Two Flaws with the new Good Faith Estimate

Posted on by
22

Let me begin by saying I think that uniform Good Faith Estimates are a huge step in the right direction. However, I’m quickly reviewing the newly revised Good Faith Estimate and HUD-1 Settlement Statement (beginning on page 46; link below) to see if any changes were made since they were unveiled. The two biggest issues that I see are:

  1. No clearly marked monthly mortgage payment.
  2. No funds due for closing.

HUD boasts that consumers will save an average of $700 by using these new forms, yet consumers won’t have the tools to compare without these two factors. It seems like HUD was so focused on YSP (which seems less clear to me on the new form) and controlling closing costs, they skipped a few important details.

Am I missing something right under my nose? Click here to read the final rule. I’ll go through this again and perhaps dig into the entire document over the weekend…I’m just wondering if any of you have more insight into this.

Nana needs a booster seat by tomorrow night

Posted on by
34

I just got a call from my daughter that I need a booster seat to pick them up at the airport tomorrow night.  They are flying in for Thanksgiving.  In previous years she was smaller and the baby carrier doubled as a car seat.  But she just turned 4 years old and apparently needs a booster seat.

I’ll have to Google what it is.  Apparently it is too big for them to bring one with them, or that would be a lot of trouble.  I wonder if I can rent one?

If anyone knows anything about 4 year olds and booster seats 🙂  I’d appreciate the info.  Maybe I can buy one and then donate it to…someplace.  I spent 4hours today shopping for their arrival.  Had I known earlier…oh well.  Kids!

Interview with Jillayne Schlicke – Part 2: The SAFE Act

Posted on by
14

Earlier this month I shared an interview with Jillayne Schlicke.  Part One addressed LO’s getting ready for 2009.  The second half of my interview touches on The S.A.F.E. ACT which is a part of HR 3221.  The Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 is a part of the massive HR 3221.  If you are planning on originating residential mortgage loans in 2009, which is just over a month away, I hope you’ve all ready checked out the NMLS (Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System) site to get your ducks in a row…be sure to have a large bottle of aspirin (or something stronger) handy.  The NMLS states that to assure your information is processed by January 1, 2009, you need to submit the required information to by December 1, 2008.   I just checked the process of my NMLS license and because I filed at 9pm on October 1, 2008, my registration is currently showing as “transition requested” and I’m directed to contact DFI.  DFI is telling me that I registered on October 2, 2008, and they’re working on applicants who applied by October 1, 2008.  I do hope my fellow Washington State Loan Originators were at least a day earlier than I with registering at NMLS to be in compliance with The SAFE Act.   Enough of my griping…my questions to Jillayne are bold and italic.

Which loan originators are impacted by the SAFE Act?

All LOs will be impacted by the SAFE Act, some more than others.  Looking up the chain of command, mortgage brokers and consumer loan lender manager/owners will also be impacted because this adds a layer of administration at the federal level that was previously not in place.  Today, brokers and owners can call their state licensing regulators and receive an answer to their licensing questions in a reasonable amount of time.  Networking with the federal regulators back in Washington DC may or may not offer broker/owners the same level of prompt service and hours of operation for those on the west coast.

Non-depository lenders and brokers must take a 20 hour prelicensing class and 8 hours of continuing education every year.  Some states already have these provisions in place and other states go above and beyond this level.  STates that have pre and post education requirements that are less than what’s required under the SAFE Act must raise their standards to the federal level.

The banks asked for and received exemption from the prelicensing and continuing education requirements mandated by the SAFE Act.  It’s quite possible that FDIC insured banks pointed out they already have ongoing training in place for their employees.

All LOs, no matter where they work, must become registered.

Even with the additional costs and time, this is a step in the right direction for our industry.  It’s time to support the framework that will lead to the eventual repair of consumer confidence in our lending system that must begin at some point.  This is a good place to start.

How will the SAFE Act impact your business?

I’ve been thinking about this for several months.  The 20 hour prelicensing mandate will have very little effect on educators at this time.  There are very few people interested in becoming loan originators right now because the income potential for a new licensee who knows relatively little about the complexities of the industry have dropped dramatically in 2008.

The 8 hours of required continuing education is only 2 more hours per year than Washington State’s 6 hour requirement.

Instead of higher revenues, the changes that will impact continuing education will be that of curriculum development and approval.  It appears right now that the states are going to defer to NMLS to approve our courses and to approve course providers, although this has not been confirmed.  Dealing at the state level is always preferred to dealing at the federal level because the states tend to be more responsive.  We can go to regular scheduled meetings and talk directly to our regulators, we can schedule meetings with them and drive to Olympia if needed, to voice concerns and receive direct answers.

