top
logo


feed-image Feed Entries
Continuity of Coverage After Conveyance of Title
Written by Laufer, J. and Norelli, N. (2010).   

The Florida Association of Realtors has perpetuated the widespread use of the FAR/BAR contract. The title insurance industry and the Florida Bar should have no complaints. The language found in the conveyance section of the FAR/BAR contract states as follows:

"Seller shall convey marketable title to the Real Property by statutory warranty... deed" See FAR/BAR Contract Revised 09/07; FAR/BAR ASIS-2x Rev. 2/08.

The FAR/BAR contract, however, offers no alternative to using a general warranty deed. The FAR/BAR contract is devoid of language which gives parties involved in a real estate transaction the ability to employ the use of a special warranty deed without making specific changes to the printed version of the contract. The use of a general warranty deed could subject a seller to liability beyond the policy limits of any previously issued owner's policy (i.e., continuity of coverage after conveyance) insuring that seller in the event of a lawful title claim against a subsequent purchaser. A special warranty deed, however, warrants the title only with respect to acts of the grantor and the interests of anyone claiming by, through, or under him.

The FAR/BAR contract in its present form would need modification in order to employ the use of a special warranty deed. The only choice the parties really have in the absence of modifying the contract is for the seller to convey by statutory warranty deed. This makes it virtually impossible for buyers and sellers to effectively negotiate with respect to the issue of which type of deed the seller will be using to convey title to the real property. The Florida Association of Realtors has taken the position that any realtor who influences "choice of deed used" in connection with representing buyers and sellers in a real estate transaction would be engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. This might explain the reluctant behavior on the part of the Florida Association of Realtors in not allowing complete choice with respect to alternative methods of conveyance. What seems confusing, however, is that FAR would rather steer buyers and sellers to the use of a given instrument to convey title rather than allow market forces to properly address the issue of type of deed used in conveying title to real property. Does this steering constitute the unlicensed practice of law? Is this an attempt by the FAR/BAR committee to restrict negotiations between buyers and sellers of real property regarding the use of a certain instrument of conveyance?

Real property sellers using a FAR/BAR contract might be concerned with the following:

the use of a general warranty deed could subject a seller to liability beyond the policy limits of any previously issued owner's policy (i.e., continuity of coverage after conveyance) insuring that seller in the event of a lawful title claim against a subsequent purchaser in connection with acts which predate the seller's ownership.

the widespread use of the general warranty deed benefits the title insurance industry in that any title insurance underwriter who issues an owner's policy in connection with a transaction that employed the use of a FAR/BAR contract would hold the seller accountable for the defenses and warranties made in connection with the transfer of title. The title insurance underwriter has a duty to indemnify and defend the insured in the event of a lawful claim. Thus, a seller could, in fact, be liable as a result of unmarketable title in connection with acts which predate the seller's ownership.

the widespread use of the general warranty deed benefits Florida Bar members (the legal community) in that a closing attorney who represents a buyer and issues an owner’s policy could easily argue in favor of buyer in a lawsuit filed against seller in the event of a lawful title claim made against buyer in connection with acts which predate the seller's ownership.

A Florida statutory warranty deed fully warrants the title to the real property and explicitly states that the seller will defend against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. See Sec. 689.02, Fla. Stat.

Pursuant to Florida law, a conveyance executed substantially in the foregoing form shall be held to be a warranty deed with full common-law covenants, and shall just as effectually bind the grantor, and the grantor's heirs, as if said covenants were specifically set out therein. And this form of conveyance when signed by a married woman shall be held to convey whatever interest in the property conveyed which she may possess. Sec 689.03, Fla. Stat.

Certain provisions to consider:

"The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor of an insured only so long as the insured retains an estate or interest" ... "Or only so long as the insured shall have liability by reason of conveyance of warranty made by the insured in any transfer or conveyance of the estate or interest." ALTA Owner's Policy (10-17-92)

"Seller shall convey marketable title to the Real Property by statutory warranty... deed" See FAR/BAR Contract Revised 09/07; FAR/BAR ASIS-2x Rev. 2/08.

"And the said party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever." See Sec.689.02, Fla. Stat. Form of Warranty Deed Prescribed

Hypothetical

You purchase $200,000.00 of owner's title insurance coverage. 5 years later, you sell your home for $600,000.00. You convey title using a Florida statutory warranty deed as defined in Sec.689.02, Fla. Stat. As a result, your exposure with respect to liability in the event of unmarketable title could exceed policy limits of your previously issued owner's policy. The continuous coverage provided in your original owner's policy of $200,000.00 is by virtue of conveyance of warranty made by you, the insured, in your transfer or conveyance of your estate or interest. However, If you chose to convey title by special warranty deed, given the option, the continuous coverage provided in the ALTA owner's policy (ALTA Owner's Policy (10-17-92)) would not apply and you would not be subject to liability predicated on acts prior to your ownership in the absence of fraud.

