Respro Hud Anpr Response

8/8/2019 Respro Hud Anpr Response

1/17

Sep tem ber 1, 2010

Regulations DivisionOffic e of Gene ral CounselDepa rtme nt of Housing and Urban Deve lopm ent451 7th Street, S.W.Roo m 10276Washington, D.C. 204100500

RE: Rea l Esta te Set tlement Proc edures Ac t (RESPA): Strengthening and Clarifying RESPA s Req uired Use Prohib ition Ad vanc e Notice o f Prop osed Rulemaking , 24 CFR Pa rt 3500

[Doc ket No . FR5352A01] RIN 2502A178

Dear Sir/ Ma da m:

On beha lf of t he Rea l Esta te Set tlem ent Prov ide rs Co unc il, Inc . (RESPRO), I am submittingc om me nts on the a bo ve-referenc ed Depa rtme nt of Housing and Urba n Developm ent s (HUD)Ad vanc ed Notice of Prop osed Rulem aking (ANPR).

I. Summary of RESPROand Our Comm entsRESPRO is a nat iona l non-profit trade assoc iation of a pproxima tely 175 co mp anies fromthroug hout the residential hom e buying a nd financ ing industry, inc luding real esta tebroker-owners, home builders, mo rtga ge lend ers/ b rokers, title a gents/ underwrite rs, andother sett leme nt service p rov iders (see Ap pend ix for Mem bership List). The b ond tha tunites our mem bers is that they supp ort a federal and stat e regulat ory environm ent tha tpromo tes the delivery of c onvenient, innova tive, and c ost-effic ient settleme nt servic es forhom e b uyers and ow ners through a ffilia ted b usinesses and o the r strate gic a llianc es ac rossindustry lines.

Our me mb ers a lso support a RESPA regulato ry env ironme nt tha t trea ts p roviders amo ngthe various industries equally, regardless of their industry or affiliation. In that respect,RESPROprovides them a forum to neg otiate their differenc es as c om pe titors on issues thatpo tentially c ould fa vor one seg me nt of the housing industry ove r anothe r. 1

RESPRO is aw are tha t ma ny of our home builde r me mb ers have or will subm it c om me nts to

HUD tha t a nswe r spec ific questions in the ANPR about the ir p rac tice s when offe ringc onsume r inc entives on ne w hom es, and , therefore, we w ill defe r to them on the se

1 As an example, RESPROme mb ers in Oc tob er 28, 2002 co mm ents to HUD prop osed tha t HUDrep lace its Single Pac kage ap proac h tow ards RESPA reform w ith a Dual Pac kage ap proa chthat w ould a llow c omp anies to sepa rate ly offer a pa c kage of title/ settlement servic es at o neuniform p rice. While HUD in its 2004 fina l RESPA rule ad op ted som e e leme nts of the Dua lPackag e ap proa c h, it failed to a dop t all of its nec essary elements. HUD withdrew the final rule inMa rch 2004 befo re its pub lic ation.


2/17

questions. In our co mme nts, we w ill rep resent a ll of our me mb ers includ ing hom eb uilders,rea l esta te b rokers, and other sett leme nt service p roviders tha t ofte n offe r ince ntives toc onsumers who p urcha se the ir a ffilia ted service s by respond ing to questions asked byHUD reg a rd ing the ge nera l issue of c onsumer ince ntives and a ffilia ted businesses.

II. RESPROs Position on Consume r Incen tivesRESPROhas long sup ported a d efinition o f req uired use und er RESPA tha t wo uld a llowproviders in all seg me nts of the hom e b uying a nd fina nc ing industries to o ffer voluntary,genuine incentives to consumers who purchase their affiliated settlement services.

In 1992, we strong ly sup ported a final reg ulation p ub lished by HUD on No vem ber 2, 1992tha t esta b lished the first regulato ry framew ork for affiliate d businesses und er RESPA. Thisreg ulation ad op ted the c urrent d efinition of req uired use , which c larifies that d iscounts,rebates, or other incentives offered by providers to consumers who purchase their affiliatedsett leme nt services a re no t a "req uired use" (and therefo re allowa b le) as long as theaffiliated services be ing referred a re op tional (e.g., they d on t have to b e p urc hased ), aslong a s all services are sep a rate ly ava ilab le at pric es ge nerally ava ilab le from thatp rovider, and as long as the inc ent ive is genu ine -- me aning it is not offset b y increa singprice s of o the r services in the t ransac tion.

As part o f a mo re c om prehe nsive Ma rc h 14, 2008 RESPA reg ulation, HUD p rop osed tomo d ify this longstand ing de finition o f req uired use in orde r to b an incent ives offered b yany provider to c onsumers who p urcha se its a ffilia ted sett leme nt services, with one na rrowexception.

RESPROstrong ly ob jec ted to this Sec tion of HUD s p roposed RESPA rule in our June 12,2008 reg ulatory com me nts to HUD be c ause it (1) wo uld have p rohibited ma ny consume rincentives offered b y homeb uilders and rea l estate brokers in tod ay s ma rketplac e tha tprovide consumers with lower costs and/or better service 2; (2) was based onunsubstantiated a nd a nec do tal evide nce ab out allege d a buses; (3) attem pte d to

address violations tha t a lrea dy are p roh ibited und er RESPA, and (4) was based on a ninac curate rea ding of a nti-trust law s.3

RESPROa lso e xpressed its ob jec tions to this p rop osed rev ised definition of req uired usein a m eet ing with offic ials at t he Office o f Manag em ent a nd Budge t (OMB) during its finalreview of HUDs draft Final Rule, and in testimony before the U.S. House of RepresentativesSubc om mittee on Ove rsight a nd Investigat ions of the Com mittee on Financ ial Servic es at

2 HUD propo sed to c rea te a narrow exemp tion for The offering by a settlem ent service p rovider ofan o ptional co mb ination of bo na fide settlement servic es to a bo rrowe r at a total pric e lower than

the sum of the prices of the individua l settleme nt services. See 73 Fed . Reg . 14056. As RESPROpointed out in its June 12, 2008 com ments to HUD, this excep tion wa s so narrowly drafte d tha t thepropo sed de finition o f req uired use would have totally prohibited anyonefrom offering any typeof c onsume r incentive for the purc hase o f affiliated mortgag e, title, or other settlem ent servic es.

3 RESPROalso provided information to correct the record with regard to HUDs Regulatory ImpactAna lysis d isc ussion o f Reve rse C om petition , Refe rra l Fee s, and Co ntrolled Businesses, which westated wa s so outd ate d, inco mp lete, and inac c urate that we que stioned whether it rec eivedad eq uate Dep artmenta l review before being pub lished.


