Source of Title Blogs Feed

Who's Minding the Store?

bossman@jbizinfo.com — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:07:43 EST

Well, the 'net is buzzing once again with news of the latest screw-up by Bank of America. Seems that they took possession on the wrong house...again. My question is: how does a thing like this keep happening with the same company over and over again?

This time, it's Angela Iannelli of Gibsonia, PA just north of Pittsburgh who is the victim of BoA's gaffe. But she's not taking things lying down and has filed suit against the bank.

"If you or I did to Bank of America what Bank of America did to my client, we would be in prison for 10 years," says attorney Michael Rosenzweig, a partner at Edgar Snyder & Associates, the law firm which represents Ms. Iannelli.

The suit, filed Monday in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, alleges that the bank's third-party contractor Snyder Property Services of Ebensburg, PA damaged her furniture, cut off the utilities to the house, put dangerous chemicals in the drains and water fixtures, removed Ms. Iannelli's pet parrot and padlocked the house.

According to Attorney Rosenzweig, the contractor "[t]ook her family pet of 10 years and denied any involvement in it for over a week before they finally told her how she could seek retrieval of her pet." She did eventually get her parrot back, but had to drive to Ebensburg, Cambria County some 80 miles away to do so. Ms. Iannelli says that she has always made her payments on time and that her mortgage has never been in default. Under Pennsylvania law, a lender must give a 10-day notice before entry of default and notice of intent to foreclose at least 60 days before any proceedings are initiated.

This isn't the first time Bank of America has pulled a stunt like this. Similar cases in Florida and Texas have resulted in a spate of lawsuits against the mortgage giant, which recently took ownership of Countrywide Financial. One guy whose home was wrongfully siezed doesn't even have a mortgage with BoA.

I could see this happening in an isolated incident, after all, with all the foreclosure activity taking place, someone was bound to get careless. But my question is how does a thing like this keep happening over and over again, and with the same lender? Who at Bank of America is responsible for seeing to it that proper procedure is being followed? A little due diligence on the part of the contractor could have gone a long way toward avoiding a lot of hassles for Ms. Iannelli and the others as well. Maybe I'm thinking too much like a researcher, but it seems to me that a trip to the local courthouse to verify the defaulting borrower's name and address could have prevented this from happening. For its part, BoA says it's "sincerely sorry" for the mixup and says it has "zero tolerance for this kind of error."

Yeah, and as Dr. Phil would say, "how's that workin' for ya?"

MARYLAND GROUND RENT

CHARLENE PERRY — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:30:11 EST

Maryland Ground rent rules relating to non payment

For those of you not based in one of the few states in which ground rent is applicable you will likely not have a clue what I am talking about here, but the gist of this is that I thought that as of September 30, 2010, if the ground rent owner has not filed their information relating to ground rents that they own with our local state department of assessments and taxation (SDAT) their ground rent will be extinguished and the property would then revert to a fee simple ownership.

For those of us here in Maryland that would mean that we would no longer have to take an escrow from the seller equal to ground rent payments for 3 years as well as a $500.00 legal fee escrow; so for example, if the ground rent is $120.00/year, we have to hold $860.00 from the seller at closing, IF the seller is unable to provide us the name and address of the ground rent owner so that we can determine whether or not the ground rent is paid current. AND we have to hold that escrow for 3 years.

As you might imagine, that is an accounting nightmare for those of us working in Maryland on properties that are subject to this ground rent. Every month I have to go through my escrow account to see if I am holding any monies that need to be refunded, then I have to try to find what was my seller at the time, etc...

Anyway, the statute I am referring to (Real Property Article § 3-102(a), 8-107, 8-701 to 8-709 (2007 Supplement) would mean that if the ground rent owner has not registered their ground rents then they would be subject to losing their right to file a lien, get back rents, etc.

I thought that this statute was just going to phase in but I have now been advised that the ground rent owners have filed a class action law suit alleging that the taking of their lien rights is a taking of their property and that they would be owed damages. If they are not paid damages then the situation becomes a constitutional issue- the taking of property without compensation.

