortunately, title insurance and other title related fees (such as water escrows and the property survey) are still often misunderstood and disputed. Although the CD does a good job breaking down closing costs to help you understand what you’re getting, it falls short in explaining title fees and options. For example, in Maryland, the cost for title insurance that is disclosed on the CD is the more expensive enhanced policy. And it’s not just happenstance, Maryland Realtor purchase contracts require that the lender disclose an enhanced title insurance policy on the CD so you know how much the most expensive title insurance will cost. But unless you know to ask, you may by default be purchasing the more expensive enhanced policy. The survey is another title charge that may be charged by default. Although many feel it’s not worth the expense, it may be relevant to your title policy.

Fortunately, your loan officer will review and help you understand your lender fees. On the other hand, the title company will be communicating with you throughout the home buying process. Make sure you read and understand all emails, as they will likely describe your title charges and options.

Life is hectic and it seems as if time is at a premium. And although buying a home can be exciting, it can significantly add to your daily stressors. But if you want to avoid surprises down the line, take the time to understand the process. Ask as many questions as it takes to know what to expect at closing. Have your real estate agent explain to you your purchase contract. And, don’t wait until settlement to communicate with the title company, or ask about your CD.

Original article is published at https://dankrell.com/blog/2019/11/08/ask-about-closing-fees/

By Dan Krell
Copyright© 2019

If you like this post, do not copy; instead please:
link to the article,
like it on facebook
or re-tweet.

Protected by Copyscape Web Plagiarism Detector

Disclaimer. This article is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. Readers should not rely solely on the information contained herein, as it does not purport to be comprehensive or render specific advice. Readers should consult with an attorney regarding local real estate laws and customs as they vary by state and jurisdiction. Using this article without permission is a violation of copyright laws.

September 10, 2015November 23, 2021

TRID implementation remakes the home buying process

Earlier this year I informed you about the upcoming Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CPFB) TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rule that was to begin in August. The implementation date was moved to October 3^rd for a number of reasons, including feedback from the lender community indicating that they needed more time for compliance.

Fast forward to the present, and we are several weeks away from implementation. Overall, lenders are ready to comply with new disclosures and procedures. Realtor® Associations have also been busy getting members up to speed on expected changes and how to cope with potential issues that may arise. However, many are bracing themselves for the initial implementation to see how transactions will be affected.

Some have offered a different perspective on how the initial implementation may happen. For instance, the CFPB requires lenders to provide new disclosures three days prior to closing; however, some lenders may superimpose a longer waiting period (such as five or seven days) so as to ensure their compliance with the new rule. So any delay would tack on those extra days. Additionally, I have been told by loan officers that the 30 to 45 day mortgage closing process will go by the wayside, and that home sale contracts should allow for at least 60 days to go to closing; as well as allowing for flexibility if glitches arise to ensure compliance with the new rule.

The settlement process will be different. Closing documents will no longer emanate from the title company, but instead will be prepared by the lender and sent to the buyer and seller. Closing will occur at least three days later. Lenders are vetting title companies to ensure compliance with the new rule. As a result, an unintended consequence may be that home buyers will not be able to choose their title attorney like they are used to (as provided by RESPA and state law); and will have to choose from a list of lender “approved” title companies. Hopefully the lenders are not steering buyers to title companies where affiliated business arrangements exist, as that is an entirely another issue that the CFPB is pursuing.

If you’ve bought or sold a home in the past, the current contracts may seem somewhat familiar. However, as of October 3^rd, new contracts and addenda will be in use to address the new rule; making it a new experience for everyone. If you’re planning a sale or purchase after October 3^rd, make sure your agent is familiar with the new contracts and addenda so as to ensure they are managing timelines properly and understand how contingencies are affected.

The lingo will change too. If you’re borrowing money from a lender, you will no longer be a borrower; but instead you’ll be called a “consumer;” and your lender will be referred to as the “creditor.” Your good faith estimate will be a “loan estimate.” The time tested HUD1 with which we are familiar seeing at closing, will no longer be in use; and in its place will be the “closing disclosure” sent to the buyer and seller. You will no longer look forward to your settlement day, but instead you will look forward to the “consummation.”

