Posted by DianeCipa on 12/15/07 5:58pm
Msg #226280

Homeownership Preservation and Protection Act of 2007

Here's the summary. I may have missed it here on NotRot but I don't recall a link.

http://banking.senate.gov/_files/121007_HomeownershipSummary.pdf

Reply by Negrete on 12/15/07 6:04pm
Msg #226283

Did the closing go well Diana ?

Did everythig go ok with the outside notary Diana ?

Anthony J Negrete

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/15/07 6:15pm
Msg #226286

Her name is Diane n/m

Reply by Negrete on 12/15/07 6:16pm
Msg #226287

Re: Her name is Diane

Sorry Calinotary.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/15/07 6:22pm
Msg #226289

Re: Her name is Diane

I just figured she was too polite to correct you. Luckily for her, I'm not!

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/15/07 9:03pm
Msg #226304

We have three Diane's in our office.....

and we all answer to any version, but thanks, Cali.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/15/07 9:01pm
Msg #226303

Re: Did the closing go well Diana ?

Hi, Anthony:

We just got the order. The lender is still processing the loan. We hope it closes before year end.

You're used to hearing about a transaction at the end. We still have lots of work to do.

Reply by Calnotary on 12/16/07 9:06am
Msg #226333

Re: Did the closing go well Diana ?

We do not need the middle man in this business. I work for some SS but they pay at least 70% of the signingi fee.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/16/07 9:13am
Msg #226335

middleman

I plan to start looking at the state laws and listings of NSAs in that area this week.

Reply by Carmen/123 on 12/16/07 11:36am
Msg #226345

This caught my eye.....

"No financing of points and fees. The bill prohibits a creditor from directly or indirectly financing any portion of the points, fees or prepayment penalties. These limitations and prohibitions are designed to discourage lenders from “flipping” the mortgage in order to extract additional excessive fees"

The majority of borrowers do not have the cash to pay all the fees, etc upfront. So I am curious how this is going to help anyone or allow for the majority of folk to get a loan?

Carmen

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/16/07 1:04pm
Msg #226351

Thanks for bringing the thread back on track..... ;)

Good eye.....that prohibition is for "high cost" mortgages which would be redefined as:

[Definition of “High Cost” Mortgage. The legislation tightens the definition of a “high cost mortgage” for which certain consumer protections are triggered. The new definition, which amends the “Home Ownership Equity Protection Act,” (HOEPA) is as follows:

• first mortgages with APRs that exceed Treasury securities by eight (8) percentage points (with a range from 6 to 10%);

• second mortgages with APRs that exceed Treasury securities by ten (10) percentage points (with a range of 8 to 12%); or

• mortgages where total points and fees payable by the borrower are five percent (5%) of the total loan amount, or, for smaller loans of less than $20,000, the lesser of eight (8) percentage or $1,000. The bill revises the definition of points and fees to include yield spread premiums and other charges. It allows for up to two bona fide discount points outside of the 5% trigger.]

The hope, I believe, is that most borrowers will use mortgage products that are not "high cost" like the FHA.

The proposed legislation is targeted at predatory mortgage lenders who continue to finance their fees and suck out the equity of the homeowner.

I spoke with Paula Rush the other day. She's an outraged mortgage borrower who is testifying before in numerous hearings and is really trying to make a difference. The mortgage broker who originated her mortgage earned over $19000 on just that one transaction. If she had to pay those fees out of pocket, she would have noticed them, but because they were financed into a mortgage and she was only looking at the monthly payment, she lost much of her equity.

The lawmakers at this point have decided that they have to protect the public from their own poor judgment.

Reply by Joan_OH on 12/16/07 3:00pm
Msg #226360

Ok, I have stayed out of it until now.......

....and will most likely regret posting now, but this statement just takes the cake!!!

"I spoke with Paula Rush the other day. She's an outraged mortgage borrower who is testifying before in numerous hearings and is really trying to make a difference. The mortgage broker who originated her mortgage earned over $19000 on just that one transaction. If she had to pay those fees out of pocket, she would have noticed them, but because they were financed into a mortgage and she was only looking at the monthly payment, she lost much of her equity."