3/17

its hearing on HUDs proposed RESPA rule.4 Through our comm ents to HUD, mee tings, andCong ressiona l testimony, RESPROexplained the rea sons why o ur rea l estate b roker andhom eb uilder me mb ers offer c onsume r inc entives and w e provided c onc rete examp les ofincentive p rog ram s tha t provided tangible b enefits to o ur me mb ers c ustom ers.

HUDs fina l RESPA rule a llow ed sett leme nt service p roviders to c ont inue to offe r inc ent ives

for the purcha se o f affiliate d services. For example, unde r HUDs final rule it would not b e areq uired use for a rea l esta te b roker wh ich is a sett leme nt service p rovider -- to o ffer anince ntive suc h a s a $500 Low es Gift Ce rtific a te to c onsume rs who c hoo ses to use itsaffiliated mortgag e o r tit le c om pa ny.

How eve r, HUDs final rule com pletely prohib ited non-sett leme nt service p rov iders (e.g.,homebuilders) from offering any inc entive to c onsume rs who use their affiliate d settleme ntservices, even an incent ive tha t is op tiona l, positive, a nd c lea rly genuine. RESPROob jec ted to this final rule in Ap ril 9, 2009 com me nts to HUD for a va riety o f rea sons,including the fac t that the rule w as ba sed on b iased and unsubstantiated evidence ab outthe a lleg ed problems and prac tice s in the ma rketplac e..

III. Consumer Incentives in Tod ay s Marketplac eOver the last two d ec ade s, hom eb uilders5 and rea l esta te b rokerage firms6 increasinglyhave rec og nized the va lue o f assuring tha t ea c h transac tion is do ne a s quickly andeffic iently as possible by a n a ffiliat ed c om pany tha t they own o r pa rtially ow n.

A home builders or rea l estate brokerage firm s affilia ted mo rtga ge and settleme nt servic ebusinesses a re a ble to c ond uc t transac tions with greate r efficiency be cause the y oftenhave integrated platforms that a llow them and their affiliate d c omp anies to c omm unic atewith each o ther, resulting in a q uicker c losing p roc ess. The buyers names, ad dresses,telephone numb ers, the na me and ad dress of the lende r, the p rop erty ad dress, the sellersnam es, and the d ate and plac e o f the c losing a re typ es of informa tion w hic h allsett leme nt service p rov iders req uire to rend er their services. Having the informa tion

ava ilab le on a c omm on platform reduce s the time to co mp lete the transac tion andred uc es the likelihood that errors will be ma de b y sep arate entries on d ifferent c om pute rsystems.

4 Testimony of RESPRObe fore the U.S. House o f Rep resenta tives Subc om mittee on GovernmentOversight , Sep temb er 16, 2008.

5 In 2004, all of the top ten ho mebuilders had affiliated mo rtgag e a nd title b usinesses. The to p 11 to150 hom eb uilde rs had increased their pa rtic ipa tion in the m ortga ge business from 59% in 1999 to76% in 2004, and ha d increased the ir participa tion in the title business from 38% in 1999 to 83% in2004. Signific ant Cha nge s Found and Expec ted in the Way Houses are Bought and Sold, by

Weston Edwa rds & Assoc iate s (Ma rch 2004).

6 Of the top 350 rea lty firms in the c ountry, 88% offe red mo rtga ges in 2004 versus 72% in 1999. Themo st signific ant jump wa s am ong the sma ller firms (the top 251 to 350), whose p articipa tion we ntfrom 56% perc ent to 87%). The top 50 rea lty firms increased the ir partic ipa tion in the title insuranc ebusiness from 59% in 1999 to 69% in 2004 and in o the r c losing servic es from 16% to 4%. The smallerfirms (the top 251 to 350) increa sed the ir partic ipa tion in the title insuranc e b usiness from 24% in1999 to 55% in 2004, and in other closing services from 2% to 16%. Signific ant Cha nge s Found andExpec ted in the Wa y Houses are Bought and Sold, by Weston Edwa rds & Assoc iate s (Ma rch 2004).


4/17

If a mo rtgage or title servic e issue a rises, a ho meb uilder or rea l esta te b roker is better ab leto use its a ffiliated set tlem ent service b usinesses to resolve tho se issues in an exped ientma nner bette r than an unaffilia ted c om pany w ith whic h it has no p revious relationship.

The va lue o f their affilia ted mo rtga ge and/ or title or other settleme nt service c om pa nieshave only inc rea sed in toda ys housing m arket, as an inc rea sing num ber of mortga ge

originato rs have fa iled and as hom eb uilde rs and rea l estate b rokers have rec og nized theincreased imp ortanc e o f using their affiliate d mortgag e a nd title c omp anies to g et e ac htransac tion to c losing . RESPROme mb ers have rep orted a significantly inc rea sed numb erof transac tions in the p ipeline tha t lost their funding b ec ause the mo rtga ge or titlec om pa ny used by the c onsumer in the transac tion ha d c losed its doo rs. In ea ch case,they had to b ring the ir affiliated mo rtga ge and title co mp anies in to c lose the transac tion.7

Hom eb uilders have a dd itiona l risks if the buyer do es not use the ir a ffilia ted p rovider or at aminimum, a preferred provide r that c ould be an o utside provide r who ha s de dica tedpe rsonne l working with the builde r. A builder could c om mit hundreds of thousand s ofdolla rs for ea ch hom e on a c ontrac t offer that is usually ba cked b y two things: a sma llea rnest mo ney dep osit and a preq ualific at ion letter from a lend er sta ting the buyersc red itworthiness. The ea rnest mo nies c annot in most c ases service a builders deb tincurred during c onstruc tion if the b uyer fa ils to c om plete the p urc hase. Preq ualific ationletters do nt conta in a p ena lty for misstate me nt or misrep resenta tion on the pa rt of thelende r, nor ca n they make a llowa nces for cha nge s in a buyers c irc umstances during theoften lengthy c onstruc tion proc ess.

If the buyer end s up not m aking the p urcha se, if the c losing is signific antly de layedbe cause the mortgage originat ors stat em ents reg arding the b uyers ab ility to comp letethe transac tion p rove incorrec t, or if the m ortga ge originat or has go ne o ut o f business, thec onsume r could suffer financ ially and e mo tionally bec ause of the p otential nee d forstorag e, temp orary housing, and / or an add itional move . The home builder also would losesignific ant am ounts of money in the form o f ca rried c onstruc tion co sts that wo uld nee d t obe pa ssed on to othe r c onsume rs.

IV. The Costs of Affilia ted Versus Una ffiliate d BusinessesHUD asks if there is ev idenc e tha t c onsumers who use a ffilia ted lenders pay highe r ra tes ofinterest o r higher c losing c osts tha n tho se tha t use una ffilia ted lenders.