So, I will stay tuned to this issue and keep you all informed.

As always, I thank you for your interest in my rants and ravings.

Charlene

Nationwide Systemic Records Errors Exposed

William Pattison — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:10:48 EST

A previously-unknown problem affecting counties nationwide has come to light in recent days. Estimates range from millions of records to hundreds of thousands of records mis-indexed due to failures in computer programs bought from commercial firms with taxpayer dollars.

On Monday, March 8^th, a document in San Mateo County was missing from the search results on a landowners' name. A reconveyance which did appear, showed a reference to a 2001 mortgage. The mortgage did not appear on the search results. When the document number, as reference on the reconveyance, was pulled up directly by it's serial number in the county computer, it showed the man's name. The spelling on the mortgage was correct. Furthermore, the spelling of the man's name on the county index appeared to be correct as well.

The astute researcher will then ask how it could be that the index appeared to be typed correctly for the man's name connected to the document, but then the document did not display when the name was searched. The answer to this is a minor, technical detail about the indexing, but one with major repercussions for the public and the firms relying thereupon.

Upon receiving the mortgage in 2001, a Recorders Office staffer typed the name into the computer database. However, having typed the last name, he or she tabbed over to the next input field which would have been the “first name here” box on their screen. Therein, they proceeded to type the first name, but accidentally put a blank space as the first “letter” thereof.

As anyone with a D- or higer in 5^th grade will know from having studied basic alphabetical and numerical theory (alpha-numerics which we use in English to “read” with), a blank space will be counted as a valid symbol, causing the name to be placed out of order on an index, and not located at all by a computer searching for “Joe Public” which should bear only one space.

Because the inputting computer program that is used to add new documents to the index was poorly programed, it fails to prevent this typo and thus creates a systemic problem on the effective index. On a hunch, our researchers at Business Research and Abstract Service began to check the index for “Smith”, entering two spaces between the last and first names and beginning with the letter “a” down. Within 60 seconds they had hit the letter “c” and found multiple mis-enteries over a decade back which have languished in the index incorrectly.

Testing this online with a few other California counties located more of the same.

This is a systemic problem which likely covers multiple states, many counties, and many tens or hundreds of thousands of records. The private firms which sell these database programs to local counties, and the contractors who administer these systems have failed to account for this very simple human error.

I will remind the researchers out there, that no level of reasonable and due diligence, nor standards and practices of our industry, would allow us to account for such systemic discrepencies. Running “Public, J” for “John Q Public”, would NOT uncover a mis-index of this nature.

I would note that the Deputy County Recorder in San Mateo County, was told by us a decade ago of the same mis-type problem involving the last names. These errors were corrected, for the last name only, when they were demonstrated this by BRASS, as they transited to a new computer system. None of us, BRASS or the County, anticipated or realized that the same essential error was occurring for the first names.

Be aware and beware!

REISSUE RATES FOR TITLE PREMIUMS-MARYLAND

CHARLENE PERRY — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:53:16 EST

Old Republic Title has announced a new rate increase for the State of Maryland that will become effective on April 1, 2010.

Old Republic Title has announced a new rate increase for the State of Maryland that will become effective on April 1, 2010. This rate increase is consistent with the rate increases that were granted to all other major title underwriters here in Maryland. On April 1, 2010 the rates will be published and I will provide the link to those rates as soon as they are available on-line.

Of important note with the new increase is the information relating to re-issue rates. As you all know a title policy MUST be given reissue rates, if applicable.

The guidelines for qualification for reissue rate have changed. Please be advised that in order to qualify for a reissue rate on a refinance, the borrower must provide a copy of the current owner's policy or a signed HUD-1 providing proof of payment for an owner's title insurance policy. In order for a buyer to qualify for a reissue rate on a purchase transaction, the seller must provide their existing title policy or a signed HUD-1 providing proof of payment for the owner's policy. The requirement that the current policy must have been issued within the last 10 years has been eliminated.

Call on The Preferred Title Group, Inc for all of your title and settlement needs in Maryland.

