Posted by Traci/MD on 6/30/09 9:14am
Msg #294025
Read This Report
From: "MLTA" <[e-mail address]>
To: "MLTA" <[e-mail address]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:24:50 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: MLTA President's Message-Commission to Study the Title Insurance Industry
The Commission to Study the Title Insurance Industry in Maryland was established in 2008 to make recommendations to the Governor with respect to proposed legislation relating to the title industry. At the hearing on Thursday, July 25, 2009 in Annapolis, the fourth in a series of five open meetings, the Commission heard testimony from 9 title industry professionals and an attorney representing a public interest legal group. Although advertised as an invitation to the public to speak out with any issues or concerns they may have had, no consumers actually showed up. Interesting?? By comparison, approximately 40 to 50 title professions were in attendance for the hearing.
Some of the issues that were discussed are as follows:
There was testimony which suggested that only Attorneys should conduct closings, as the lines get blurred between giving descriptive information versus legal advice.
Several witnesses brought up the “Money Store” fraud case.
There was discussion of the new bonding legislation. Testimony included witnesses on both sides of the fence; some who believed it was raised too high at $150,000.00 and could put some small businesses at risk, while others thought it should be raised to $500,000.00.
Darlene Arnold, Assistant Chief Enforcement officer for the MIA, spoke about the breakdown of complaints received by the Administration. She reported that of the 392 complaints received thus far this year, 245 were “title insurance” related. Of these 245 complaints, 106 alleged violations of trust requirements, 92 related to surety and fidelity bond issues, 13 alleged the failure to record documents in a timely manner, 12 claimed the illegal disbursement of funds from escrow accounts, and 10 alleged instances of failure to pay property taxes. Many witnesses who testified after Darlene were looking for a more detailed breakdown of the complaints.
There were numerous witnesses who discussed the distinction between licensed insurance producers and pure “notary closers”. All of the TIPICs who spoke raised the concern that they were playing by the rules, while unlicensed closers continue to be utilized by some settlement providers:
1. One recommended the notary section on documents should require the closings agent’s license number be added so it is known that the closing is conducted by a licensed individual.
2. National Lenders and settlement providers are utilizing notaries rather than licensed closing agents to conduct closings.
3. Banks are causing the problems at the settlement table, not the closing agents.
4. Independent closers are suffering from some of the national banks hiring them to do closings and then not paying.
5. Borrowers should be fingerprinted at settlement to prevent fraud.
Some miscellaneous comments from the various witnesses included:
1. MIA should be auditing agents not just when they have complaints.
2. Underwriters should be required to report when they cancel an agent.
3. Yearly audit should be filed with the MIA (like VA CRESPA type model)
4. It was suggested the MIA should give a detailed breakdown of complaints.
5. It was suggested that closing packages should be to closing agents 24 to 72 hours in advance.
6. The Commissioners had many questions with respect to the cost of title insurance versus the amount paid out by the industry in claims each year.
The American Land Title Association was generous in sending its Director of Government Affairs, Justin Ailes, to testify as to the national perspective. Justin utilized some of the materials previously presented to the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner on May 28th. He also offered this advice:
If legislation comes out as a result of the Commission’s proceedings, it will be more successful if it has agreement from the title industry.
The Title Industry Consumer Initiative adopted by ALTA and MLTA is designed for improving consumer education and protection.
ALTA, in conjunction with MLTA, is willing to come to the offices of the MIA and present its “Title 101” class to help educate our regulators.
Thank you, to all of our members who showed up at the hearing to show support for our industry. A special thanks to Justin Ailes and ALTA for stepping up to the plate and helping members of our Association realize the importance of our national representation. ALTA urges representative of the Maryland Land Title Association to bring consumers to the final hearing to share success stories on how the industry solved title issues to help a transaction close, either during the process or at the closing table.