RESPROc omme nds HUD for spe c ifica lly asking for emp irica l evidenc e o n the c osts ofa ffilia ted versus una ffilia ted mo rtgage loa ns. This is a fa r mo re thoughtful approa chtowards rulem aking tha n it took in its Ma rch 14, 2008 proposed RESPA rule, whe n itatte mp ted to justify a to tal ban on c onsume r incentives by referring to a n unsupp orted

7 This is reinforce d in a Decem be r 2007 nationa l survey of 2400 rea l esta te a ge nts by Ca mp be ll

Comm unica tions on ho w the c urrent housing ma rket ha s affec ted their business. The a ge ntsrep orted that more tha n one -third of hom e p urc hase transac tions over the last three mo nths hadeither be en p ostpo ned or failed d ue to a tightening of und erwriting stand ards and the eliminationof ma ny previously pop ular mortga ge prog rams. Significa ntly, ap proximate ly 40% of thosesurveyed indic ated that they have mod ified the ir mortga ge rec omm end ation prac tic es in light ofthe ong oing shakeup in the mo rtga ge industry. The mo st co mmo n c hang e wa s to mo re freq uentlyrec omm end their rea l estate brokers preferred mortga ge c omp any. How Agents View LenderRelationships in Stressed Markets , Ca mp be ll Com munications (www.campbellsurveys.com),Dec emb er 2007.


5/17

sta tistic p rovided by the Na tiona l Assoc iation o f Mortga ge Brokers (NAMB) whichrep resents c omp anies that co mp ete ag ainst hom eb uilde r-based mortgag e c omp anies --tha t their loa n rates we re % highe r than those offered by unaffilia ted c ompanies.8

Neve rthe less, it would have b ee n extreme ly d ifficult if not impossible befo re HUDsSep tem be r 1, 2010 c om me nt dea d line to quantify with any stat istica l validity the mortga ge

orig ination c osts of a ffilia ted versus una ffilia ted loans, for two rea sons.

First, mo rtgage o riginat ion c osts a re unlike title and c losing c osts, which a re gene ra lly fixedfees or pe rcenta ge s tied to the va lue of the hom e. Instea d, mortga ge o rigination c ostsvary ac cording to ba sed on the c red itworthiness of the bo rrow er and the interest ratema rket as of the day the loa n is loc ked. It would be extrem ely d iffic ult to ac c urate lyc om pa re mu ltiple borrow ers m ortgage origination p rices without also b eing able toc ontrol for differenc es in c red itwo rthiness and the t iming of w hen the y locked their ra te.

Sec ond , until HUDs new HUD-1 Sett leme nt Sta tem ent took e ffec t on Janua ry 1, 2010, therewa s no d oc umented informa tion o n final mo rtga ge origination c osts, whic h ma de itvirtually impo ssible b efore tha t time to eve n ob tain evide nc e o f affiliat ed versusuna ffiliate d final m ortgage origination c osts of a ny sc ale, outside of p ublished rat es tha ttypically are the rates ava ilab le to the m ost c red itworthy bo rrow er for ce rtain loanproducts.9

With rega rd to whe ther consume rs who use affilia ted title/ settleme nt servic e p roviders payhigher c losing c osts, we offer two studies by indep end ent ec ono mists tha t c onc lusivelyde mo nstrate that title and title-related c osts of a ffilia ted businesses whic h ha ve a lwa ysbe en disc losed on the HUD-1 Settleme nt Stat em ent -- are c om pe titive to those o funa ffiliated businesses.10

The la test econom ic stud y, pe rformed by The Ca pAna lysis Group , Inc . in 2006, ana lyzedove r 2200 HUD-1 Sett leme nt Sta tem ents from transac tions c onduc ted in nine sta tes(Alab ama , Illinois, Ma ryland , Mic higa n, Minnesota , North Ca rolina, Ohio, Sout h Ca rolina

and Virginia ) in 2003 and 2005.11 The study c onc luded that title p rem iums and title-related

8 Reg ulatory Impa c t Analysis ac c om pa nying HUDs March 14, 2008 propo sed Rea l Esta te Settleme ntProc ed ures Ac t (RESPA) rule .

9 Even though the ne w HUD-1 Sett leme nt Sta tem ent s includ e informa tion on the inte rest rate , it stilllacks c omp lete informa tion a bo ut the mo rtga ge loa n (e.g., it do es not include the c red it sc ore ofthe ap plica nt).

10 While these stud ies we re c om missioned by RESPROand used data supp lied by RESPROmem be rs, they were performed by indep end ent ec onom ic firms that used industry-acc ep tedp rac tices in the c ollec tion and a ssessme nt of empirica l da ta . No RESPROsta ff p erson o r RESPRO

mem be r reviewed the a c c umulative d ata c ollec ted from HUD-1 Settlement Statem ents or hadinput into the study c onc lusions. The d ata c ollec ted wa s from RESPROmem be rs be ca use theyhad c ustome rs who p urc hased bo thaffiliated and una ffilia ted title a nd t itle-relate d services, whichena bled them to c ollec t enoug h da ta o n bo th types of transac tions to d evelop statistic ally validconclusions.

11Affiliated Business Arrang em ent s and Their Effec ts on Residentia l Rea l Esta te, The Ca pAna lysisGroup , Inc . (2006). The stat es from w hich the da ta were co llec ted we re c hosen be c ause they hadno laws or reg ulations tha t signific ant ly restric ted affiliated businesses during the time pe riod s of thestudy (2003 and 2005), and be c ause there was eno ugh o fa RESPROmember presence in those


6/17

settlement closing charges are not higher when affiliated business arrangements areinvolved c ompared to whe n they are not; and tha t the growth o f affiliate d b usinesses hasprovided pro-co mp etitive b ene fits to c onsume rs, suc h as the c onvenience of one stopshop p ing, mo re a c counta bility or c ontrol ove r the transac tion, be tter service, and grea terspe ed in c losing the transac tion.

The o ther ec onom ic stud y on the costs of a ffilia ted versus una ffilia ted title a nd title-rela tedc osts wa s performed by the inde pend ent e c onom ic c onsulting firm o f Lexec on, Inc . in1994. Lexec on found tha t title and title-related services for transac tions performed bya ffiliated title c ompanies in seven states Florida , Minnesota , Tennessee , Wisc onsin,Mississipp i, Pennsylvania, a nd Ca lifornia we re com pet itive w ith those p rovided byuna ffilia ted title c om panies.12

Significantly, HUD no ted in an Econo mic Ana lysis ac c om panying a 1996 fina l RESPAreg ulation tha t the Lexecon Study wa s ac tually biased againstaffiliated businesses.Spec ific a lly, HUD sa id:

HUD is aware o f only one stud y tha t com pares p rice s of sett leme nt servic es p rovidedby affilia ted a nd non-a ffiliated firms. RESPRO, an assoc iation of c ont rolled businesses,com missioned a study b y an indep end ent c ontrac tor, Lexec on, Inc ... [The study m aybe] b iased in favo r of the una ffilia ted firms. Therefo re, the [stud y] results might suggestthat a ffiliat ed firms on a verage ha ve low er pric es than their c om petitors. 13 (Emphasisadded) .