Nancy Norelli is a Florida lawyer and Jack Laufer is a Florida title agent and real-estate broker.

Disclaimer: Information on this Web site should in no way be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice, you may wish to consult an attorney.

 
HUD Unofficial Staff Interpretation Letter - Marketing/Administrative Services Agreements Used by Real Estate Agents - February of 2008
On August 13, 2009, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) requested a meeting with HUD officials to discuss appropriate guidance from HUD on two important issues that continue to cause confusion for consumers, real estate brokers and real estate agents. The first issue concerns administrative fees and their proper structure and use under Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The second issue concerns RESPA-compliant compensation of real estate brokers and agents by home warranty companies in marketing and sale of home warranty products.
 
HUD Published an Unofficial Staff Interpretation on "Marketing/Administrative Services Agreements Used by Real Estate Agents in February of 2008..
 
Based on HUD's initial response, dated February 21, 2008, It appears that NAR's characterization of the of the purpose of the fee is HUD's problem in recognizing the fee as a RESPA compliant fee. HUD's 2008 letter states as follows:
"characterizing such arrangements as a "marketing' or "administrative" agreements does not render the underlying conduct legal." See 2nd to last paragraph of HUD's Interpretation Letter - Feb. 21, 2008.
The 4th to last paragraph of HUDs interpretation letter, however, indicates that:
"HUDs regulation permit a settlement service provider who is in a position to refer settlement service business, to receive additional compensation for providing additional settlement services, that are actual necessary, and distinct from the primary services provided by that person in a transaction. (24 CFR 3500.14(g)(3))."
Unofficial interpretations are issued by HUD in response to requests for interpretation of matters "not adequately covered … by an official interpretation…. Such interpretations provide no protection under … RESPA." 24 CFR Sec. 3500.4(b). Reliance on rule, regulation, or interpretation by HUD.

§ 3500.14 Prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees.


(a)  Section 8 violation. Any violation of this section is a violation of section 8 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2607) and is subject to enforcement as such under § 3500.19.


(b)  No referral fees. No person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback or other thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or part of a settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person. Any referral of a settlement service is not a compensable service, except as set forth in § 3500.14(g)(1). A business entity (whether or not in an affiliate relationship) may not pay any other business entity or the employees of any other business entity for the referral of settlement service business.


(c)  No split of charges except for actual services performed. No person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed. A charge by a person for which no or nominal services are performed or for which duplicative fees are charged is an unearned fee and violates this section. The source of the payment does not determine whether or not a service is compensable. Nor may the prohibitions of this part be avoided by creating an arrangement wherein the purchaser of services splits the fee.


(d)  Thing of value. This term is broadly defined in section 3(2) of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2602(2)). It includes, without limitation, monies, things, discounts, salaries, commissions, fees, duplicate payments of a charge, stock, dividends, distributions of partnership profits, franchise royalties, credits representing monies that may be paid at a future date, the opportunity to participate in a money-making program, retained or increased earnings, increased equity in a parent or subsidiary entity, special bank deposits or accounts, special or unusual banking terms, services of all types at special or free rates, sales or rentals at special prices or rates, lease or rental payments based in whole or in part on the amount of business referred, trips and payment of another person's expenses, or reduction in credit against an existing obligation. The term "payment" is used throughout §§ 3500.14 and 3500.15 as synonymous with the giving or receiving any "thing of value'' and does not require transfer of money.

(e)  Agreement or understanding. An agreement or understanding for the referral of business incident to or part of a settlement service need not be written or verbalized but may be established by a practice, pattern or course of conduct. When a thing of value is received repeatedly and is connected in any way with the volume or value of the business referred, the receipt of the thing of value is evidence that it is made pursuant to an agreement or understanding for the referral of business.

(f)  Referral--(1) A referral includes any oral or written action directed to a person which has the effect of affirmatively influencing the selection by any person of a provider of a settlement service or business incident to or part of a settlement service when such person will pay for such settlement service or business incident thereto or pay a charge attributable in whole or in part to such settlement service or business.

(2)  A referral also occurs whenever a person paying for a settlement service or business incident thereto is required to use (see § 3500.2, "required use") a particular provider of a settlement service or business incident thereto.


(g)  Fees, salaries, compensation, or other payments. (1) Section 8 of RESPA permits:

(i)  A payment to an attorney at law for services actually rendered;


(ii)  A payment by a title company to its duly appointed agent for services actually performed in the issuance of a policy of title insurance;


(iii)  A payment by a lender to its duly appointed agent or contractor for services actually performed in the origination, processing, or funding of a loan;


(iv)  A payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed;


(v)  A payment pursuant to cooperative brokerage and referral arrangements or agreements between real estate agents and real estate brokers. (The statutory exemption restated in this paragraph refers only to fee divisions within real estate brokerage arrangements when all parties are acting in a real estate brokerage capacity, and has no applicability to any fee arrangements between real estate brokers and mortgage brokers or between mortgage brokers.);


(vi)  Normal promotional and educational activities that are not conditioned on the referral of business and that do not involve the defraying of expenses that otherwise would be incurred by persons in a position to refer settlement services or business incident thereto; or


(vii)  An employer's payment to its own employees for any referral activities.