If you are planning to be in the market, you can familiarize yourself with expected changes to the buying/selling process by visiting CFPB’s “Know Before You Owe” (consumerfinance.gov/knowbeforeyouowe).

Google+
Copyright © Dan Krell

If you like this post, do not copy; you can:
reference the article,
like it at facebook
or re-tweet.

May 13, 2015June 3, 2020

New settlement rules may facilitate much needed communication

Signed into law July 21^st, 2010, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (aka Dodd – Frank) was intended to improve accountability and transparency in the financial system, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and to end “too big to fail.” The Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which enforces regulations to protect consumers and implements rules such as the Qualified Residential Mortgage (also mandated by Dodd – Frank).

Five years after enactment, Dodd – Frank seems to be the Act the keeps on giving with the upcoming implantation of Sec 1098; which states that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) “shall publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions” in a “readily understandable language” so as to help borrowers understand the financial aspects of their loan clearly and to be nontechnical.

The new disclosure and settlement statement is intended to present important information conspicuously to help consumers decide if the mortgage is affordable and give warning about undesirable loan features. The new forms seek to standardize fee and cost disclosures so as to make shopping for a mortgage easier. One of the more important aspects of the new regulation is that the new Closing Disclosure is to be given to the borrower at least three days prior to settlement. During the three days prior to closing, changes to the Closing Disclosure that increase charges are prohibited (unless allowed by exception).

Firm timelines for closing and mortgage associated matters, have always been a crucial aspect of the home purchase contract. Not adhering to the dates specified in the contract usually has consequences. However, changes to Realtor® contracts are being considered to reflect the three day waiting period. What was once a firm timeline may no longer have the “time is of the essence” feel, as future contract revisions may not hold the buyer in breach of contract if the home does not close by contract settlement date. Carryover issues may also include implications to meeting loan commitment and appraisal contingency timelines.

If you’re buying a home, note that there are a number of situations that could cause your closing date to be rescheduled because of a “reset” to the three day waiting period, including a loan product changes, 1/8% increase in APR, and/or there is an added pre-payment penalty. Additionally, other lender actions may also require you to reschedule closing; such as a lender required repair with reinspection.

Many in the industry are also concerned about routine buyer and agent pre-settlement walkthroughs. Rather than prior to closing, they will have to be scheduled to allow for negotiation on potential issues without resetting the three day waiting period (and cross your fingers that nothing happens to the home the three days prior to closing).

However, CFPB Director Richard Cordray was quoted emphasizing “The timing of the closing date is not going to change based on the final walk-through…” in a National Association of Realtors® (realtor.org) May 12^th press release reporting on speakers at a regulatory issues forum.

The complexity and implications of the new regulations will undoubtedly cause some confusion in the first days of implementation. However, the new rules inadvertently address one of the weak links to the real estate transaction – communication. Many are beginning to recognize the necessity for everyone involved in the transaction to be proactive and communicate with each other to ensure compliance.

February 4, 2015November 23, 2021

Coming this summer – A new real estate settlement experience

For many, August 1^st will be like any other summer day. However for those in the lending and real estate industries, August 1^st is when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) new lending, closing disclosures and rules go into effect.

“Know Before You Owe” is a project that began before the official opening of the CFPB (which officially opened July 21^st 2011), and undertook the remaking of mortgage disclosures to make them more consumer friendly. You might say the project started with the passing of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which mandated the creation of the CFPB as well as amends the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Sec 1098 of Dodd-Frank states that the Bureau “shall publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions” in a “readily understandable language” so as to help borrowers understand the financial aspects of their loan clearly and to be nontechnical.

A change in industry disclosure and compliance to enhance consumer protection is not new. RESPA and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) were both devised as consumer protections, and amended over the years. RESPA was enacted in 1974 as a protection for consumers from abusive and predatory lending practices to help home buyers better shop for services related to the home buying process. Enacted in 1968, TILA provided guidelines for which lenders are required to inform consumers about the cost of their loan; which includes the disclosing the Annual Percentage Rate (APR), finance charges, amount financed, and the total amount paid as scheduled. The new integrated disclosure forms replace the Good Faith Estimate (GFE) and Settlement Statement (HUD1) required by RESPA and the Truth and Lending Disclosure Statement required by TILA with a Loan Estimate and a Closing Disclosure.