RESPROwo uld b e g lad to p rov ide these stud ies in their ent irety to HUD at its req uest.

V. The A ffilia ted Business Disc losures Imp ac t on the Consumers Ability to ShopHUD a sks two questions about the c urren tly-req uired RESPA Affilia ted Business Disc losure,wh ich a nyone who refers business to a n a ffilia ted sett leme nt service p rovider is req uired tobe provide to the bo rrowe r at or before the time of a ny referral and to o bta in a written

ac knowledg ment of rece ipt:

(1) Whet her there is da ta on the e xtent to which the c urrent a ffilia ted business d isc losureenc ourages c onsume rs to c om pa rison shop with nona ffiliat ed servic e p rovide rs be foresigning contracts; and

(2) Whet her the a ffilia ted business d isc losure can be imp rove d t o inform c onsumers ofthe a dva ntag es and disad vanta ge s of a ffiliate d lend ing p rac tic es.

RESPRO is not a wa re o f any spe c ific da ta tha t has be en d eveloped on the extent towh ich the a ffilia ted business d isc losure enc ourage s c onsumers to c om parison shop. Infac t, any d ata c ollec ted be fore HUDs new Go od Fa ith Estima te (GFE) and HUD-1

sta tes to a ssure a reasona ble d a ta samp le.

12 Ec onom ic Ana lysis of Restric tions on Dive rsified Rea l Esta te Servic es Provid ers, Lexec on, Inc . (1995).

13 HUDs Reg ulato ry Imp ac t Ana lysis ac c om panying HUDs June 7, 1996 fina l Rea l Esta te Set tlementProc ed ures Ac t (RESPA) regulation go verning a ffiliate d b usiness arrangem ents.


7/17

Settleme nt Sta tem ent b ec am e e ffect ive o n January 1, 2010 whe ther on a ffiliated oruna ffiliate d businesses -- wo uld now be o utdate d in view of the fac t tha t HUDs prima rypurpose fo r develop ing these new RESPA d isc losures wa s to help consumers betterunde rstand their loan te rms so tha t they c an shop mo re e ffec tively14. Specifically, HUDsnew RESPA reg ulation (1) req uired tha t the G FE d isc lose, for the first time, the costsassoc iated with the o riginat ion of the m ortgage loan; (2) req uired that the G FE be

provided to p otential borrow ers within three business days of the taking of a mo rtga geap plica tion; (3) identified for the c onsume r the p eriod of time in which the terms of tha tpa rticula r GFE are a va ilab le, which c an be no less tha n ten b usiness days from when it isprovided ; and (4) restruc tured the HUD-1 Settleme nt Stat em ent to ma ke c om pa risonsbetw ee n the G FE and the HUD-1 simp ler so tha t borrow ers c an more ea sily de terminewhe ther the final charges on t he HUD-1 are the sam e or different than as disc losed on theGFE.

With rega rd to the conte nt o f the a ffiliated business d isc losure, HUD requires in its RESPAreg ulations tha t a p erson w ho refers business to a n a ffilia ted com pany sta tes the fo llow ing,in ca p ital letters:

THERE ARE FREQUENTLY OTHER PROVIDERS WHO OFFER THE SAME SERVICES, AND YOUSHOULD SHOP AROUND TO SEE THAT YOU ARE GETTING THE BEST SERVICES AT THE BESTRATES.

Significantly, this d isc losure is not p rovided to borrow ers who a re refe rred to una ffilia tedsettlem ent service p roviders, even if tha t p rovider is a fa mily me mb er or friend or even iftha t p rov ider is acc ep ting things of va lue tha t a re illeg a l unde r RESPA.

We d o be lieve , howe ver, tha t the foreg oing lang uage in the affilia ted business d isc losurecreates a perception that the person referring business is guaranteeing that his/herc om pany has the b est ra tes or the be st services. In rea lity, borrow ers nee d to make avariety o f dec isions whe n c hoo sing their loan p rod uc t sand settleme nt services and oftenc hoose not to a c c ep t a service for a lowe r rate o r c hoose to a c c ep t a higher rate for

ad ditional servic es or co nveniences. As long a s the b orrow er is aw a re tha t they c an shopand have the informa tion need ed for effec tive co mp arison shop p ing, this should b ea llow ed . The refore, RESPRObe lieves that this langua ge should b e c hang ed to say thefollowing:

THERE ARE FREQUENTLY OTHER PROVIDERS WHO OFFER THE SAME SERVICES, AND YOUSHOULD SHOP AROUND TO SEE THAT YOU ARE GETTING THE SERVICES AND RATES THATARE MOST SUITABLE FOR YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES.

VI. State a nd Loc al ExperienceHUD spe c ific ally asks for informa tion on sta te and loca l reg ula tions reg a rding prac tices

tha t stee r consumers to o verp riced sett leme nt service p roviders, as well as p rov ideinformation ab out suc cessful and unsuc cessful me ans of preve nting suc h ab use. It thenasks wha t the imp ac t of sta te a nd loc a l reg ulat ory enforce me nt in this area .

14See HUD New s Relea se, HUD Proposes Mo rtga ge Refo rm to Help Refo rm to Help c onsumers Bett erUnd ersta nd The ir Loa n, Shop for Lowe r Co sts (Ma rch 14, 2008) and HUD New s Release, HUD IssuesNew Mortgag e Rules to Help Consume rs Shop for Low er Co st Home Loa ns (Novem be r 12, 2008).


8/17

Given tha t the ANPR spe c ific ally is foc used on req uired use and on home bu ilderince ntives, we are c on fused by the vaguene ss of this question a nd trust tha t HUD is notassuming tha t ho me builder ince ntives or a ffilia ted businesses a re per se prac tic es thatsteer consumers to ove rp rice d sett leme nt service p roviders , since , as d isc ussed above , allem pirica l evidenc e to da te ha s dem onstrate d that c osts of a ffiliate d businesses are

c om pet itive with tho se o f una ffiliated businesses. However, since RESPROhas mo nitoredthe sta te reg ulato ry environm ent go verning a ffilia ted businesses for almo st twent y yea rs,we w ill p rovide a n ove rview o f sta te regulato ry histo ry and current req uirem ents in thisarea.

A. State Reg ulation of Homebuilder IncentivesTo our knowledg e, no stat e ha s ad op ted legislation or reg ulations tha t spe c ifica llyrestric t hom eb uilders from offe ring ince ntives to b orrow ers who p urcha se a ffilia tedmo rtg age and sett leme nt service p rod uc ts beyond the c urrent restric tions in RESPAand HUD RESPA regula tions.15 Leg islation and / or reg ulat ions that wo uld imp ose suchrestric tions have b ee n prop osed in a hand ful of sta tes p rima rily at the request ofmo rtgag e b rokers who c om pe te w ith hom eb uilde r-affiliate d businesses but havebe en rejecte d whe n op ponents of the p rop osal po inted o ut that RESPA a nd HUDRESPA regulations req uire t ha t a ll ince ntives offe red to consumers for the purcha se o faffiliated business be voluntary and ge nuine.

