| Author |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
TransNet
526 Posts |
 Posted - 03/15/2008 : 2:33:42 PM
|
HUD's proposed RESPA reform includes a revision to the definition of "required use" that would prohibit a builder from giving or withholding an incentive to a buyer for using an affiliated service provider such as an affiliated lender or title company.
|
|
LoanPro71
2735 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 2:36:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TransNet
HUD's proposed RESPA reform includes a revision to the definition of "required use" that would prohibit a builder from giving or withholding an incentive to a buyer for using an affiliated service provider such as an affiliated lender or title company.
That's good news. |
|
|
AK__47
747 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 2:39:33 PM
|
| This should have happened a long time ago. |
|
|
KHufford
6019 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 2:44:41 PM
|
Maybe change the title of this to...proposed to outlaw...peopel keep posting this stuff but its not even close to passing!
You dont think these builders have massive lobyists?
|
|
|
charncconsultant
35 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 2:58:23 PM
|
| Certainly, this would be a dream come true for most brokers as being a "preferred lender" with the heavy-hitter builders has simply required deep pockets, i.e. "shared marketing fees", etc., bs *cough* bs. |
|
|
LoanPro71
2735 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 3:01:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by KHufford
Maybe change the title of this to...proposed to outlaw...peopel keep posting this stuff but its not even close to passing!
You dont think these builders have massive lobyists?
Every group of scumbags in America has massive numbers of lobbyists living on the hill. They are parasites, pure and simple.
Let's just hope that the politicians do the right thing and pass this part of RESPA reform into law. |
|
|
TransNet
526 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 3:03:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by KHufford
Maybe change the title of this to...proposed to outlaw...peopel keep posting this stuff but its not even close to passing!
You dont think these builders have massive lobyists?
No, I'm not changing the title.
1. You looked didn't you.
2. The post itself clearly says "HUD's proposed RESPA reform."
3. Lobbyists have nothing to do with this. This change is to Regulations that HUD has the ability to revise without it being "passed" by anyone but HUD. The proposal is in the comment stage and it certainly could change prior to implementation, but it doesn't have to be passed by any elected body. |
|
|
mikkitf
88 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 3:08:06 PM
|
| This would be a dream come true. Although, the builders and their croonies will find a way to get around it in no time. |
|
|
KHufford
6019 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 3:10:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TransNet
quote:
Originally posted by KHufford
Maybe change the title of this to...proposed to outlaw...peopel keep posting this stuff but its not even close to passing!
You dont think these builders have massive lobyists?
No, I'm not changing the title.
1. You looked didn't you.
2. The post itself clearly says "HUD's proposed RESPA reform."
3. Lobbyists have nothing to do with this. This change is to Regulations that HUD has the ability to revise without it being "passed" by anyone but HUD. The proposal is in the comment stage and it certainly could change prior to implementation, but it doesn't have to be passed by any elected body.
Go Harlan, Go Harlan Go, Go Harlan go!
Whats your point? Make the title CATCHY? So people react? Its not Outlawed yet so by posting that you are disseminating false information. There is enough of that on here already.
|
|
|
TransNet
526 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 4:50:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by KHufford
Go Harlan, Go Harlan Go, Go Harlan go!
Whats your point? Make the title CATCHY? So people react? Its not Outlawed yet so by posting that you are disseminating false information. There is enough of that on here already.
Kyle,
I don't mind you pointing out that this is not a done deal. But don't you think you're over-reacting? Why get personal? If I hadn't posted this many, including you, might not be aware that this was included in HUD's proposed RESPA reform. My point was to inform anyone that reads this post that "HUD's proposed RESPA reform includes a revision to the definition of "required use" that would prohibit a builder from giving or withholding an incentive to a buyer for using an affiliated service provider such as an affiliated lender or title company." This is an entirely accurate statement.
BTW, "Financing on the Moon* Coming soon," when will this be available?