The next hearing is scheduled for July 16, In Baltimore. (details to follow as the become available)
Roberta L. Schneider, AVP and Agency Representative
Certified Land Title Professional
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
51 Monroe Street, Suite 100
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Mobile: (301) 385-4230
Phone: (301) 340-2150 Fax: (301) 340-0729
Email: [e-mail address]
Web Site: md.fntic.com
From: "MLTA" <[e-mail address]>
To: "MLTA" <[e-mail address]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:24:50 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: MLTA President's Message-Commission to Study the Title Insurance Industry
The Commission to Study the Title Insurance Industry in Maryland was established in 2008 to make recommendations to the Governor with respect to proposed legislation relating to the title industry. At the hearing on Thursday, July 25, 2009 in Annapolis, the fourth in a series of five open meetings, the Commission heard testimony from 9 title industry professionals and an attorney representing a public interest legal group. Although advertised as an invitation to the public to speak out with any issues or concerns they may have had, no consumers actually showed up. Interesting?? By comparison, approximately 40 to 50 title professions were in attendance for the hearing.
Some of the issues that were discussed are as follows:
There was testimony which suggested that only Attorneys should conduct closings, as the lines get blurred between giving descriptive information versus legal advice.
Several witnesses brought up the “Money Store” fraud case.
There was discussion of the new bonding legislation. Testimony included witnesses on both sides of the fence; some who believed it was raised too high at $150,000.00 and could put some small businesses at risk, while others thought it should be raised to $500,000.00.
Darlene Arnold, Assistant Chief Enforcement officer for the MIA, spoke about the breakdown of complaints received by the Administration. She reported that of the 392 complaints received thus far this year, 245 were “title insurance” related. Of these 245 complaints, 106 alleged violations of trust requirements, 92 related to surety and fidelity bond issues, 13 alleged the failure to record documents in a timely manner, 12 claimed the illegal disbursement of funds from escrow accounts, and 10 alleged instances of failure to pay property taxes. Many witnesses who testified after Darlene were looking for a more detailed breakdown of the complaints.
There were numerous witnesses who discussed the distinction between licensed insurance producers and pure “notary closers”. All of the TIPICs who spoke raised the concern that they were playing by the rules, while unlicensed closers continue to be utilized by some settlement providers:
1. One recommended the notary section on documents should require the closings agent’s license number be added so it is known that the closing is conducted by a licensed individual.
2. National Lenders and settlement providers are utilizing notaries rather than licensed closing agents to conduct closings.
3. Banks are causing the problems at the settlement table, not the closing agents.
4. Independent closers are suffering from some of the national banks hiring them to do closings and then not paying.
5. Borrowers should be fingerprinted at settlement to prevent fraud.
Some miscellaneous comments from the various witnesses included:
1. MIA should be auditing agents not just when they have complaints.
2. Underwriters should be required to report when they cancel an agent.
3. Yearly audit should be filed with the MIA (like VA CRESPA type model)
4. It was suggested the MIA should give a detailed breakdown of complaints.
5. It was suggested that closing packages should be to closing agents 24 to 72 hours in advance.
6. The Commissioners had many questions with respect to the cost of title insurance versus the amount paid out by the industry in claims each year.
The American Land Title Association was generous in sending its Director of Government Affairs, Justin Ailes, to testify as to the national perspective. Justin utilized some of the materials previously presented to the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner on May 28th. He also offered this advice:
If legislation comes out as a result of the Commission’s proceedings, it will be more successful if it has agreement from the title industry.
The Title Industry Consumer Initiative adopted by ALTA and MLTA is designed for improving consumer education and protection.
ALTA, in conjunction with MLTA, is willing to come to the offices of the MIA and present its “Title 101” class to help educate our regulators.
Thank you, to all of our members who showed up at the hearing to show support for our industry. A special thanks to Justin Ailes and ALTA for stepping up to the plate and helping members of our Association realize the importance of our national representation. ALTA urges representative of the Maryland Land Title Association to bring consumers to the final hearing to share success stories on how the industry solved title issues to help a transaction close, either during the process or at the closing table.
The next hearing is scheduled for July 16, In Baltimore. (details to follow as the become available)
Roberta L. Schneider, AVP and Agency Representative
Certified Land Title Professional
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
51 Monroe Street, Suite 100
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Mobile: (301) 385-4230
Phone: (301) 340-2150 Fax: (301) 340-0729
Email: [e-mail address]
Web Site: md.fntic.com
|
