There is nothing quite like going through a mortgage settlement to get a fresh perspective on compliance, regulatory burden, and paperwork in general.
If the bank has a mortgage on a farm, and the mortgage states "That it secures future loans to the borrower"-how do the flood determination rules apply? For example, if the borrower comes in and takes out a 60-day single-pay note. Do we have to do a new flood determination or check the accuracy of the existing flood determination we did when the mortgage was established?
Congress didn't carry out all of its responsibilities before adjourning in 2002.
I have two questions regarding RESPA issues related to indirect home improvement financing. First, we are paying a broker - who is not an employee of the bank - for signing up contractors to submit credit applications on their customers to us. Since most of these loans are secured by a mortgage on a primary residence and we are paying the broker a percentage of total loan volume generated, how do we treat this with respect to the Good Faith Estimate and HUD-1A? Secondly, since we require hazard insurance coverage from an insurer chosen by the borrower, is it not permissible under RESPA to provide only an estimate of the annual hazard insurance cost on both the GFE and HUD-1A forms? We are being told that the GFE can reflect an estimate, but that the HUD-1A must be the actual annual premium amount being paid by a given borrower. This presents a problem, in that, since the program is indirect, we do not know what the actual premium cost is for any given borrower and , therefore, use an estimated cost amount on both documents. Are we in compliance?
HUD has published a proposal to make significant changes to the Good Faith Estimate that lenders issue within three days of taking an application. HUD calls this a "simplification" of the GFE.
The FDIC recently completed a compliance examination at our bank. TheCompliance Report of Examination identified significant violations ofRESPA. In the first violation the bank was cited for not detailing thenames, addresses, and telephone numbers of each lender-designatedservice, [Section 3500.7(e)(1)(iii)] and for not describing the natureof any relationship between each and the bank [Section3500.7(e)(1)(ii). In the second violation, the bank was cited forproviding mortgage servicing disclosure statements that did notdisplay the bank's servicing transfer record for the most recent threecalendar years [Section 3500.21(b)(3)(ii)]. Finally, in the thirdviolation, the bank was cited for having five mortgages that containedGood Faith Estimates and HUD-1 or HUD-1A statements that did notreflect an estimate for hazard insurance.I am new to the compliance arena and I have been assigned the task ofcorrecting these violations. Since these mortgage loans are already onthe books, should the bank issue "correct" Good Faith Estimates,Servicing Disclosure Statements, and HUD-1 or HUD-1A's that reflectestimates for hazard insurance? Or should the bank take note of theviolations and not make any corrections because this problem is akinto "closing the barn door after the horse has already left"? Anyrecommendations that you can offer to correct these violations iswelcomed!
If a lender force places hazard insurance, are there any state or federal regulations that the policy and the disclosure letter be sent by certified mail? Are there any court cases which have established a precedent or would leave a lender exposed to litigation if the policy and the disclosure were not sent by certified mail?
Regarding the lender forced-placed hazard insurance, is the lender required by any regulation to insure for loan balance or for current replacement cost. If the lender only insures for loan balance, are there specific disclosures that need to be made to the borrower to relieve the lender of exposure to litigation for not insuring the borrower's equity in the collateral?
Compliance with flood insurance requirements is rapidly becoming one of your most serious compliance problems. This isn't because flood compliance is getting worse.