Rec ently, howeve r, the North Ca rolina Offic e o f the Com missioner of Banks (NCCO B)and several homeb uilde r-affiliate d mo rtga ge c omp anies nego tiate d a Letter ofAgreement in whic h the NCCOB ag reed to replace a propo sed reg ulation ba nningall homebuilde r incentives for the p urc hase o f affiliat ed mo rtga ge loans with aprop osed reg ulation with limita tions on the a mo unt and type s of inc entives that c anbe o ffered . This Let te r of Ag reem ent is d iscussed further below in Sec tion VII.

B. State Reg ulation of A ffiliated Title BusinessesBec ause t he prima ry regulation o f the title industry ha s been at the state level, mo ststa te law s go verning a ffilia ted businesses have go verned a ffilia ted title businesses.

When home builders, rea l estate b rokerage c om pa nies, and mo rtga ge lend ersexpanded the ir p resenc e in the title industry in the ea rly 1980s, their una ffilia tedc om petito rs were suc cessful in c onv incing seve ra l sta te leg islatures and reg ulato rs toad op t pe rc entag e c ap law s that restricte d the a mo unt of business that a titlec om pa ny could rec eive from a n affiliat ed rea l estate b rokerage firm, home builder,mo rtgag e lend er, or other settlement service p rovide r.

These sta te p ercentag e c ap restrictions we re d esigned by the c om pe titors of

a ffilia ted businesses either to d rive a ffilia ted title o perat ions out of t heir sta tes -- whic h

15Some states have ad op ted so-ca lled anti-induc eme nt laws/ reg ulations that p revent rea l estatebrokers/ ag ents from offering induc em ents or reb a tes to c onsume rs. These law s have b eenc onsistently op po sed by the Depa rtment of Justice and the Fed eral Trade Co mm ission. For asumm ary of these laws, see the Dep artme nt of Justice s Comp etition and Rea l Esta te web pa geat http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/real_estate/states_map.htm.


9/17

they o ften d id to the de triment o f consume rs in those stat es16 -- or to cap ture asignificant portion of the ir business. The c aps we re a rb itra rily and a rtific ial,disreg arding w hether a title c om pa ny provide d leg itima te a nd c om pe titive title a ndtitle-related services to the public.

As the a c tual and po tential be nefits of a ffilia ted title businesses be came mo re w ell-

known, this pe rce ntag e c ap a pp roa c h lost favor am ong fed eral and statereg ulato rs to less a rb itra ry and less anti-c om petitive me thods of regu lating a ffilia tedbusinesses.

In 1983, the U.S. House o f Rep resenta tives Banking Co mm ittee rejec ted anam end me nt to RESPA a dvoc ate d by c om petitors of a ffiliat ed title b usinesses thatwo uld ha ve p rohibited settleme nt servic e p rovide rs from rec eiving mo re than 20% oftheir gross revenues from affiliates. In a voice vote , the Co mm ittee vote d in favor ofan am end me nt o ffered by Congressma n Barney Frank (D-MA) tha t w ould strike thepe rc enta ge c ap restriction in the d raft leg islation and rep lac e it with the threea ffilia ted business req uirem ents (disc losure, no required use, no p rohib ited payme nts)tha t still is the law tod ay.

Afte r extensive testimony and d iscussion c onc erning a ffilia ted title b usinessarrang em ents during its 1993-1995 review of the Mo del Title Insurers Ac t a nd Mo delTitle Insuranc e Ag enc y Ac t, the Nat iona l Assoc iation o f Insuranc e C om missioners(NAIC) Title Insuranc e Working Group de c ided to d rop its forme r rec om me nda tion ofa 20% c ap on the amo unt of g ross revenues that a title insurer or age ncy c ouldrec eive from an a ffiliat e, and instea d to p resent it as an op tional state reg ulat oryap p roa ch along with two o ther options: (1) a sta te law mo de led a fter RESPA tha treq uires d isc losure of the financ ial inte rest, no req uired use, and no p ayme ntsotherwise p roh ibited und er RESPA; or (2) a req uirem ent tha t a ll title a ge nts to bebonded , sa tisfy training c riteria , and / or c arry errors and om issions insuranc e.

Since tha t time, individua l sta te leg islatures and reg ulato rs have fa vored a less

arbitrary and artific ial ap proa c h tow a rds reg ula tion in this a rea . Ove r the last seve ralyears, legislatures or regulators in Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts,Mississipp i, Mo nta na , North Ca rolina, North Da kota , Rhod e Island , Sout h Da kota , andVirginia ha ve rep ea led their percentag e c ap limitations.17 In 2007, the Kansaslegislature a me nde d its law to increase the am ount o f business a t itle a ge nc y canob ta in from an a ffilia ted business from 30% to 80%18, and in 2009 held he arings onpropo sed legislation to e liminate the pe rc entag e c ap altogether.

16 In a 1992 stud y on the c osts of a ffiliate d title b usinesses in the Minnesota-St. Paul, Minnea polisma rketp lac e, Anton Ec ono mics, Inc . also resea rched t itle a nd c losing rates in Wichita C ounty,Kansas before a nd a fter the effec tive da te of a 1989 Kansas law (w hich took effec t in 1992) that

plac ed a 20% c ap on the am ount of b usiness that title a ge ncies c ould ob tain from affiliatedbusinesses, whic h c aused a ll real estat e b roker-owne d title c om pa nies in Kansas to shut d ow n.Anto n Ec ono mics found tha t the two largest una ffiliat ed title c om pa nies in Wichita County raisedtheir rat es 50-60% in the next ra te filing afte r the effec tive date of the A c t, dep end ing on theservice.