(2)  The Department may investigate high prices to see if they are the result of a referral fee or a split of a fee. If the payment of a thing of value bears no reasonable relationship to the market value of the goods or services provided, then the excess is not for services or goods actually performed or provided. These facts may be used as evidence of a violation of section 8 and may serve as a basis for a RESPA investigation. High prices standing alone are not proof of a RESPA violation. The value of a referral (i.e., the value of any additional business obtained thereby) is not to be taken into account in determining whether the payment exceeds the reasonable value of such goods, facilities or services. The fact that the transfer of the thing of value does not result in an increase in any charge made by the person giving the thing of value is irrelevant in determining whether the act is prohibited.


(3)  Multiple services. When a person in a position to refer settlement service business, such as an attorney, mortgage lender, real estate broker or agent, or developer or builder, receives a payment for providing additional settlement services as part of a real estate transaction, such payment must be for services that are actual, necessary and distinct from the primary services provided by such person. For example, for an attorney of the buyer or seller to receive compensation as a title agent, the attorney must perform core title agent services (for which liability arises) separate from attorney services, including the evaluation of the title search to determine the insurability of the title, the clearance of underwriting objections, the actual issuance of the policy or policies on behalf of the title
insurance company, and, where customary, issuance of the title commitment, and the conducting of the title search and closing.

(h)  Recordkeeping. Any documents provided pursuant to this section shall be retained for five (5) years from the date of execution.

(i)  Appendix B of this part. Illustrations in Appendix B of this part demonstrate some of the requirements of this section.


[Codified to 24 C.F.R. § 3500.14]


[Section 3500.14 amended at 61 Fed. Reg. 13233, March 26, 1996, effective April 25, 1996; 61 Fed. Reg. 29252, June 7, 1996, effective October 7, 1996; 61 Fed. Reg. 58476, November 15, 1996, effective January 14, 1997]

 
The Florida Butler Rebate

The Butler Rebate refers to a Florida Supreme Court decision in 2000, Chicago Title Insurance Co., et al., Appellants, vs. S. Clark Butler, et al., Appellees. [October 19, 2000] Corrected Opinion PER CURIAM, which gave title insurance agents in Florida the ability to negotiate, or otherwise rebate, the portion of the split title insurance premium retained by them (70% agents/30% underwriter).

In essence, the Butler ruling declares certain anti-rebate statutes in Florida to be unconstitutional to the extent they prohibit a Florida title insurance agent from rebating a portion of the risk rate premium retained by the agent for services rendered (i.e., "Primary Title Services") in connection with the issuance of title insurance policies. See Sec. 627.7711(b) Fla. Stat. Entitlement to any portion of the promulgated rate strictly depends on performance of these primary title services, or as HUD puts it, "core title services".

Read more...
 
Required Use - "Sham" Affiliated Business Arrangements
Written by CyberspaceLawyer.Net   

To ensure a free, competitive market in residential real estate, statutes (primarily the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2607 et seq.) and regulations (such as 24 C.F.R. § 3500.15, concerning Affiliated Business Arrangements) seek to prevent tying arrangements, kickbacks, fee splitting, hidden fees, etc.

Required use (as defined in 24 C.F.R. 3500.2(b))  means a situation in which a person must use a particular provider of a settlement service and pay their fee in order to have access to some distinct service or property, and the person will pay for the settlement service of the particular provider or will pay a charge attributable, in whole or in part, to the settlement service.

Read more...
 
Florida Reissue Rate Class Actions
In November 2003, attorneys for Edward and Annette Hawley ("Plaintiffs") filed a lawsuit against American Pioneer Title Insurance Company ("American Pioneer") in Broward County, Florida, alleging that they were overcharged by a American Pioneer agent for a loan policy issued in connection with a refinance transaction. The lawsuit was titled Edward and Annette Hawly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Pioneer Title Insurance Company, Case Number 03-016234 (11). Plaintiffs sought certification of their lawsuit as a statewide class action. Lawsuits making similar allegations have been filed against every major title insurance underwriter in Florida.
Read more...
 
« StartPrev123NextEnd »

Page 1 of 3

County Appraiser

Florida County Appraiser

Official Records

Florida Official Records

Real Law Central

Consumer real estate news featuring articles on market conditions, hot buying and selling issues and more.

bottom

Powered by CyberspaceLawyer.Net. - Linking Policy - About Us - Contact Us