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?
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.
The latest CFPB Complaint Report for Mortgages shows that, by far, the largest number of complaints filed with the CFPB were with the Credit Reporting Agencies – Equifax, TransUnion and Experian, having 3,897 complaints nationwide on credit reports in January. Mortgage complaint leaders were Wells Fargo, Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase. To read the latest full mortgage report: click here for CFPB Complaint Report.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the first federal agency solely focused on
consumer financial protection,1 and consumer complaints are an integral part of that work. The
CFPB helps connect consumers with financial companies to make their voices heard. When
consumers submit a complaint, they work with companies to get the consumer a response,
generally within 15 days. They also publish basic information about complaints in our public
Consumer Complaint Database to empower consumers, inform consumer advocates, and improve the functioning of the marketplace.
We all use auxiliary help when times are busy. Signing agents and temporary help. But beware; are you giving “non-employees” dangerous access to personal information that you are responsible for?
The DOJ has issued a press release regarding a temporary employee who’s job was simply copying loan documents. In that capacity, she stole personal information belonging to over 250 would-be home buyers and used that information to obtain fraudulent credit cards.
Use due diligence in the hiring and overseeing of all of your help and assure they are properly licensed. Even non-employees require oversight in the title and closing business.
Department of Justice Press Release – Temporary Help Steals Information to Get Fraudulent Credit Cards Read article here at the Department of Justice Website
Here are some excerpts from Thomas Pryde’s new Blog pertaining to abstractors. To read the entire article click: Thomas Pryde Blog
I couldn’t agree more.
Independent Abstractors: Well Trained Specialists (Part Three)
There are certainly opportunities to succeed in this market. If independent service providers are going to take advantage of them, they must differentiate themselves from the rest of the market, and nothing sets the independent apart from the crowd better than the fact that they know abstracting, in the context of their local areas, better than anyone.
However, while this is a distinct advantage, there are two critical obstacles to getting that message out to clients and convincing them to use your services. Once the obstacles are understood, the opportunities and challenges become clearer.
Educate
This is really the point of this article. The message that local expertise results in superior results is not making it to the clients. This may be partially due to a lack of marketing and communication from the independent providers, and/or it may be partially due to the fact that the ultimate clients (consumers and lenders) are frequently insulated from the independent provider that is performing the search.
Even where this is understood there is no way to verify or validate genuine expertise, and therein can be found the biggest challenge. Until there is a broadly accepted education and certification process, there is not likely to be any significant traction gained in regards to the one market value that independent providers can best deliver.
Gains can be made in the other two values, and that will be important. However, very few things would positively impact the market for independent providers better than a robust certification program. Such a program would be good for the market as a whole; it would especially benefit consumers, and independent service providers would have the means to communicate the difference between a discount provider and one with genuine local expertise.
What can be done?
- Recognize that you are part of a large group of providers that can significantly impact the market, if there is unity.
- Participate in SOT and other social media venues (Linkdin has several communities as well)
- Contribute to best practices discussions, in particular, and strive to educate your clients as to why commodity searches are inferior.
- Join NALTEA or other professional organizations that can provide the structure for increased cooperation and unity.
- Speak up on behalf of better education practices for training abstractors, and join efforts to codify that effort in a certification process.
There is much work to be done, but without a unified commitment to these things, the opportunities will be eaten away slowly, until the idea of independent search services is a thing of the past.
I have commented in the past on how not handling title claims in a timely manner can cause damages, and I use real examples to stress the point. Well, comes another heavy duty example. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld $1,572,909.24 in punitive damages in Davis V. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company for what could have/should have been a fairly minor claim.
Here is a quote from the court document:
Initially, we note the trial court awarded Davis $393,227.31 in compensatory damages and $1,572,909.24 in punitive damages. This represents a 4:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. The United States Supreme Court stated: We decline again to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed. Our jurisprudence and the principles it has now established demonstrate, however, that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process. In [Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v.] Haslip, [499 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991)] in upholding a punitive damages award, we concluded that an award of more than four times the amount of compensatory damages might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety. 499 U.S., at 23- 24. 111 S.Ct. 1032. We cited that 4–to–1 ratio again in Gore, 517 U.S., at 581, 116 S.Ct. 1589. The Court further referenced a long legislative history, dating back over 700 years and going forward to today, providing for sanctions of double, treble, or quadruple damages to deter and punish. Id., at 581, and n. 33, 116 S.Ct. 1589. While these ratios are not binding, they are instructive. They demonstrate what should be obvious: Singledigit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State’s goals of deterrence and retribution, than awards with ratios in range of 500 to 1, id., at 582, 116 S.Ct. 1589, or, in this case, of 145 to 1.
Remember, Title Agents, Title Insurers, the face amount of the Title Policy is NOT the ceiling on your title claims.