172007 Survey of State Affiliated Business Laws(RESPRO).

18 Id.


10/17

Over the last few yea rs, two sta tes have rejec ted prop osed legislation promo ted byunaffiliated title a ge ncies to p lac e a pe rc entag e c ap on the a mo unt of business atitle a ge nc y could ob tain from affiliates, c hoosing instea d to e nac t a law p roviding itwith the ab ility to m ore effec tively enforce HUDs Sha m Joint Venture Guide lines.19 In2006, the C olorad o legisla ture rejec ted legislation p rom oted by una ffiliate d titleag enc ies to p lac e a pe rce ntag e c ap on the a mount of b usiness a title a ge ncy c ould

ob ta in from affilia tes, c hoo sing instea d to e nac t a law p roviding it with the ability tomo re effec tively enforce HUDs Sham Joint Venture Guidelines.20 In 2007, the Oh ioDepartment o f Insuranc e c hose to rejec t a d ra ft reg ulation to low er the amo unt ofvoting stoc k that a p rohibited p a rty (e.g., a rea l estate broker, develop er, mo rtga georiginato r) co uld ow n in a sta te-lic ensed title ag enc y in favo r of a regulation tha two uld incorpo ra te HUDs Sham Joint Vent ure Guidelines into Oh io title regulations.21

C. State Reg ulation of A ffiliated Mortga ge BusinessesWhether affiliat ed or not, all mo rtga ge brokers and loa n offic ers are c overed by thefed eral Sec ure and Fa ir Enforcem ent for Mortgage Lice nsing Ac t o f 2008 (SAFE Ac t),which req uired all 50 state s within one yea r from the d ate of ena c tment to p ass

legislation req uiring the lic ensure o f mo rtga ge loan o rigina tors ac c ording to nat ionalstand ards and the p artic ipa tion o f state ag enc ies on the Nationwide Mortgag eLice nsing System and Reg istry (NMLS). The SAFE Ac t was designe d to enha nc ec onsumer protec tion and red uc e fraud through the setting of minimum standa rds forthe licensing and reg istra tion of a ll mo rtga ge loan, a ffiliate d or unaffiliat ed

VII. Bene fits From One -Stop Shopp ingHUD asks whether there is any wa y to q uantify the bene fit to ho me buyers of one-stopshop ping, and whe ther there is any evidenc e tha t hom eb uyers de rive g rea ter bene fit fromone -stop shop ping than from com pa rison shop ping fo r the b est loan te rms andsett leme nt costs.

Onceag ain, we que stion the te rminology used in HUDs que stion since the fa c t tha t ahome buyer chose the be nefits of one-stop shopp ing d oes not me an that the home buyerd id no t c om pa rison shop or that they d id not g et the b est loa n terms and settleme nt rate s.

Nevertheless, one of the be st w ays to q uantify the b ene fit to hom e buye rs of o ne-stopshop p ing is throug h surveys of p otential and rec ent hom e buye rs.

The most d eta iled survey of home buyers and one -stop shop p ing tha t RESPRO is aw a re o fwa s performed by Harris Inte rac tive (the parent of Ha rris Polls) for Murray Consulting in2002. In an on-line survey o f 2052 rec ent and future ho meb uyers, Harris Inte rac tive firstasked the rec ent ho me buyers whe ther they p urc hased c ertain servic es (rea l estate ,mo rtgag e, title, hom e insuranc e, home inspe c tion, and hom e warranty) from one source

or from multip le sources, and t hen sep ara tely asked how sa tisfied they were w ith theove rall hom e p urc hase transac tion and with how sat isfied they w ere with ea c h service

192007 Survey of State Affiliated Business Laws, Real Estate Services Providers Council (RESPRO).

202007 Survey of State Affiliated Business Laws, Real Estate Services Providers Council (RESPRO).

21 Id.


11/17

rec eived . The survey found tha t hom eb uyers who had used one -stop shop ping ha d amo re satisfac tory experienc e not only with their overall hom e purcha se expe rienc e (71 vs.64%), but a lso in all of t he individua l service a rea s.22

In 2008, Harris Inte rac tive c onduc ted a na tiona l survey of over 2000 hom e b uyersnat ionwide o n beha lf of the Na tional Assoc iation of Rea ltors (NAR). It c onc lude d tha t 93%

of hom e buyers w ould c onsider using a simp lified , one -stop shop p ing proc ess eitherstrong ly, som ew hat , or a little and that the b igge st perce ived advanta ge s are savingmo ney be cause of d iscounte d p ric es (77%), inc rea sed effic ienc y and m anag ea bility(73%), co nvenienc e (73%) and things not falling throug h the c rac ks (73%). Harris Inte rac tivealso found that hom e b uyers who used one -stop shop ping in their latest real esta tetransac tion are more satisfied with their hom e b uying expe rience and a re m ore likely toprefe r a ffilia ted services, and tha t one-stop shoppers were more sa tisfied w ith their ove rallexpe rience than those w ho used multiple sources.23

HUD and the Fed eral Trade C om mission (FTC) a lso have rec og nized the bene fits of o ne-stop shopp ing tha t affiliate d b usinesses p rovide . HUD has ma de the fo llow ing sta teme ntsc onc erning the bene fits of a ffilia ted businesses and one -stop shop ping:

[T]here is som e rea son to expec t tha t referrals am ong a ffiliat ed firms may red uc ec osts to b usinesses and c onsumers. Businesses may be nefit from low er ma rket ingc osts and the a bility to share informa tion on the hom e p urchase o r refinanc ingamo ng sett leme nt service p roviders. In the long run, any cost savings should bepassed on to c onsumers in mo st cases. Co nsumers ma y be nefit ad d itiona lly fromred uc ed shop ping t ime and related hassles.24

Controlled business a rrang em ents and so-ca lled one -stop shop ping ma y offerc onsume rs signific ant bene fits inc luding reduc ing time , co mp lexity, and c ostsassoc iated with sett leme nts.25

The sta ff of the Fed eral Trade Co mm ission s Bureau of C onsumer Prote c tion, Bureau of

Ec ono mic s, and Office o f Policy Planning (FTC sta ff) po inted out t o HUD during a rec entRESPA rulem aking t ha t c onsumer inc ent ives c an lowe r hom e p urcha se c osts forconsumers:

Bund ling related services can c rea te e ffic ienc ies in lowe r the c osts of p rov idingthose services, and d isc ounting the bund le a llow s consumers to pay less for theservices. Indee d, HUD rec og nizes the p otent ial be nefits of b und ling , andapp rop riately reta ins a safe -harbo r to a llow settleme nt service bund ling.26

22 Co nsume r Perspec tives on Rea lty-Based One -Stop Shopp ing , Murray Consulting, Ap ril 2002.RESPROca n provide HUD a c op y upon reque st.

23One-Stop Shop ping Co nsume r Preferences, Harris Interactive, February 2008.

24 HUDs Reg ulatory Impa c t Ana lysis ac c om panying HUDs June 7, 1996 fina l Rea l Esta te Set tlementProc ed ures Ac t (RESPA) regulation go verning a ffiliate d b usiness arrangem ents.

25 HUDs July 21, 1994 p roposed Rea l Esta te Settleme nt Proc ed ures Ac t (RESPA) regulation, 59 Fed.Reg. 37360.

26 Comm ents of the Sta ff of the Bureau o f Consumer Protec tion, Bureau o f Ec ono mics, and Office o fPolicy Planning of the Fed era l Trad e C om mission, pa ge 30 (June 11, 2008).


