Posted by Scriba/NM on 11/17/09 12:45pm
Msg #311256
New HUD-1, HUD-1A, GFE
Starting next year (probably with the same stumbling around that preceded total use of the 1003) the new HUD's and GFE will be hitting the streets, so to speak. If anyone would like a copy of each of the new forms please drop me an email and I will be happy to send them out. I also have a list of FAQ's as well. Total size is about 3 megs. Some title companies are already working on setting them up in their systems, while others are still going...."Huh???" I love this business.
| Reply by OR on 11/17/09 1:10pm
Msg #311261
Re: Thank you Ralph
I just did a quick look at it before I head out the door to a signing. It looks a lot different. Thank you so much for offering it to us. It will be a lot of help to know the docutments before we get them to the table. I will read it all later. Tks again. Have a great day.
| Reply by Brenda/CA on 11/17/09 2:04pm
Msg #311265
Re: Thank you Ralph n/m
| Reply by PAW on 11/17/09 5:24pm
Msg #311290
Available for download at
http://www.pawnotary.com/forms/
| Reply by Roger_OH on 11/17/09 5:36pm
Msg #311297
No longer a "notary fees" line item... n/m
| Reply by John/CT on 11/17/09 5:56pm
Msg #311299
Ah, yes, but too bad there's lots of blank lines to fill in. n/m
| Reply by Rich/PA on 11/17/09 10:09pm
Msg #311333
Re: Ah, yes, but too bad there's lots of blank lines to fill in.
Many thanks. Nice heads up post.
| Reply by MW/VA on 11/17/09 7:09pm
Msg #311307
Re: No longer a "notary fees" line item...
I can see why they did away with the "notary fees" line. From what I've heard it was brought up in several states by the bar association. It's a red flag to see $150 listed as "notary fees".
My concern now is that it appears we cannot be listed on the HUD by name for payment at disbursement. Does anyone have an opinion as to whether we would be listed in Item 1300, Additional Settlement Charges, say on line 1302????
Also, on the 3-page form I've looked at, I don't see a signature line. It could be that the copy I have is a sample form. Does anyone know where the signature goes on the new form?
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/17/09 7:51pm
Msg #311319
Re: No longer a "notary fees" line item...
CA is one of those, actually.
There are cases of entire loans being challenged because of that line alone. In CA, "Notary Fees" cannot exceed $10 a piece... so if you've only got 5 notarizations, yet paid for 15 ($150) there's a real issue there.
That's why my invoices always distinctly note notary fees vs. signing agent fees. They are different services, legally speaking.
| Reply by BobbiCT on 11/18/09 7:39am
Msg #311353
No separatline allowed item for notary services ...
NOT the last word, but an IN SHORT FYI. From a New England presentation given by attorneys and title companies for attorneys preparing the new HUD-1 and those acting as settlement agents:
"Settlement service" and fees like wire, delivery, notary, signing agent, closing agent or attorney services in connection with the closing, title abstracts, e-doc fees, government recording charges, and a host of other items fall into a "total" on Lines 1101 or 1102. What this means for the third-party-vendors within that "bucket": Once the lender provides the GFE to the borrower, the total of all the fees within the "capped bucket" CANNOT increase by more than the 10% tolerance. The federal goal is to "save the consumer money and allow the consumer to shop for the best loan" by having all loan costs fixed at the time the GFE is issued. Very short: depending on circumstances an upwards change in cost from the GFE can stop the closing at the last minute; i.e., a new GFE must be issued, possibly a new TIL, and a WAITING PERIOD must start or the LENDER can decide to "cure" (i.e., the LENDER writes a check to reimburse borrowers for the cost overage within 30 days of closing).
Lenders and mortgage brokers are the most familiar with the changes, as it dramatically effects them and how they do business. There are many still unresolved issues and conflicts (some federal regs conflict and it's not clear which agency will change what).
This new format eliminates the refinancing HUD-1A; we'll be using the same purchase/sale HUD-1 form with nothing in the seller's column. From the attorneys at the top, you will see signature lines on the new HUD-1s. During the next few months you will see a mixture of both formats used; it all depends on the loan origination date. Until pre-existing applications are out of the pipeline, it's also possible to see the OLD system for a first mortgage and the NEW system for a second mortgage at the SAME closing.
| Reply by BobbiCT on 11/18/09 7:49am
Msg #311355
oops ...
Aside from spelling, some of the capped items can be listed on other lines, but not notary public services. They key: they are capped within the 10% tolerance bucket on the GFE.
Consumers can shop for attorneys, title companies, settlement agent services, title insurance, and "signing agents" or "closing agents". If you are NOT on the lender provided list and the consumer shops for you, then you would be outside the "cap." Two unanswered questions that came up: Will the lender, title company or settlement service agree to use your services in lieu of one of their regular, vetted vendors (think security of financial data issues)? What if the consumer chooses a different settlement agent and that agent doesn't have an arrangement with the title insurance company that the consumer choose?
| Reply by parkerc/ME on 11/18/09 8:03am
Msg #311356
Re: New format for HUD-1A also
"This new format eliminates the refinancing HUD-1A; we'll be using the same purchase/sale HUD-1 form with nothing in the seller's column."
