Posted by Art_MD on 2/17/09 1:22pm
Msg #277770
MD LTP - bond requirement increase possible
Below is copied from an E-mail received from the MDLTA. This change could have a significant cost impact.
The MIA has filed its amendments to SB 86 and, as predicted, they modified
the escrow control language; kept the fidelity/surety bonds at the $250,000 level, and moved the effective date to 10/01/09. While this may be a concession on the MIA's part, it does not go far enough
The "Fiscal and Policy Note" attached to SB 86 states on page 1: " SMALL BUSINESS EFFECT: The Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) has determined that this bill has minimal or no impact on small business (attached). Legislative Services concurs with this assessment as discussed below". After going through a cursory analysis of the bill, page 3 of the Fiscal.. Note states: "SMALL BUSINESS EFFECT: Some title insurance producers may be financially unable to meet the increased bonding requirements and, as a result, be forced to close their businesses"! Which way is it??
The responses to last week's e-mail indicate that the surety bond underwriting may be difficult to obtain in today's economic environment. Some underwriters will require individual net worth of at least the amount of the bond,and may charge premiums in the range of $10 per thousand.
We need you to contact members of the Senate Finance Committee and voice you=
r concerns directly to them. I think it goes without saying that SB 86 ought=
to be referred to the "Task Force to Review the Title Industry" that the Fi=
nance Committee approved last year. Passage of SB 86 will have a negative im=
pact on the title industry and the many small businesses that serve the citi=
zens of Maryland.
=20
Below is the contact information for each member of the Senate Finance Commi=
ttee - please take time to contact them immediately (now that the MIA has fi=
led its amendments, the Committee may be close to voting on the bill):
Written correspondence: Address to the individual senator - c/o Senate Finan=
ce Committee; 3 East, Miller Senate Building; Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: 410-841-3677; 301-858-3677
E-mail:
<mailto:[e-mail address]> Thomas.McLain.Middleton=
[e-mail address] - Chairman
<mailto:John.Astle[e-mail address]> John.Astle[e-mail address] =20=
- Vice Chair
<mailto:George.Della[e-mail address]> George.Della[e-mail address]
<mailto:Nathaniel.Exum[e-mail address]> [e-mail address]=
s
<mailto:Rob.Garagiola[e-mail address]> Rob.Garagiola[e-mail address]
<mailto:Barry.Glassman[e-mail address]> [e-mail address]=
s
<mailto elores.Kelley[e-mail address]> [e-mail address]=
s Co-Chair of Title Insur Task Force
<mailto:Allan.Kittleman[e-mail address]> [e-mail address]=
.us
<mailto:Katherine.Klausmeier[e-mail address]> [e-mail address]=
e.state.md.us
<mailto:E.J.Pipkin[e-mail address]> E.J.Pipkin[e-mail address]
<mailto:Catherine.Pugh[e-mail address]> [e-mail address]=
s
=20
At this point, e-mails and phone calls will be most effective - please do i=
t now!!!
=20
Jim Cosgrove
410-382-8738
|
Reply by MW/VA on 2/17/09 1:42pm
Msg #277774
I've mentioned this before. For those of you who are still members of NNA, I would contact them to see what efforts they are involved in with this. As a reminder, it was their efforts that caused NC to remain a notary signing state.
|
Reply by Alice/MD on 2/17/09 2:34pm
Msg #277786
This increase in bond cost will force me to pass the cost of my bond on to my clients who will in turn, in some cases, seek out non licensed notaries who will charge less. This is already happening and I am sure will continue since there is no enforcement from MIA.
|
