CFPB Issues Summary of Changes and Clarifications to TRID
To support implementation of the recently issued 2017 TILA-RESPA Rule, the Bureau has issued a Detailed Summary of Changes and Clarifications.
You can access the Detailed Summary of Changes and Clarifications here.
FinCEN Advisory on Money Laundering Scams
FinCEN Advisory
See Advisory HERE
Lender Sues Specialty Insurer for Cyberspace Crime
A California-based mortgage company hit its insurer with a lawsuit in a New York federal court Tuesday seeking to recoup under a $3 million policy “substantial” losses incurred when an impostor duped the mortgage lender into wiring money for a nonexistent transaction.
American Pacific Mortgage Corp. asserts that Aspen Specialty Insurance Company must indemnify it for a cyberattack that resulted in an employee wiring more than $75,000 to a fictional company.
Last year, the Federal Trade Commission and the National Association of Realtors issued a warning to people interested in buying a home that scammers were posing as real estate agents, Realtors and title insurance companies to steal consumers’ closing costs.
And earlier this year, the FTC and NAR reissued that same warning because similar scams are still taking place.
In these scams, hackers take over the email accounts of homebuyers, real estate agents, lenders or Realtors. They obtain information about upcoming real estate transactions and send an email to the homebuyer, pretending to be the real estate agent or the title company that’s being used for the closing.
The email tells the buyer that there has been a last-minute change to the wiring instructions, and instructs the buyer to wire their closing costs to a different account – one controlled by the hacker. Then, once the buyer sends the money to the scammer’s account, the money disappears.
Do you have Cyber Insurance?
E-Mortgage filing in North Carolina
Industry News, Technology update
Thursday, August 10, 2017
North Carolina has been at the forefront of eMortgage and eClosing transactions, and Thursday saw the state at the center of another milestone.
The state’s first eMortgage purchase transaction was completed Thursday, with North State Bank; Brady & Kosofsky, PA; DocMagic; Simplifile and World Wide Notary working together to close the deal. The entire process took 46 minutes.
The loan was originated by North State Bank, and closed by the Matthews, N.C.- based law firm of Brady & Kosofsky, the company said in an exclusive announcement to October Research, LLC. Technology used in the transaction was supplied by DocMagic, Inc., World Wide Notary, LLC., Ramquest, LLC and USPROSERV, LLC, while eRecording was provided by Simplifile.
“The closing itself represented the future of the industry,” partner Jaime Kosofsky said.
The closing came in conjunction with a special event hosted by the North Carolina Department of Secretary of State. The event introduced a newly formed North Carolina Electronic Mortgage Closing Advisory Committee, and four of those members participated in the closing Thursday.
The buyer and seller each executed the closing instruments and financing documents with a biometric signature pad, Kosofky said, which helps protect parties from fraud and forgery. The use of electronic signature and notary technology, coupled with the robust legal framework provided by North Carolina state law, makes it possible for lenders to make safe loans within the guidelines of the new TRID guidelines.
The homebuyer was at the Keller Williams office in Mooresville, N.C., and the eSigning agent – who is an eNotary – was present, along with the real estate broker. The closing attorney, who was at the Matthews office 45 miles south, was present via video to preside over the transaction. The register of deeds office is 55 miles away from the Matthews office in Statesville, N.C.
The seller signed the closing materials via signature last week before leaving town.
Among the principal individuals involved in the transaction were:
Ken Sykes, Kelly Arrington and Jamie Harrington from North State Bank. Harrington was the loan officer, and she completed her second eMortgage transaction Thursday.
Jeff Bode of Mid America Mortgage, whose company acted as the investor for the purchase.
Mona Mohajerani, who acted as the closing attorney, and Brady & Kosofsky Executive Operations Director Esther Fernandes, along with eSigning agent Patricia Paxton.
Secretary of State Elaine Marshall and Director, Electronic Notarization and Notary Enforcement Ozie Stallworth, who founded the eClosing pilot program in North Carolina.
Jason Streit, president at World Wide Notary, along with the rest of the technology providers involved.
Housing Sentiment Hits Record Low
Market Data
Thursday, August 10, 2017
During July, the share of Americans who said now is a good time to buy a house decreased to a survey low, according to Fannie Mae’s Home Purchase Sentiment Index (HPSI).
The HPSI dropped 1.5 percentage points in July to 86.8, driven by decreases in three of the six components it measures.
“It’s clear that high home prices are a growing challenge helping to send buying sentiment to a record low,” Fannie Mae Senior Vice President and Chief Economist Doug Duncan said in a release.
“However, we find the notable decline in selling sentiment surprising. If it persists, this month’s decrease in optimism regarding the direction of the economy, which appears to coincide with rising uncertainty regarding the outlook for pro-growth legislation this year, could weigh on overall housing sentiment in the second half of the year,” Duncan added.