RESPA and TILA require disclosures to be provided to you within three days upon making your mortgage application, as well as not having changed prior to your closing of the transaction. Changes to these regulations and disclosures have often been made to keep up with the industry as well as to enhance consumer disclosure and education; the most recent revisions being made immediately after the financial crisis. Although redesigned to be more efficient and accurate, the most recent revision of the GFE and the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement remained technical in nature. Many claimed the forms remained confusing making it difficult to compare mortgage costs between lenders; costs were not always labeled consistently and sometimes changed prior to closing.

By combining these disclosures into two forms in a clear and understandable language, the forms present important information conspicuously to help consumers decide if the mortgage is affordable and warn about loan features that they may want to avoid. The new forms seek to standardize fee and cost disclosures so as to make shopping easier; with standard cost and fee disclosures, comparisons will be more like comparing two apples rather than an apple to an orange.

One of the more important aspects of the new rules is that the new Closing Disclosure be given to the borrower three days prior to settlement. During the three days prior to closing, changes to the Closing Disclosure that increase charges are prohibited (unless allowed by exception). You can find more information about the CFPB and view the new disclosures at the CFPB website Know Before You Owe (consumerfinance.gov/knowbeforeyouowe).

February 27, 2014July 4, 2019

RESPA empowers home buyers and consumers

Although the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) is one of those laws that you don’t hear much about, it’s a consumer protection statue that has been around for while. Enacted in 1974, RESPA was intended to help home buyers be better shoppers by requiring the disclosures regarding the nature and costs related to the real estate settlement process. Keeping RESPA relevant, there have been modifications and clarifications through the years, most notably the change of administration and enforcement in 2011 from HUD to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB).

RESPA is generally known for empowering consumers in the real estate process by allowing consumers (in most cases) to choose service providers, and prohibiting kickbacks (e.g., unearned fees) for referrals. Section 8 of RESPA prohibits real estate service providers from giving or accepting a fee, kickback or anything of value in exchange for referrals of settlement service business involving a federally related mortgage. While Section 9 prohibits a home seller from requiring the home buyer to use a particular title insurance company, either directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale.

RESPA also requires the disclosure of affiliated business arrangements associated with a real estate closing. An affiliated business relationship is considered to exist when there is a direct or indirect referral from a service provider to another provider of settlement services when there is an affiliate relationship or when there is a direct or beneficial ownership interest of more than one percent. The disclosure of such a relationship must specify the following: the nature of the relationship (explaining the ownership and financial interest) between the provider and the loan originator; and the estimated charge or range of charges generally made by such provider. This disclosure must be provided on a separate form at the time of the referral (or at the time of loan application or with the Good Faith Estimate if referred from a mortgage lender). In most cases, you’re not required to use the referred affiliated businesses.

RESPA violations are serious, and penalties can be severe. For example, HUD (hud.gov) lists the penalties for violations of Section 8 “… anti-kickback, referral fees and unearned fees provisions of RESPA are subject to criminal and civil penalties. In a criminal case a person who violates Section 8 may be fined up to $10,000 and imprisoned up to one year. In a private law suit a person who violates Section 8 may be liable to the person charged for the settlement service an amount equal to three times the amount of the charge paid for the service.”

The real estate industry takes RESPA very seriously; the industry educates service providers about empowering consumers, as well as regulation compliance. And although modifications of RESPA are to keep up with the real estate industry; some still claim that there are sections of RESPA that remain vague, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court opinion of Freeman v. Quicken Loans, and further clarifications (such as the RESPA Home Warranty Clarification Act of 2011).

In the past, RESPA violations were pursued vigorously by HUD; resulting in settlements as well as criminal investigations. Today, the CFPB (consumerfinance.gov) has taken over the reins, and continues the pursuit of RESPA violations with the same if not increased vigor. More information and guidance about RESPA can be obtained from the CFBP (consumerfinance.gov).

by Dan Krell
© 2014