Reply by Genkichan on 1/10/07 8:28am
Msg #170122
Slight correction...according to the website, her title is "Director, Producer Licensing"...meaning that she is the head of all insurance licensing, not just title licensing.
I suspect once the guidance is issued we'll be getting our premiums refunded effective the date that we each cancel our policy. So, we'll probably end up being out a few bucks but it won't kill us either. And if what you say is true, then I no longer have to worry about meeting Maryland fidelity requirements until and unless I start hiring my own employees/ICs (which I won't). So, the way I see it, it would no longer my problem. It IS the problem of any/all Title Companies who want to operate/close loans via remote closers in Maryland. And I don't see how I would have to prove that I'm covered by each hiring entity, either. It's the Title Co's job to make sure they are following MD law and registering fidelity bonds with the MIA.
For us, this may either be good or bad in the long run. The good is that there are likely to be less signing services calling us, and we'll get more direct TC work. The potential bad is that lenders will start chosing only local MD title companies to handle all their closings, resulting in a switch back to old fashion in-house closings where Title Co.s have notaries on staff and minimize the remote closing activities to save money, given the fact that they now have to cover all fidelity expenses for employees AND ICs... I'm hoping for the former outcome, and fearing the latter. At least with the original interpretation on fidelity bonds, we were able to guarantee our coverage to any hiring entity. Now, we can't make that guarantee.
When you see official MIA publications on this matter, please post. I'll keep my eyes out as well.
|