The HPSI found that the share of survey respondents (23 percent) who in July said now is a good time to buy a home fell 7 percentage points, while those who said now was a good time to sell (28 percent) dropped 11 percentage points. The share of Americans who said they were not concerned about losing their job jumped 9 percentage points.
Additionally, the share of Americans who expect home prices to continue to rise increased by one percentage point in July. Nearly half of the respondents who said now was a bad time to buy a home cited rising prices as their top concern.
Protect Your Money from Wire Fraud Schemes – ALTA Video
Buying and selling a home is an exciting time, but there can be pitfalls for unsuspecting consumers . The American Land Title Association wants homeowners and sellers to be aware that criminals are using wire fraud schemes to steal money meant for home purchases or the proceeds from the sale of the property. Watch this video for four tips to protect your money and advice for what to do if you’ve been targeted by a scam.
See the ALTA VIDEO HERE
CFPB Loses Case Over RESPA
A lawsuit brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau against a Louisville law firm was dismissed on Friday.
In a summary judgment ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky found that law firm Borders & Borders PLC followed the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) while operating title insurance agencies from 2006 to 2011, according to a NEWS release.
Morgan Ward, a partner with Stites & Harbison PLLC and one of the attorneys who defended Borders & Borders, said: “The CFPB was overreaching, and it’s unfair to target a small firm as part of a regulatory agenda.”
The case “appears to be the CFPB’s first loss on the merits at the federal trial court level,” according to the release.
The CFPB sued Borders & Borders in 2013 after the firm refused to agree with a punitive consent decree levied by the agency. The CFPB alleged that the firm and principals Harry Borders, John Borders Jr. and J. David Borders accepted kickbacks in exchange for referrals of real-estate closing services.
Borders & Borders operated nine title insurance agencies as joint ventures with local real estate and mortgage brokerage companies, according to the lawsuit, as was allowed under RESPA’s safe harbor for affiliated business arrangements. Those companies referred home buyers to Borders & Borders for settlement services, and the firm then would have the title insurance issued by one of the joint ventures.
The profits from the arrangement were split among the title insurance agencies’ owners — Borders & Borders, its principals and the referring company, according to the lawsuit.
Morgan Ward, a partner with Stites & Harbison PLLC and one of the attorneys who defended Borders & Borders, said that under RESPA, it is illegal to pay for referrals unless the law firm and mortgage broker share owners, as was the case with Borders & Borders. Consumers also must be aware of and agree with the arrangement.
Ward said the CFPB viewed RESPA’s safe harbor for affiliated business arrangements as a loophole and decided to try to close it through the courts instead of going to Congress to change the law.
“This really was a David versus Goliath kind of case,” Ward said. The CFPB “tried to send a chilling effect to the marketplace by punishing a family-owned local law firm.”
CFPB Finalizes Updates to “Know Before You Owe” Mortgage Disclosure
Press Release
July 7, 2017
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today finalized updates to its “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rule with amendments that are intended to formalize guidance in the rule, and provide greater clarity and certainty. The changes will facilitate implementation of the Know Before You Owe rule by the mortgage industry. The CFPB is also releasing a limited follow-up proposal to address an additional implementation issue.
“A mortgage is one of the largest financial decisions a consumer will ever make, and CFPB’s rules help ensure consumers have the easy-to-understand information they need before making a decision that will significantly impact their financial lives,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Our updates will clarify parts of our mortgage disclosure rule to make for a smoother implementation process for lenders and consumers.”
The Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule took effect Oct. 3, 2015. The CFPB’s rule created new, streamlined forms that consumers receive when applying for and closing on a mortgage. In addition to clarifications and technical corrections, the amendments that the Bureau is finalizing today address a handful of other issues within the rule, including:
Tolerances for the total of payments: Before the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule, the total of payments disclosure was determined using the finance charge as part of the calculation. The Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule changed the total of payments calculation so that it did not make specific use of the finance charge. The Bureau is now finalizing updates to include tolerance provisions for the total of payments that parallel the tolerances for the finance charge and disclosures affected by the finance charge.
Housing assistance lending: The Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule gave a partial exemption from disclosure requirements to certain housing assistance loans, which are originated primarily by housing finance agencies. The Bureau’s update, as finalized, promotes housing assistance lending by clarifying that recording fees and transfer taxes may be charged in connection with those transactions without losing eligibility for the partial exemption. The update also excludes recording fees and transfer taxes from the exemption’s limits on costs. Through the update, more housing assistance loans will qualify for the partial exemption, which should encourage these loans.
Cooperatives: The Bureau is finalizing updates to extend the rule’s coverage to include all cooperative units. Currently, the rule only covers transactions secured by real property, as defined under state law. Cooperatives are sometimes treated as personal property under state law and sometimes as real property. By including all cooperatives in the rule, the Bureau is simplifying compliance and ensuring that more consumers benefit from the rule.