I already see a difference.  When asking questons of the NMLS folks they pawn me off to the states.  The state says to call NMLS.  The whole system is suppose to be ready to go in 2009 yet at no point has the NMLS  communicated to us (course providers) what the guidelines will be for approving providers and courses.

The other problem educators face is the mandate on curriculum.  But that’s another topic for another interview.  🙂

Windermere’s Web Site Strikes Back

Posted on by
72

I’ve been way too busy at my current day job during the past year to play real estate mash up games at the level Galen has been playing at. However, it appears Windermere has decided to up their game and yesterday they released an improved & simplified property search feature on their web site.

On the plus side, I like the improved site’s ability to see multiple photos of listings alongside the Virtual Earth map-based interface. It addresses one my persistent complaints that most map-based real estate search sites tend to share. I also like how they embraced what appears to be a trend of starting a property search with a textbox of a city name (ala Redfin & Estately) instead of a byzantine array of list boxes & check boxes.

On the minus side, the site only showed me properties when my search returns between 1 and 100 matches. I hate limits, especially small ones. I have a big monitor and a pretty fast net connection. My hardware could handle a thousand pushpins on the map if you let it. To channel Jerry Maguire – Show me the listings! I have Windermere’s competitors on the other browser tabs – John L Scott’s limit is 300 (good), Redfin’s limit is 500 (better), and Estately shows me a 100 at time, but w/ no upper limit (I like the no upper limit part). I also missed the wide array of features & data that I’ve come to expect from Redfin or Estately. However, given Windermere’s design priorities for this release were simplicity, rather than power & flexibility; I can’t fault them too much for accomplishing their goals.

In any event, if you write real estate web apps for fun and/or profit, you owe it to yourself to read the Windermere Tech Blog. If you merely use real estate web apps, you should check out the new Windermere.com.

Did the recent market shift affect Hitler too?

Posted on by
56

This recently discovered (by me) video on YouTube hits a nerve when it comes to how many are affected by the current market dynamics around the country.  I found this a bit funny, if not unnerving, considering how many people I’ve been talking to lately that are in short sale position.  The discussions are because I’m not just acting as an agent but because of my involvement in a real estate investment group that is buying these kinds of properties. 

What I’ve noticed while doing research is that an oddly large number of agents have been hit by the issue of needing to short sell – you’d think that these would be the people prone to seeing the fallacies of some of these loan products and how they’d impact them in a market downturn, but I’m not going to point fingers since I know as independent contractors and small business owners we are tied to these loan products that got misused during the market hey-day.  Even with my own great credit score, I know that today I probably couldn’t qualify for a loan in today’s market because as a business owner, I must go stated income.  I’m thankful that I was able to change my situation before things went nuts in the industry.

If you decide to watch the video, know that my linking to it here is only to provide a bit of levity to a not so fun situation for everyone right now.  I feel blessed that my business is doing so well right now and that many of my choices to downsize last year seemed to be a lucky break ahead of the curve of what is happening to many right now.

Question for Attorneys: Federal Tax Liens & Foreclosures

Posted on by
19

tax lienCould someone with Foreclosure sale experience answer the question below?  Or, at least discuss the possible outcome?

Scenario:

A homeowner has a Federal Tax lien against the property.  The homeowner is delinquent on their mortgage and it goes to Foreclosure.  At the Foreclosure sale, the property then goes back to the lender because there were no bidders for the home.

1)   Is the Lender required to pay off the Federal Tax lien at Foreclosure or resale of the home?

2)  If the Lender pays off the Federal Tax lien, what recourse does the Lender have against the borrower?

3)  If the Lender pays off the Federal Tax lien,  has the delinquent borrower just handed off their tax burden to the Lender and walked away with no liability?

Thanks!

A buyer's right to do "an additional inspection"

Posted on by
23

This is a “real estate is local” post, as it refers to an option generally afforded to buyers in our local standard inspection clause (Form 35 item 1) b. on page 1).  Here in the Seattle Area, a buyer usually has the right to do “additional inspections”, IF the original Home Inspector recommends in writing that there be an additional inspection by a “specialist”.

When I am at an inspection I am listening very carefully to the inspector and waiting for him to red flag an item that needs an additional inspection.  It is the ONLY time I tell an inspector that I need him to say that, in writing, in the report.  They usually get mad when I do that and I try not to interfere with the inspector and his written report.  But if he says the buyer should get an additional inspection, but does not include the wording I need to invoke the “additional inspection” clause in the Inspection Addendum, we have a problem.