Harlan |
|
|
homebroker@sbcgl
3555 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 10:17:21 PM
|
| the only good news for Brokers, if it passed, probably will not! |
|
|
808
2616 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 10:39:52 PM
|
| Toll Brothers & Co vs NAMB???? Sounds like the Red Sox vs the Bad News Bears |
|
|
Mandyvilla
3465 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2008 : 10:45:13 PM
|
FWIW, bring on that piece of legislation. Recently, in RESPA News (yes, it really does exist http://www.respanews.com/ME2/Audiences/Default.asp?AudID=B4AEEE5D1B96484C93BCE54AC594BB0E ) mentioned an investigation to a RESPA violations from a large east coast real estate company w/ a mortgage company. Only, the mortgage company did not do any of the work, the application was originated, processed and closed by the real estate company's mortgage company. The mortgage company paid the joint venture points (for work not earned or of value).
Penalties are fierce. I once remember my employer was once ordered to refund application fees at $125 a pop and it was in the hundreds of thousands. Can you imagine the points paid to this mortgage compay and what a refund would look like? Staggering. |
|
|
ppulatie
2259 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 08:20:54 AM
|
| We will never see that part passed. NAMB will whip out and agree with the builders. |
|
|
Loans4All
1082 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 5:29:45 PM
|
| Good stuff---the incentives offered by builders was the helium that fueled the overinflated balloon... |
|
|
TransNet
526 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 5:42:54 PM
|
As I pointed out above "passed" isn't quite the right description of this process. The RESPA statute was passed by Congress and is law. Congress empowered HUD to be the agency responsible for regulating and enforcing RESPA. HUD has said that this is going to be the new regulation and has published the proposed changes in the Federal Register and we are now in the comment stage.
It is possible that the comments they receive could convince them to change or not even enact the reforms they are proposing. The last time HUD proposed sweeping changes to RESPA regulations the reforms did not get enacted. So just proposing regulatory changes doesn't mean they will definitely be enacted.
But this time is different. They have spent the last few years reviewing their last proposal. And this time they are ready to move forward regardless of industry pressure. In the current political climate that won't be hard to do. Everyone seems to be clambering for reform. So yeah the builders may whine and ***** about this, but they may not have the political clout to do anything about it. And neither will NAMB or the MBA or any other industry group. This time HUD has the upper hand politically.
Here is the link to the proposed regulations reforming RESPA:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20081800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1015.pdf
The section on the change to the definition of "required use" is on page 24 and 25. If you would like to comment on this or any other part of this proposal, HUD would love to hear from you. Here's how to comment:
24 CFR Parts 203 and 3500
[Docket No. FR–5180–P–01]
RIN 2502–AI61
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act(RESPA): Proposed Rule To Simplify
and Improve the Process of Obtaining Mortgages and Reduce Consumer Settlement Costs
Comment Due Date: May 13, 2008.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule. There are two methods for comments to be submitted as public comments and to be included in the public comment docket for this rule. Regardless of the method selected, all submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail.
Comments may be submitted by mail to the
Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0001.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows commenters maximum time to prepare and submit comments, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.
|
|
|
KHufford
6019 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 9:47:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TransNet
quote:
Originally posted by KHufford
Go Harlan, Go Harlan Go, Go Harlan go!
Whats your point? Make the title CATCHY? So people react? Its not Outlawed yet so by posting that you are disseminating false information. There is enough of that on here already.
Kyle,
I don't mind you pointing out that this is not a done deal. But don't you think you're over-reacting? Why get personal? If I hadn't posted this many, including you, might not be aware that this was included in HUD's proposed RESPA reform. My point was to inform anyone that reads this post that "HUD's proposed RESPA reform includes a revision to the definition of "required use" that would prohibit a builder from giving or withholding an incentive to a buyer for using an affiliated service provider such as an affiliated lender or title company." This is an entirely accurate statement.
BTW, "Financing on the Moon* Coming soon," when will this be available?
Harlan
No worries, I appreciate your post as I had not heard of this yet also. Just alot of false in gets posted here so I was pointing out your wording.
|
|
|
DAMS
229 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2008 : 11:42:44 PM
|
| bump |
|
|
| |
Previous Topic | Next Topic |
|
Search for: 