12/17

VIII. How Incentives and Disincentives Might Be Treated by HUD

HUD req uests c om me nts on the rela tionship b etw ee n inc ent ives to use a n affiliate dsettlem ent service p rovider and d isince ntives or pe na lties for using a nonaffilia tedsettleme nt service p rovide r, and how incentives and disinc entives might b e treate d in a ny

new regulation.

As we sta ted in our June 12, 2008 and Ap ril 9, 2009 co mments to HUD, RESPROdo es notbelieve tha t it is nec essary to restric t incent ives to hom eb uyers for the p urcha se o fa ffilia ted mo rtgage and sett leme nt services beyo nd those under HUDs c urrent RESPAregulations, which state that incentives offered by providers to consumers whopurcha se the ir a ffilia ted sett leme nt services a re no t a "req uired use" (and therefo reallowa ble) a s long a s the a ffiliate d services being referred are opt iona l (e.g., they do nthave to be purc hased ), as long a s all servic es are sep arate ly ava ilab le at pric es ge nerallyavailable from tha t p rovide r, and as long a s the incentive is ge nuine -- mea ning it isnot offset by increa sing p rice s of o the r services in the t ransac tion. These reg ulations, ifenforce d e ffec tively, wo uld prevent any ab uses involving the o ffering o f home buyerincentives in tod ay s ma rketplac e w ithout p reventing ho me bu ilders and rea l esta tebrokerag e firms from offering inc entives that are g enuine, that lea ve the consumer withthe c hoice o f his/ her mortga ge and / or tit le p rovider, and tha t c an g ive the c onsumermo neta ry bene fits or be tter service if they c hoose the a ffiliate d provider.

If HUD do es c hoo se to proc eed w ith a p rop osed rule m od ifying t he req uired usedefinition und er RESPA, we believe tha t it shou ld c onsider as a possible b aseline a July 2010Lette r Agreeme nt betw een the No rth Ca rolina Offic e o f the Com missioner of Banks(NCCOB) and seve ra l home builder-a ffiliat ed mo rtga ge lende rs (Lend ers) tha t w asnego tiated after the NCCOB prop osed a rule that, if ad op ted , would have prohibited theoffering of any inc entive b y a bu ilder in excha nge for the use o f its affilia ted lende r.

In this Lette r Agreeme nt, the NCCOB agreed to withdraw its p rop osed p rohibition on

hom eb uilder incentives and to prop ose a revised rule that would:

Limit the tota l ag gregate inc entive provided by the home builder for the use of ana ffilia ted lender to 3% of the final sa les p rice ; and

Limit the ince ntive(s) to the pa yment o f rea sona ble a nd bo na fide c losing c osts andto the p ayment o f bo na fide d isc ount p oints (interest rate buydowns).

The ne w rule w ould p rohib it home builders from tying home sa les p ric es or upg rades to theuse o f the a ffiliate d lende r, and w ould require tha t any homeb uilder incentives for thepurcha se o f the hom e b e d isc losed sep a rate ly from any inc entive for the use o f itsmo rtga ge lender.

Co up led w ith the c urren t RESPA reg ulat ions governing c onsumer incen tives, RESPRObelieves tha t the sta ndards set fo rth in this Letter Agreeme nt would level the p laying fieldamong providers who o ffer inc ent ives to b uyers of new a nd e xisting home s while stillallowing them to o ffer voluntary, ge nuine ince ntives tha t tang ibly be nefit the home buye r.

In ad d ition, we recom me nd one o ther c hang e to the req uired use de finition. Currently,the d efinition ap p rop riately state s that a c onsume r is not c onsidered t o b e req uired touse a particu lar sett leme nt service if the c onsumer is not paying for the service . This is


13/17

based on the p rem ise t ha t if pe rson refe rring b usiness pays for the service or p rov ides a freeservice , he/ she shou ld be a b le to choo se the service . In ma ny situations, howe ver,providers a re w illing or only ab le to p ay for the d om inant share o f a servic e (e.g., asitua tion in which a provider is willing to pa y for an o wne r s title po licy a nd give theborrow er a d iscounted simultaneo us issue rate on the lender po lic y). It is c urrent ly notc lea r tha t whe n a pe rson o ffers to p ay for the d om inant share of a service tha t the

c onsume r who no w has to pay far less than they o therwise could not still c laim they a rebeing req uired to use the service. Therefore, we believe the req uired use de finitionshould b e c larified to state tha t a situat ion in whic h a pe rson p ays the d om inant share of aservices and selec ts tha t service is not a req uired use if the borrow er has the o p tion torejec t the o ffer and p ay for the ent ire servic e a t the no rma l cost.

RESPROap p rec iates the op po rtunity to provide these c om me nts. If you have a ny questions,you can reac h me at [email protected] or at 202-862-2051, Extension 210.

Sincerely

Susan E. Johnson, Esq .Executive Director


14/17

RESPRO Membership List2010

BOARD MEMBERS

Alliant National Title InsuranceCompany

Longmont, CO

American Home ShieldMemphis, TN

Baird & Warner, Inc.Chicago, IL

Bank of AmericaCalabasas, CA

Cornerstone MortgageCompany

Houston, TX

DHI Mortgage CompanyAustin, TX

Eagle Nationwide AbstractCompany

Chadds Ford, PA

F.C. Tucker Company, Inc.Indianapolis, IN

HMS NationalFort Lauderdale, FL

HomeServices of America, Inc.Edina, MN

Howard Hanna FinancialServices

Pittsburgh, PA

Howard Perry & WalstonRealty, Inc.

Raleigh, NC

Hunt Real Estate CorporationWilliamsville, NY

Investors Title InsuranceCompany

Chapel Hill, NCLatter & Blum/CJ Brown

New Orleans, LA

Long & Foster CompaniesChantilly, VA

National Real EstateInformation Services

Pittsburgh, PA

North American Title GroupMiami, FL

Old Republic Home ProtectionCo., Inc.

