An interesting case out of North Carolina. Orange County, No. Carolina has designated a PIN System (Property Identification Number) as the “official recording index.” In the case where two parcels were listed on a deed of trust, but only one PIN was listed on the DOT, the Court Ruled there was no constructive notice of the second parcel, even though the legal description and the names of the Grantors and Grantees were properly listed on the Deed of Trust. Therefore the typical rule that “if you can find it in the Grantor-Grantee Index, you have constructive notice” is out the window.
“…Because the deed of trust did not include the PIN for Tract I, it would not have appeared in any bona fide purchaser’s search for Tract I in the PIN Index. Requiring a bona fide purchaser to search the grantor/grantee index in addition to the PIN index would render the PIN Index superfluous and the North Carolina law adopting it meaningless.”
Read more at Legal Blog
When I teach title examination, closing, title abstracting, and other real estate classes, you have all heard me talk about “Equitable Mortgages,” i.e. A deed is given that has specific language in it that lessens the full impact of the conveyance. A typical example might be an owner deeding a lot to a builder who is going to build them their dream home. Such deed might contain the restriction that “this deed is being given as security. ” That language implies that the persons conveying have an expectation to get it back and in fact it becomes equal to a mortgage (equitable mortgage) in terms of closing, laws, etc. Here is a must read new article from Minnesota that points out such problems. Here is a Press Release by 24/7 that gives a couple examples of the complications with such a deed. It is a MUST READ for title people.
The wind is changing daily on the Title Insurance front. One minute underwriters refuse to write title policies on foreclosures due to the infamous Robo-signers, next they want an indemnity to write those title policies, now they are willing to go without. Read the excellent article at the Washington Post.
Title insurers drop demands on mortgage lenders in foreclosure cases
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 28, 2010; 9:26 PM
Mortgage servicers have successfully pushed back an attempt to make them explicitly responsible for title problems resulting from their handling of foreclosure paperwork and legal procedures.
Three major title insurance companies – First American Financial, Old Republic International and Stewart Information Services – told Wall Street analysts in conference calls Thursday that they had decided not to demand written indemnifications from lenders re-selling foreclosed homes. Combined, the three companies account for 52 percent of the title insurance market.
Such indemnification agreements were drafted earlier this month with input from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, along with the title industry’s trade group, the American Land Title Association. They were seen as a way to keep the market for foreclosed properties working despite legal uncertainty.
Title insurance guarantees that the chain of ownership is clear, unblemished by missing documents, outstanding liens or other factors that would impede an owner’s right to sell the property. Lenders require buyers to pay for title insurance coverage that protects the lender against those risks. Buyers have the option of paying extra to have such coverage for themselves.
An indemnification would cover the title insurer’s legal fees and other expenses if a court overturned a foreclosure because the lender had mishandled paperwork or followed incorrect legal procedures. But some banks and other mortgage lenders had resisted taking on the additional liability and threatened to take business to title insurers who didn’t require it.
Earlier this week, the nation’s largest title insurance company, Fidelity National Financial, announced it would cancel its indemnification requirement, which had been scheduled to go into effect for all lenders Nov. 1. Fidelity is continuing to require the agreement when doing foreclosure business with Bank of America, however.
The title insurers said they would evaluate home-sale records on a case-by-case basis before writing a title insurance policy covering the new lender and owner.
“We have concluded that it is prudent to continue to insure sales of REO [real estate owned] properties,” said First American Financial chief executive Dennis J. Gilmore.
He said one reason for the decision was push-back from lenders who service mortgages.
“It’s our understanding that in the marketplace, some servicers have indicated under no circumstances will they provide an indemnification,” Gilmore said.
Executives at Old Republic International told investors Thursday that they thought protections already written into their policies would be sufficient to shield them from significant losses on foreclosure sales. They said they would continue to “revisit indemnifications” as the foreclosure crisis unfolds.
Following news from Bloomberg that a major lender has stopped sending new cases to a South Florida law firm known for its foreclosure work, a lawyer for its chief attorney, David Stern, confirms that it has made layoffs.
There were “probably less than 100″ workers let go from Stern’s law firm in Plantation and, possibly, his related foreclosure processing company, DJSP Enterprises, writes the Heard Along the Coast blog of the South Florida Business Journal. The article attributes the information to Jeffrey Tew, a lawyer for Stern.
Several sources had said hundreds were laid off, but that has not been confirmed, according to the article. It doesn’t say whether the 100 or so confirmed layoffs included attorneys.
The Law Offices of David Stern and DJSP have been handling about 70,000 cases a year, reports the Miami Herald (reg. req.).
However, adjusted net income for the first half of 2010 at DJSP plummeted to $7.8 million in 2010, a drop of 50 percent from the $15.8 million it earned during the first half of 2009, filings for the public company state.
Related earlier coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Fla. AG Probe: Did 3 Law Firms Get 1,000s of Foreclosure Judgments By Possible Wrongdoing?”
ABAJournal.com: “‘Like Hamsters in a Cage’: Foreclosure Firm Cut Corners to Make Money, Story Says”
ABAJournal.com: “Freeze Foreclosures in All 50 States, Lawmaker Urges Big Banks, as 40 State AGs Plan Joint Probe”
National Mortgage News reports that the high levels of fraud have created a tremendous backlog in investigation of fraud cases by the FBI. Cases currently being investigated go back as much as 5 years and with the continuing flood of foreclosures and foreclosure problems the FBI investigators are overwhelmed. Of particular concern are title companies, who have enlisted ill-prepared staff. Read more at National Mortgage News
The full name of the new law is “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” The law is comprised of sixteen broad Titles. Two sections in particular that affect the Title Insurance, Mortgage and Closing Industries: Title X and Title XIV.
Title X of the act establishes the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection as an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve System that regulates offering consumer financial products and services, and makes it harder for courts and the Comptroller of the Currency to determine that state laws protecting consumers in financial matters are preempted by federal laws. Title XIV of the Act imposes new requirements on mortgage lenders including a prohibition on certain financial incentives that would encourage a mortgage originator to steer a consumer to a higher-cost mortgage, and a prohibition on making a residential mortgage loan unless a determination is made that the borrower has a reasonable ability to repay the loan.
For a copy of Nutter McLennen and Fish’s detailed Review and Analysis of the Consumer Protection Act, click here.