There is also a new format for a HUD-1A. So those in the presentation were saying they were not going to use the 2-page HUD-1A ('Optional Form For Transactions Without Sellers') but use the 3-page HUD-1 instead?
| Reply by BobbiCT on 11/18/09 8:59am
Msg #311360
ParkerC - right ...
They were all planning to use the new HUD-1 for any residential transaction.
From around the room comments, it was more the lenders, title companies, settlement companies etc. trying to get the NEW software to generate the new forms up and working ... plus all the database numbers dropping into the correct "buckets" and "individual lines" on the the forms they must go into (or total into) plus adding Red Flag warnings when the 10% cap is popped or the APR changes.
I guess, and I agree, it was more like let's get this interconnected set of forms right on one HUD-1 before we move onto the refinancing. I think it will depend on each company's IT department's speed and audit of the number crunching plus how comfortable and accurate the closers who prepare the HUD forms are as to how quickly you see each form.
| Reply by Cheryl Parker on 11/18/09 9:11am
Msg #311363
Re: ParkerC - right ...
Can see them using the new HUD-1 format for the time being until they get the new HUD-1A format loaded and running, but hope they DO eventually use the HUD-1A format . . and don't just rest on the HUD-1 all the time for re-fi's. Thanks for this heads-up, Bobbi.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/18/09 1:45pm
Msg #311395
Re: No separatline allowed item for notary services ...
I can see where the capped bucket could create some issues for us, or make some more challenging. I'm thinking of situations where the lender makes an error that required a redraw. I had one this week where one borrower's first name was wrong on the entire package. They used the name he always goes by. Everyone has always called him "Hank", but ID says "Seymour". (Fake names, of course. The 1003 was correct.) I couldn't notarize it that way, naturally. [I had confirmed the short notice appt. with the other borrower, including mentioning that whatever name was on the documents (which I didn't yet have) needed to be on the IDs. Hers was fine, his wasn't.]
The need for a redraw caused me to have to reprint everything and have a second trip out there the next day. This kind of thing would naturally go over the 10% tolerance, so I think it will be very interesting to see how they handle these types of situations - especially in the face of a potential rate lock expiration. One of the biggest collection headaches I've had is from LOs or brokers who offer to pay for the second trip themselves...
| Reply by PAW on 11/17/09 8:33pm
Msg #311326
Re: No longer a "notary fees" line item...
>>> My concern now is that it appears we cannot be listed on the HUD by name for payment at disbursement. Does anyone have an opinion as to whether we would be listed in Item 1300, Additional Settlement Charges, say on line 1302???? <<<
There is no reason why we (or anyone else, for that matter) couldn't be listed on the HUD. (Line 1302 is as good as any.) There were many times I was listed on the HUD on a 'miscellaneous' line rather than the "Notary Fee" line. That practice can and should continue.
| Reply by Claudine Osborne on 11/17/09 9:20pm
Msg #311329
Re: Thank you Ralph! n/m
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/18/09 7:06am
Msg #311347
We shouldn't have been on Notary line to begin with ...
That was a ripe-for-misuse line, because "Notary Fees" were to be STRICTLY fees for actual notarizations, and as such were not included in the APR. This carried some pretty nice 'padding margins' for the APR when misused. I might even 'consider' that some settlement agents could sway the bar by having a lot of title docs notarized - to increase the verifiable 'strictly for notarizations' fee enough to cover the entire S/A fee. What is included/excluded from the APR calculation matters a great deal, as it's tied to the calculations of what is/isn't a "high cost" loan (Section 32 calculations). Nutshell: the more you can keep OUT of the APR, the more you can put IN to broker/lender fees.
No big surprise to me that this line is gone.
The two questions in my mind about the reformed docs are whether the S/A fee will make it's way to the "You can shop for" section (which I personally would LOVE to see); and HOW the 10% limit for increases will affect our fee negotiations. This could go two ways - either the GFE reflects a fair working fee for the S/A from the get-go, or it doesn't. Which way it goes (which will likely be by corporate dictate more often than not?) will still depend on how WE react.
| Reply by parkerc/ME on 11/17/09 9:33pm
Msg #311331
Re: No longer a "notary fees" line item...
If you look at the current HUD form on the site, there are no lines for signatures there either. I stumbled across a comment on one site that said that HUD did not require signatures, but lender or TC probably would, and they would add signature lines to it. Don't take for gospel, but that was the comment.
| Reply by parkerc/ME on 11/17/09 9:39pm
Msg #311332
Re: No longer a "notary fees" line item...
Here's the link for the comments I found about signatures on the HUD-1 and HUD-1a
http://www.respaready.com/node/116
|
|