The buyer usually has X additional days to do the additional inspection (buyer pays for it), and the inspection response in its entirety is extended.  BUT the buyer must respond, in writing, by the end of the 1st inspection timeframe that they are doing a 2nd inspection, in order to gain the extended timeframe.  That request must include the portion of the 1st inspection that indicated the need for an additional inspection by a specialist.  There is a response form where you check a box noting that you are invoking your right under the original addendum section 1) b. to do an additional inspection, and you attach the 1st inspector’s recommendation regarding the need for a specialist inspection.

Everyone’s Inspection Addendum will be different as to the number of days you have for the 1st inspection and for additional inspections, so read your Addendum carefully.  The default in the forms I use show 10 days for the 1st inspection and an additional 5 days for additional inspections, but your contract may have a different amount of days written in the blank spaces.   The additional days are not automatic.  You must respond within the timeframe of the 1st inspection, and indicate your intention to do an additional inspection, in order to gain the additional days.  I can’t say this enough and so apologize if I have repeated it.

I don’t want to get bogged down in the forms here.  I want this to be a practical guide that focuses on how these situations actually play out.  The items that I have seen that required an additional inspection are:

Heater (“recommend the heater be checked by a qualified HVAC contractor)”

Roof (“recommend that the roof be inspected by a qualified…”

Septic System, Drainage Expert (evidence of water in crawl space or basement, either current or old water line mark), Structural Engineer for foundation cracks, fixes and shifting evidences, electrical, etc…

Generally speaking, an additional inspection involves a very costly item that is not obviously, currently, defective.  When a hot water tank is past its life expectancy, an inspector usually calls for it to be replaced, and not that it be inspected by a specialist.  When a heater or roof is nearing the end of its life expectancy, even if it is currently functioning adequately, the inspector usually calls for an additional inspection by a specialist.

The heater is often easier to deal with than a roof, in my experience.  The inspection cost in most cases is under $100.  I usually call for the specialist to service AND inspect it, as the service cost is about the same as an inspection cost, and includes an inspection.  I need the seller’s permission to service his heater, but I have yet to have a seller object.  If there is nothing wrong with it except that it is old, then a general home warranty that covers many items including the heater, is often part of the resolution to the heater being old.  The specialist will install new filters and note any parts that should be replaced.  Pretty simple stuff.

A roof is harder to deal with for many reasons.  Replacing the roof is not usually part of a home warranty like a heater is.  Some home warranties include leak patch work, some don’t deal with a roof at all, and I have yet to see one cover roof replacement.  Even if a roof is not currently leaking, the first inspector is often calling for a second inspection based primarily on the age factor.  Roof Math = Life Expectancy of that particular roof minus it’s current age.  A 20 year shingle that is 18 year’s old is often worse than a 35 year shingle that is 18 years old.  So age alone is not the issue, nor is currently defective or not defective  the only parameter that needs addressing.

Even if a roof is not leaking, if the 1st inspector says that the buyer should “plan for roof replacement” within 3-5 years, often the buyer wants the seller to address the issue.  Sometimes the buyer wants to STOP after the 1st inspection, and just ask for a new roof or a new heater or generally ask for all items to be replaced or fixed, when they should be moving to the “additional inspection” phase.

How you handle the matter is between you and your agent and the seller and the seller’s agent.  If the roof or the heater is 30 years old, often everyone agrees it needs a new one, even though it is not currently “defective”, without the need for an additional inspection.  But it often takes time to negotiate these things, and having a 2nd inspection gives you additional time and also pinpoints the actual cost involved.  The original inspector may give you a ballpark replacement cost, but a specialist will give you an actual “work order” and a cost the seller is more likely to consider valid.  The seller can then get his own estimate during his response timeframe to counter your request and estimate.

Jumping to asking for a repair based on the original inspector calling for an additional inspection by a specialist, is usually the wrong way to proceed, unless you know the seller is aware of the issue and has already anticipated it.  Sometimes the buyer wants the seller to pay for the additional inspection.  The contract indicates that the buyer pays for the additional inspection.  The seller should pay for any subsequent inspections that are needed for his counter proposal.  Say you submit a request for $17,000 for a new roof.  The seller would pay the cost for an additional inspection to counter with a different amount, attaching the work order from a different specialist.  He has a timeframe to respond in the original inpsection addendum as well.

There is no one right answer except TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.  If you don’t want the house even if the seller fixed the problem, then you can cancel without calling for an additional inspection.  But if you still want the house as long as the seller adequately address a specific item, buy yourself that extra time to negotiate, by calling for and doing an additional inspection.