Title Consulting Services (TITL) Increases Its State Licensure: Expands on the US Title Insurance Market

ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA--(Marketwire - Jan. 17, 2011) - Title Consulting Services, Inc. DBA Accu Title Agency (PINK SHEETS:TITL) is excited to announce the continuance of the national expansion by becoming fully licensed in the following states: Alabama, New Jersey, Louisiana, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico.

Dustin Secor, CEO said, "The addition of these states is key to our continued growth and profitability. By being fully licensed in these strategic states, we will be able to increase our revenue with our established client relationships. Broader State Licensure lets us offer quicker response time, resulting in more satisfied clients and customers, and increased market share. It also gives us the competitive advantage in recruiting key personnel, attracting the brightest and the best in our industry with existing client bases, further enhancing our growth."

"We still have the ability to service the remaining states through our workshare agreements, but this licensing is a huge step in becoming a fully independent national title agency," said Tracie Montgomery, Operations Manager.

Mr. Secor also has obtained personal licenses in the following states: Colorado, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, and Arkansas, The personal licenses are prerequisite for the company becoming fully licensed. Title Consulting Services also has pending license applications in the above referenced states.

"Once we complete licensing in these additional states, we will have a great foothold in the most active markets in the country adding to our growth ability," Mr. Secor further commented.

The company intends to release this and other updates shortly.

Safe Harbor Statement

Information in this news release may contain statements about future expectations, plans, prospects or performance of Title Consulting Services, Inc. that constitute forward-looking statements for purposes of the Safe Harbor Provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The words or phrases "can be", "expects", "may affect", "believed", "estimate", "project" and similar words and phrases are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Title Consulting Services, Inc. cautions you that any forward-looking information provided by or on behalf of Title Consulting Services, Inc. is not a guarantee of future performance. None of the information in this press release constitutes or is intended as an offer to sell securities or investment advice of any kind. Title Consulting Services, Inc.'s actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, some of which are beyond Title Consulting Services, Inc.'s control. In addition to those discussed in Title Consulting Services, Inc.'s press releases, public filings, and statements by Title Consulting Services, Inc.'s management, including, but not limited to, Title Consulting Services, Inc.'s estimate of the sufficiency of its existing capital resources, Title Consulting Services, Inc.'s ability to raise additional capital to fund future operations, Title Consulting Services, Inc.'s ability to repay its existing indebtedness, the uncertainties involved in estimating market opportunities, and in identifying contracts which match Title Consulting Services, Inc.'s capability to be awarded contracts. All such forward-looking statements are current only as of the date on which such statements were made. Title Consulting Services, Inc. does not undertake any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which any such statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. 

via marketwire.com

Title Insurance Industry Free Classifieds
New Jersey Title Insurance Linkedin Group

Economically-Stressed States

http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2011011201?OpenDocument

 

Not surprising, four of the top five most direly-economically-stressed states include the four states with worst housing performance:

 

• California
• Arizona
• Nevada
• Florida

 

And the fifth?  Michigan. Again, no surprise.  

 

It’s amazing how well housing market performance in an area correlates to economic health.

 

And the best?  North Dakota (home of the latest energy boom), South Dakota (ditto), Nebraska and Vermont.

 

For the full article go to:

 

http://www.newser.com/article/d9kmp19o0/unemployment-and-foreclosures-push-up-economic-stress-reversing-trend-ap-stress-map-shows.html

 

 

Ted C. Jones, PhD

Title Insurance Industry Free Classifieds
New Jersey Title Insurance Linkedin Group

Aggregate Adjustment on HUD-1

January 8th, 2011 | Author: haidi

In the 1000 series (Reserves Deposited With Lender) of the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, amounts are calculated to be held by the lender for future payment of taxes, insurance and other items. The last line in the section is an accounting adjustment based on the difference between line item and aggregate accounting. It seems that there is a small difference between the results if the items are separately calculated rather than as a group. This adjustment will usually be a negative number. Here’s the language from the HUD document setting forth the calculation:

“(d) Methods of escrow account analysis. Paragraph (c) of this section prescribes acceptable accounting methods. The following sets forth the steps servicers shall use to determine whether their use of an acceptable accounting method conforms with the limitations in Sec. 3500.17(c)(1). The steps set forth in this section derive maximum limits. Servicers may use accounting procedures that result in lower target balances. In particular, servicers may use a cushion less than the permissible cushion or no cushion at all. This section does not require the use of a cushion.
(1) Aggregate analysis. (i) When a servicer uses aggregate analysis in conducting the escrow account analysis, the target balances may not exceed the balances computed according to the following arithmetic operations:
(A) The servicer first projects a trial balance for the account as a whole over the next computation year (a trial running balance). In doing so the servicer assumes that it will make estimated disbursements on or before the earlier of the deadline to take advantage of discounts, if available, or the deadline to avoid a penalty. The servicer does not use pre-accrual on these disbursement dates. The servicer also assumes that the borrower will make monthly payments equal to one-twelfth of the estimated total annual escrow account disbursements.
(B) The servicer then examines the monthly trial balances and adds to the first monthly balance an amount just sufficient to bring the lowest monthly trial balance to zero, and adjusts all other monthly balances accordingly.
(C) The servicer then adds to the monthly balances the permissible cushion. The cushion is two months of the borrower’s escrow payments to the servicer or a lesser amount specified by State law or the mortgage document (net of any increases or decreases because of prior year shortages or surpluses, respectively).
(ii) Lowest monthly balance. Under aggregate analysis, the lowest monthly target balance for the account shall be less than or equal to one-sixth of the estimated total annual escrow account disbursements or a lesser amount specified by State law or the mortgage document. The target balances that the servicer derives using these steps yield the maximum limit for the escrow account. Appendix E to this part illustrates these steps.
(2) Single-item or other non-aggregate analysis method. (i) When a servicer uses single-item analysis or any hybrid accounting method in conducting an escrow account analysis during the phase-in period, the target balances may not exceed the balances computed according to the following arithmetic operations:
(A) The servicer first projects a trial balance for each item over the next computation year (a trial running balance). In doing so the servicer assumes that it will make estimated disbursements on or before the earlier of the deadline to take advantage of discounts, if available, or the deadline to avoid a penalty. The servicer does not use pre-accrual on these disbursement dates. The servicer also assumes that the borrower will make periodic payments equal to one-twelfth of the estimated total annual escrow account disbursements.
(B) The servicer then examines the monthly trial balance for each escrow account item and adds to the first monthly balance for each separate item an amount just sufficient to bring the lowest monthly trial balance for that item to zero, and then adjusts all other monthly balances accordingly.
(C) The servicer then adds the permissible cushion, if any, to the monthly balance for the separate escrow account item. The permissible cushion is two months of escrow payments for the escrow account item (net of any increases or decreases because of prior year shortages or surpluses, respectively) or a lesser amount specified by State law or the mortgage document.
(D) The servicer then examines the balances for each item to make certain that the lowest monthly balance for that item is less than or equal to one-sixth of the estimated total annual escrow account disbursements for that item or a lesser amount specified by State law or the mortgage document.
(ii) In performing an escrow account analysis using single-item analysis, servicers may account for each escrow account item separately, but servicers shall not further divide accounts into sub-accounts, even if the payee of a disbursement requires installment payments. The target balances that the servicer derives using these steps yield the maximum limit for the escrow account. Appendix F to this part illustrates these steps.”

via kmutiara.com

Ok - this is the language from HUD. Can anybody explain "Aggregate Adjustment" in 25 words or less?

Title Insurance Industry Free Classifieds
New Jersey Title Insurance Linkedin Group

Mortgage Industry Gong Show: Hasty Rule-Making Creates More Confusion

Plain and Simple: if you weren't already aware, the CFPB is looking to combine TIL and RESPA disclosures into one document. Home loan disclosures are being redesigned, again! READ MORE

Interesting timing for such a major change isn't it. A necessary evil, but still interesting timing. These updates are moving forward regardless of the fact that no real clarity has been offered on the future of the housing finance mechanism (GSEs). And even more closely related to the disclosure updates themselves, the industry is attempting to reform its entire compensation model right now. How can we expect lenders to interpret and implement new originator compensation models without knowing how the new consumer disclosure package will look? How can we expect lenders to keep the mortgage market competitive if we don't have a clear indication of how loans will be securitized. I can go on and on here...HOW ABOUT THE RISK RETENTION REGS? WHAT IS CONSIDERED A QUALIFIED LOAN?

I don't have a problem with the abundance of reforms that have been outlined for the mortgage industry, but maybe we should approach one major reform at a time to ensure we get the job done right.  Compliance folks can only be spread out so far before their oversight wears thin. 

The final compensation rules are effective April 1,

via mortgagenewsdaily.com

Title Insurance Industry Free Classifieds
New Jersey Title Insurance Linkedin Group

H.R. 6460: To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that... (GovTrack.us)

To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that is assigned to the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or for which MERS is the mortgagee of record.

Overview Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D-OH9](no cosponsors) Cosponsors: Text: Full Text Status: Introduced Nov 30, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee ... House Vote ... Senate Vote ... Signed by President ... This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Dec 2, 2010 6:38AM] Last Action: Nov 30, 2010: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

Question & Answer Have a question about this bill? Submit a short fact-oriented question and see if it will be answered by other visitors. Enter your question. Tips: Be clear and precise. No abbreviations. Don't ask about the status of this bill or when it will be voted on (other users are not likely to know). Don't ask a loaded question or for individual advice: Your question will be rejected. After submitting your question it will be reviewed, and if approved will appear here.

-->

Because the U.S. Congress posts most legislative information online one legislative day after events occur, GovTrack is usually one legislative day behind. For more information about where this data comes from, see About GovTrack.us.