San Ramon, CA

Old Republic National TitleInsurance

Minneapolis, MNOrange Coast Title Company

Santa Ana, CAProspect Mortgage, LLC

Sherman, CA

Prudential HomeSale ServicesGroup

Lancaster, PA

Prudential Real Estate &Relocation Services

Valhalla, NY

Pulte Financial ServicesBloomfield Hills, MI

RE/MAX Advantage RealtyColumbia, MD

Realogy CorporationParsippany, NJ

Residential Mortgage, LLCMount Pleasant, SC

Shelter Mortgage Company,

LLCBrown Deer, WI

Shorewest RealtorsBrookfield, WI

Sibcy-Cline RealtorsCincinnati, OH

Stewart Title GuarantyCompany

Houston, TX

Tenura Holdings, Inc.Austin, TX

The Trident Group/PrudentialFox & Roach

Devon, PA

Title Alliance, Ltd.Media, PA

Weichert CompaniesMorris Plains, NJ

Wells Fargo Home MortgageDes Moines, IA

William E. Wood andAssociates

Virginia Beach, VA

William Raveis Real EstateSouthport, CT

ZipRealtyEmeryville, CA

GENERAL MEMBERS

2-10 Home Buyers ResaleWarranty

Denver, CO

Advantage Title, Inc.Irvine, CA

American Home BankMountiville, PA

American Mortgage ServiceCompany

Cincinnati, OH

Americlose Group

Media, PA

Associated Capital TitleChampaign, IL

Block 6 Services, LLC /Housemaster


15/17

Bound Brook, NJ

Bonded Title AgencyFreehold, NJ

Burnet Title, Inc.Edina, MN

C.E. Anderson & CompanyRolling Meadows, IL

Century BankSanta Fe, NM

Colonial Valley AbstractCompany

York, PA

Colorado American TitleGlendale, CO

Comey & Shepherd, Inc.Cincinnati, OH

Commerce TitleBaton Rouge, LA

Dragas Mortgage CompanyVirginia Beach, VA

Edward Surovell RealtorsAnn Arbor, MI

Elite Lender Services, Inc.Jacksonville, FL

Equity National Title & ClosingServices, Inc.

Riverside, RI

Equity Settlement Services, IncSmithtown, NY

Fairway MortgageSun Prairie, WI

First Priority Mortgage, Inc.Buffalo, NY

Fiserv Lending SolutionsRocky Hill, CT

Gilpin Mortgage Company/Patterson-Schwartz Real Estate

Wilmington, DE

Heritage Mortgage Services,LLC

Woodmere, OH

Home Security of America, Inc.Cross Plains, WI

IBC BankAustin, TX

Investors Title CompanySt. Louis, MO

K. Hovnanian AmericanMortgage, LLC

Boynton Beach, FL

K. Hovnanian Title Division

Eatontown, NJ

Lakeside Title CompanyColumbia, MD

Lawyers Title of Cincinnati, Inc.Cincinnati, OH

Leading Real Estate Companiesof the World

Chicago, ILLegacy Mortgage

Albuquerque, NM

Lyon Real EstateSacramento, CA

M/I Financial CorporationColumbus, OH

Market Leader, Inc.Kirkland, WA

McColly Real EstateSchererville, IN

MFC Mortgage, Inc. Of FloridaMaitland, FL

Michael Saunders & CompanySarasota, FL

Morreale Real Estate ServicesGlen Ellyn, IL

New American MortgageCharlotte, NC

NM Management, IncAlexandria, VA

Northwest TitleColumbus, OH

Northwood Realty ServicesPittsburgh, PA

PNC Partnership SolutionsCleveland, OH

Preferred TitleMadison, WI

Presidential Bank, FSBBethesda, MD

Primary Land ServicesCommack, NY

Professional Closing Network,Inc.

Pittsburgh, PA

Property Service GroupSoutheast

Knoxville, TN

Prudential Douglas EllimanSouth Huntington, NY

Prudential Preferred RealtyPittsburgh, PA

Prudential Starck RealtorsPalatine, IL

RE/MAX Premier RealtyIrvine, CA

Real Estate OneSouthfield, MI

Regions Insurance Services,Inc.

Memphis, TN

Reli TitleBirmingham, AL

Risk Mitigation GroupArlington, TX

Rose & Womble RealtyCompany, LLC

Virginia Beach, VA

Shaffer Title and Escrow, IncChesapeake, VA

Sheldon, May & Associates, PCRockville Center, NY

Sterling National Corp

Atlanta, GASurety Title Corporation

Marlton, NJ

The Agent Owned Realty Co.Mount Pleasant, SC

The Danberry CompanyToledo, OH

The Detrick CompaniesTulsa, OK

The Group, Inc.Ft. Collins, CO

Title Ventures, LLCChesapeake, VA

Towne Bank Mortgage

Virginia Beach, VAVOI Insurance Solutions, LLC

Sherman Oaks, CA

Walker Title, LLCFairfax, VA

Weidel RealtorsPennington, NJ

Weissman, Nowack, Curry &Wilco, P.C.

Atlanta, GAWendel, Rosen, Black andDean, LLP

Oakland, CA

Westcor Land Title Insurance

Co.Winter Park, FL

Westiminster AbstractAshburn, VA

STATE AFFILIATE MEMBERS

Alliant National Title CompanyLongmont, CO

Alliant National Title CompanyAustin, TX

American Home Title andEscrow Company


16/17

Denver, CO

Bray & CompanyGrand Junction, CO

Castle, Meinhold & Stawiarski,LLC

Denver, CO

Darling Homes, Inc.

Frisco, TXEquity Title Agency, Inc.

Scottsdale, AZ

Equity Title Associates IDenver, CO

Equity Title Associates IIFort Morgan, CO

Equity Title Associates IIIDenver, CO

Equity Title of ColoradoAurora, CO

First National Tile, LLC

Denver, COGuardian Title Agency

Englewood, CO

Integrity Title RecordsHouston, TX

Michelman & Robinson

Santa Ana, CA

Mountain States Title Corp.Denver, CO

National Title LLCDenver, CO

Oakwood Homes, LLCDenver, CO

Randolph-Brooks Federal CreditUnion

Live Oak, TX

Universal Land Title ofColorado

Englewood, CO

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

Alliance Solutions, LLCCincinnati, OH

Blank Rome LLPPhiladelphia, PA

Buckley Sandler LLPWashington, DC

Channel Match Consulting, LLCPlano, TX

ClosingCorpLa Jolla, CA

Corporate ManagementAdvisors

Altamonte Springs, FL

Dickenson Gilroy, LLCAlpharetta, GA

Employee Relocation CouncilArlington, VA

Franzen and Salzano, P.C.Norcross, GA

Gordon & AssociatesLaguna Beach, CA

Holland & Knight, LLPNew York, NY

Joseph CarrollCosta Mesa, CA

K & L GatesWashington, DC

Law Offices of Joseph A.Riccelli

Chicago, IL

Magnuson & BaroneWesterville, OH

Mandrien CorporationCoral Springs, FL

Michigan Bankers AssociationLansing, MI

National Association of HomeBuilders

Washington, DC

New Vista Asset ManagementSan Diego, CA

Ohio Association of Realtors

Columbus, OH

Peirson & Patterson, LLPDallas, TX

Saul Ewing, LLPPrinceton, NJ

Sheppard Mullin Richter &Hampton, LLP

Los Angeles, CA

Shuster Legal Solutions, LLCPalm Beach Gardens, FL

SoftProRaleigh, NC

Sterbcow Law GroupNew Orleans, LA

SunTrust Lender Management,LLC

King William, VA

Virtual Escrow TechnologyTustin, CA

Weiner Brodsky Sidman KiderPC

Washington, DC

Womble Carlyle Sandridge &Rice, PLLC

Greensboro, NC

WHR Group Inc.Pewaukee, WI


17/17

17

Documents

Respro Hud Anpr Response