Privacy and sharing of information: The Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule requires creditors to provide certain mortgage disclosures to the consumer. The Bureau has received many questions about sharing the disclosures provided to consumers with third parties to the transaction, including the seller and real estate brokers. The Bureau understands that it is usual, accepted, and appropriate for creditors and settlement agents to provide a Closing Disclosure to consumers, sellers, and their real estate brokers or other agents. The Bureau is finalizing additional commentary to clarify how a creditor may provide separate disclosure forms to the consumer and the seller.
The finalized amendments are available at:
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201707_cfpb_Final-Rule_Amendments-to-Federal-Mortgage-Disclosure-Requirements_TILA.pdf
In addition to the final rule, the CFPB is issuing a proposal addressing when a creditor may use a Closing Disclosure, instead of a Loan Estimate, to determine if an estimated closing cost was disclosed in good faith and within tolerance. Comments are due 60 days after the proposal’s publication in the Federal Register and will be weighed carefully before a final regulation is issued.
The proposal is available at:
http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201707_cfpb_Proposed-Rule_Amendments-to-Federal-Mortgage-Disclosure-Requirements_TILA.pdf
OCC Adds Information for Third Party Vendors
On June 7th, the OCC added bulletin 29 to third-party relationships to clarify the way lenders should interact with third party vendors, to us, that means how lenders deal title and closing providers.
-
Get the entire OCC bulletin here
.
As a part of the lengthy bulletin, it stated the lender is responsible for ongoing monitoring.
Ongoing Monitoring
Ongoing monitoring for the duration of the third-party relationship is an essential component of the bank’s risk management process. More comprehensive monitoring is necessary when the third-party relationship involves critical activities. Senior management should periodically assess existing third-party relationships to determine whether the nature of the activity performed now constitutes a critical activity.
After entering into a contract with a third party, bank management should dedicate sufficient staff with the necessary expertise, authority, and accountability to oversee and monitor the third party commensurate with the level of risk and complexity of the relationship. Regular on site visits may be useful to understand fully the third party’s operations and ongoing ability to meet contract requirements. Management should ensure that bank employees that directly manage third-party relationships monitor the third party’s activities and performance. A bank should pay particular attention to the quality and sustainability of the third party’s controls, and its ability to meet service-level agreements, performance metrics and other contractual terms, and to comply with legal and regulatory requirements.
The OCC expects the bank’s ongoing monitoring of third-party relationships to cover the due diligence activities discussed earlier. Because both the level and types of risks may change over the lifetime of third-party relationships, a bank should ensure that its ongoing monitoring adapts accordingly. This monitoring may result in changes to the frequency and types of required reports from the third party, including service-level agreement performance reports, audit reports, and control testing results. In addition to ongoing review of third-party reports, some key areas of consideration for ongoing monitoring may include assessing changes to the third party’s
• business strategy (including acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures) and reputation (including litigation) that may pose conflicting interests and impact its ability to meet contractual obligations and service-level agreements.
• compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.
• financial condition.
• insurance coverage.
• key personnel and ability to retain essential knowledge in support of the activities.
• ability to effectively manage risk by identifying and addressing issues before they are cited in audit reports.
• process for adjusting policies, procedures, and controls in response to changing threats and new vulnerabilities and material breaches or other serious incidents.
• information technology used or the management of information systems.
• ability to respond to and recover from service disruptions or degradations and meet business resilience expectations.
• reliance on, exposure to, or performance of subcontractors; location of subcontractors; and the ongoing monitoring and control testing of subcontractors.
• agreements with other entities that may pose a conflict of interest or introduce reputation, operational, or other risks to the bank.
• ability to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the bank’s information and systems.
• volume, nature, and trends of consumer complaints, in particular those that indicate compliance or risk management problems.
• ability to appropriately remediate customer complaints.
Bank employees who directly manage third-party relationships should escalate to senior management significant issues or concerns arising from ongoing monitoring, such as an increase in risk, material weaknesses and repeat audit findings, deterioration in financial condition, security breaches, data loss, service or system interruptions, or compliance lapses. Additionally, management should ensure that the bank’s controls to manage risks from third-party relationships are tested regularly, particularly where critical activities are involved. Based on the results of the ongoing monitoring and internal control testing, management should respond to issues when identified including escalating significant issues to the board.
Title Agent Charged with Negligence and Compensatory Damages
A Connecticut title agent was held liable for $77,500 that was paid by a Title Underwriter to clear title to property it insured, as well as more than $20,000 in compensatory damages for fees and expenses incurred in negotiating the settlement. The case showcased liability by the agent for a negligent title search, and breach of duty to the underwriter.
Latest Comments