To cite this information, click a citation format for a suggestion: APA | MLA | Wikipedia Template.

H.R. 6460--111th Congress: To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that.... (2010). In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved December 8, 2010, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-6460

"H.R. 6460--111th Congress: To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that...." GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). 2010. December 8, 2010

{{cite web |url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-6460 |title=H.R. 6460 |accessdate=December 8, 2010 |author=111th Congress (2010) |date=Nov 30, 2010 |work=Legislation |publisher=GovTrack.us |quote=To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that... }}

via govtrack.us

The interesting part of this bill for us is section 3:
SEC. 3. HUD STUDY.

(a) Study- The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Comptroller General of the United States, shall conduct a study to analyze and determine--

(1) the impacts of the lack of electronic records and uniform standards found in local land title recordation systems currently used in the various States;

(2) any progress States have made in developing electronic land title recordation systems for their localities that contain uniform standards, and any findings and conclusions and best practices resulting from such development;

(3) the current oversight role of the Federal Government in the transfer and recordation of land titles;

(4) opportunities, and the feasibility of such opportunities, that may be present to leverage progress made by some States and localities to create an electronic land title recordation system, including through--

(A) a system that would maintain all previous records of the land-property without invalidating, interfering with, or preempting State real property law governing the transfer and perfection of land title; and

(B) further actions by the States or by the Federal Government, or coordinated actions of both; and

(5) the feasibility of creating a Federal land title recordation system for property transfers that would maintain all previous records of the land-property without invalidating, interfering with, or preempting State real property law governing the transfer and perfection of land title.

(b) Report- Not later than the expiration of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Comptroller General of the United States, shall submit to the Congress a report on the results and findings of the study conducted under this section.

If the Bill gets out of committee, it will be one to watch.

Title Insurance Industry Free Classifieds
New Jersey Title Insurance Linkedin Group

FEDERAL LAND TITLE SYSTEM?

CHARLENE PERRY's Blog ::

We are all familier with the current land title system wherein the individual States and their respective County clerks are responsible for "keeping the books" on the transfer of real estate in their respective jurisdictions.  

A recently introduced bill will require that HUD study a Federal Land Title System (HR 6460) sponsored by Mary Kaptur (D-OH) which would, if passed, pave the way for a National Torrens System.  The Torrens System is not commonly used in the United States but is used in may parts of Europe.  

What is the difference between the current land title system and the Torrens System? and Why do I Care?

The main difference between a common law title and a Torrens title is that a member of the general community, acting in good faith, can rely on the information on the land register as to the rights and interests of parties recorded there, and act on the basis of that information. A prospective purchaser, for example, is not required to look beyond that record. He or she does not need even to examine the Certificate of Title, the register information being paramount. This contrasts with a common-law title, which is based on the principle that a vendor cannot transfer to a purchaser a greater interest than he or she owns. As with a chain, the seller's title is as good as "the weakest link" of the chain of title. Accordingly, if a vendor's common-law title is defective in any way, so would be the purchaser's title. Hence, it is incumbent on the purchaser to ensure that the vendor's title is beyond question. This may involve both inquiries and an examination of the "chain of title."

via sourceoftitle.com

Title Insurance Industry Free Classifieds
New Jersey Title Insurance Linkedin Group

RESPA FAQ vs. RESPA Roundup I'm VERY confused - Bankers Online

I am still having trouble reconciling the RESPA FAQ to the July RESPA Roundup – this is true even after reading much discussion in these threads.

We are still handling OTI the same way we did it when the new RESPA rules went into effect in January because I was waiting for more clarification - or something - from HUD. This is what we do (which I believe follows instructions in the FAQ):
A) Always put OTI on the GFE for home purchase loans.
B) Put OTI in the borrower’s column on the HUD-1.
C) Show a credit for OTI in the 200 Series and a charge to the seller in the 500 series.
D) The comparison chart contains amounts in the GFE and HUD column for OTI.

Our Software vendor seems to be making changes to comply with the RESPA Roundup which says:
“If the consumer did not purchase a service that was listed on the GFE (usually owner’s title) there should be nothing entered in that line on Page 2 of the HUD-1 and the estimate of the charge should not appear on the comparison chart on Page 3 of the HUD-1.”

1) Is the “consumer” in this case our borrower or does it mean any consumer (seller) associated with the loan?
2) Is HUD saying to show the OTI in the Seller’s column of the HUD-1?
3) Does HUD still expect us to put the OTI on the GFE for a purchase?

We usually pay for the flood determination rather than passing the fee to the consumer. We handle it basically the same way we do the OTI.
•Does this also fall off of the comparison chart now?

What I want to ask is Why? Why? Why? But I know it’s pointless so I won’t.

via bankersonline.com

Taken from the Banker Online Blog.

Title Insurance Industry Free Classifieds
New Jersey Title Insurance Linkedin Group