Reasonable comments made in Lexology about the CFPB publishing consumer complaints for the whole world to see. I mean really – is that fair? After all, who wants their name besmirched by a cranky customer. This makes the lender, title company, real estate company, etc. look guilty with no chance of rebuttal.
by Sirote & Permutt PC
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced with some fanfare two weeks ago that it is going to publish consumer complaints on its website. So, let’s see…
A disgruntled consumer, who decides to get back at his lender, files an unverified, unsubstantiated and unproven complaint. The CFPB, without verification, substantiation or proof, then posts the complaint on its website – first stripping away information identifying the consumer, but not the lender. What can be wrong with that?
Well, for starters, if the lender is a bank then disparaging the same may be a crime under state law and federal law – or at least it used to be. Even if it is not illegal (i.e., disparagement as a crime) it is hardly fair to the lender not to be given an opportunity to investigate and if appropriate, protest the nature of the complaint, before the same is made public.
But say consumer advocates, surely disgruntled consumers would not file a frivolous or irrelevant complaint. Hmmm. Has anyone out there experienced an increase in the volume of frivolous and irrelevant letters alleging account errors?
As we said in a recent post, the CFPB seems to shoot first and ask questions later.
So, the CFPB promotes the situation where the lender’s reputation is damaged with no safeguards or method to appropriately respond.
Wow.
A post from Thomas Pryde’s Blog, re-printed with his permission.
The prevailing view among some industry leaders seems to be that the independent abstractor is a dying breed, the last vestige of an ancient way of doing business. This is attributed to the rapidly expanding digitization of title documents and new technology solutions that are being designed to quickly and efficiently obtain and deliver those documents to their clients. This is one example where technology has made promises well beyond what it can actually provide.
While it is true that the need for independent title abstractors might actually be eliminated if the idealized descriptions of a technology provider’s capabilities proved realistic, proclamations of the imminent demise of their business may be premature. In fact, the independent abstractor has a real opportunity that seems to have been largely overlooked, but in order to understand and take advantage of this opportunity, we have to first examine the promised market of full digitization and automation.
In this oft-prophesied and idealized market, all archived public documents will be available both remotely and digitally, and the client who needs these documents would be able to simply and efficiently obtain them, removing the need for someone to go to the courthouse, manually obtain documents, scan them, and then deliver them back to the client.
All search-related activities could be performed remotely, and there would be no need for any local expertise. This is the essence of what is promised on the back of technology.
However, if digital availability was ubiquitous, if the digitized documents were perfect, and if all the related data was flawless, such technology might indeed eliminate the need for a skilled abstractor. However, achieving such perfection in the document chain would also virtually eliminate the need for the title insurance industry as a whole.
Of course, the reality is (and will continue to be) far from this ideal, and title insurance companies will continue to thrive on the potential existence of problems that might be found in any given document chain. As long as this is true, local expertise and timely results can work together to offer a value proposition that will ultimately trump a mindless search service offered at rock bottom prices.
HI Jeanne,
I have to pass on this news to you, as you are a HUGE part of my success.
I found out last week that I passed my exam and am Licensed in SD now!!!
I raved of your courses to the Board of Abstracters. I know I wouldn’t have been successful in this quest so quickly without your help!
(even scored 100% in one of the 5 sections!!)
Thank you! Thank you!!
For whatever reason this industry is difficult to find training on. I wish it were required to have the standard of training you provide for all individuals to be licensed in any state!
Traci Renkly
Office Manager/Closing Agent
Brookings County Title Company
422 4th Street
Brookings, SD 57006
Excellent article by Alston and Bird (AlstonFinance.com)
Non-Agency Residential Mortgage Loans in 2014: A Survey of Legal Issues Affecting the Market. (Read entire article)
It covers in a solid overview of :
- Qualified Mortgages
- QRM and Risk Retention
- Due Diligence Rule
- Developments in Mortgage Servicing and ECOA
- Mortgage Servicing Transfers
- Proposed Changes in Mortgage Servicing and Safe Harbor Protection
“Conclusion
As can be seen, 2014 was a watershed year in the history of residential mortgage finance. More regulations were passed than would be ordinarily expected in a full decade. A lot remains to be digested, and some areas of regulation are still unresolved, but overall the biggest surprise was that all of these regulations had a surprisingly small impact on the RMBS market. Origination standards had tightenedso much after the financial crisis that the changes from QMs had very little impact. QRMs did not have a loan-to-valueratio requirement and was virtually the same as QMs, so the impact on the market was negligible. Regulation AB IIhas resulted in no real change in the RMBS market, which was completely private anyway. There were a number ofchanges in mortgage servicing, and the mergers and acquisitions market was surprisingly active.”
Latest Comments