The fact that she was "only looking at the monthly payment" and didn't "notice" the fees on the HUD and/or the loan amount (also on the HUD) ..... and this is who's fault?????? Quite frankly, if this is the whole story, she should be embarrassed to testify. She didn't "lose" her equity - she gave it away and wants to blame someone else.

"The lawmakers at this point have decided that they have to protect the public from their own poor judgment."

....and you can bet the lawmakers are going to make the rest of us $PAY$ for it.


Joan-OH

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/16/07 3:51pm
Msg #226362

Oh yes. They intend to and they will.

The unfortunate consequences of over a decade of mortgage lending anarchy and divorce from ethical and fiduciary duties in most sectors of real property conveyance and finance, is that everybody's gonna pay to put humpty dumpty back together again.

Reply by Philip Johnson on 12/16/07 6:58pm
Msg #226372

Googling this person's name it seems

to imply she was a flipper. If that's so the market turned and she got caught, too bad for her.

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/16/07 7:42pm
Msg #226379

Re: Googling this person's name it seems

Who, Paula? No way. Here's her web site. She's a one woman crusader and a saint in my book.

http://lenderliabilitylaw.com/

Reply by Philip Johnson on 12/16/07 8:36pm
Msg #226401

I guess it depends on what you consider a crusader.

I see a woman who took out a 1% loan in a 7% prime world and then was shocked to find it was an option arm. If it looks to good to be true, it probably is and she got caught not reading her docs.


http://mobile.baltimoresun.com/detail.jsp?key=170590

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/16/07 10:25pm
Msg #226431

Re: I guess it depends on what you consider a crusader.

You're absolutely right Philip. And how's this for an ironic quote?

"Now they are crying foul and I think it is a little absurd for them to say they didn't know."

That's from the website Diane gave the link to. Except it's not referring to the morons who paid $19K for a loan because the initial payment looked good, it's about firms suing lenders for selling them junk loans.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/17/07 6:41am
Msg #226442

Paula Rush also faults the notary...


...the notary has a fiduciary duty...

I am not commenting on whether or not Paula got a bad deal, only on her fingerpointing at the notary...as this is not a bad lending practices forum or blog, this is a NOTARY forum.


"The notary who conducted my settlement did not do his fiduciary duty and explain the documents to me. He barely said a word."

Paula Rush - http://lenderliabilitylaw.com/Chicago_Title.html
===============

Paula Rush - comments on a blog...http://activerain.com/blogsview/57904/New-Century-What-Happened

Her entire story is packed in around this comment. Notice the part about the notary...and that the notary was FORCED on her by the lender. In other words, the notary is another party in cahoots against her.

>>>>>The settlement service notary who was forced on you by the lender comes to your house to do the settlement. No meaningful conversation is conducted. He just says sign here, sign there, while your kids are distracting you screaming in the background.<<<<<

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/16/07 9:02pm
Msg #226414

Re: Thanks for bringing the thread back on track..... ;)

"The lawmakers at this point have decided that they have to protect the public from their own poor judgment."

And like many well-intentioned laws, it will have unintended consequences and hurt some of the kinds of people whom they claim they are trying to protect. In this case, it will be those responsible individuals who DO read their documents and know what they are signing, but may not have extra funds for many reasons.

For example, I refinanced my place years ago while I was "in transition", and before I got established as an NSA. I didn't have the cash available to pay to closing costs, but had a high credit score & high LTV. I was able to reduce my interest rate a full point - to a level lower than what is widely available today - and eliminate PMI. Fortunately, I decided to lock in a fixed rate. It was a great move for me, yet this law would have prohibited it - or I would have had to take out another loan somewhere for the closing costs (if even possible) at no doubt a higher interest rate.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who has ever or will ever fall into this category. This point seems like a bit of overkill. I'd like to think there's another way of accomplishing this without throwing the baby out with the bathwater!