Rose Bowl Parade 2011

John East — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:29:15 EST

Sponsorship and or Donations request

My granddaughter and her High School Band are going to march in next years Rose Bowl parade and we are seeking sponsorships or donations to help the cost of the trip. The cost for each Student is $1650.00 this covers transportation, room, most meals and all activities will in Pasedena.

All funds should be made out to Albertville Aggie Band with my granddaughters name in the memo line (Destiny Allen) and mailed to Albertville Aggie Band 402 East McCord Ave. Albertville, Al. 35950

Phone 256-871-0142 Fax 256-891-6305

Your firm or company will then receive notification on school letterhead of the amount of the donation so that your firm will be able to use this as a tax deduction.

If you have any questions or concerns either call me at 256-572-4247 or fax the school at the number above ATTN: MR CHRIS LINDLEY BAND DIRECTOR.

My granddaughter and I would greatly appreciate it.

The band's web site is Albertville Aggie Band.com

Property on the Web: GPS, Satellite Image, Street View, License Plate & More

William Pattison — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:53:21 EST

Your property is on the internet. Your house can be seen from the sky and zoomed in on, down to the street level. I know this because I found my birth brother recently, and before I ever contacted or met him, I knew what his house and car looked like. I (correctly) inferred that the minivan he drove was used to take care of his ill adoptive mother and not for kids, as no toys or bumper stickers indicating children were readily visible. This is a lesson for other in what your home and car can say about you.

A few dollars to a private investigation firm, and those with MVTRAC-style technolgy will turn over a list of all places where a car has been spotted. This is the same tech that allows police to drive along a street and automatically run license plate numbers as they cruise. It is a technolgy which has now made it's way into civilian hands and is being used by everyone from skip tracers to repo men to credit agencies to bounty hunters and more.

While Europe is trying to regulate Google street views, no oversight is being contemplated for MVTRAC data miners. It's the wild west. Unless you park in a covered garage or put a protective tarp over your car, your vehicle is subject to being spotted and catalogued. In cases where you license is misread and indexed wrongly, putting you at the scene of a murder, don't worry. You have no legal recourse or rights and will likely be convicted of a crime that you were miles from and in bed asleep while it occurred. You will have a warm jail cell and three square meals to survive daily with free shankings and prison rape while awaiting old sparky.

The ability to track OJ Simpson with a cell phone call from the back of a bronco has obviously been around for many years. The ability to identify car license plates (on clear days) with satellites has been around for a few years. The tracking of people and vehicles in police investigations using private security cameras was highlighted after the Oklahoma City bombing. The ability to track people using automatic toll payments was demonstrated in the case of a man who committed murder having crossed the Golden Gate Bridge using a FastTrack pass for automatic toll payment. Cell towers used by cell phones used to locate a family tragically lost for days in snowey Oregon mountains. Credit card use, debit card use, buyers clubs cards (Costco, Safeway, other markets, etc...) are ongoing and long standing in their use. Even individual dollar bills can be tracked by serial numbers on the web, by chemical traces left on them, by finge tr prints affixed to them and when passing through metal detectors base on the metalic security strip embedded in them. How much money is in your pocket is not even a secret.

Consider that your face is identifiable based on the proportions of jawline and chin to nose, etc.... All of these are mathematical computations that, when taken in context of GPS locators on your cell phone, the unique print of your retinal patterns and your behaviors that can be deduced from your online profiles, can absolutely identify you throughout your life. Add in the public records for land ownership, property tax rolls, assessed property rolls, voter records, business filings and professional licenses, and you have a simple forumla for knowing anything about anyone. Check out your own email use on RapLeaf to see what I mean about finding information easily about people.

I say this from experience. Before I met or corresponded with my eldest biological sister, I knew her and her husbands' jobs, annual income, home value, interests, medical conditions, and my nephew's Facebook information, my nephew's school, my sister's adoptive nuclear families' jobs and interests, her yearbook photo, names of her childhood friends and more. If you don't think that this intially freaked her out, you'd be very wrong. None-the-less, following my honesty is the best policy virtue, I was open and clear with her and we have had a wonderful time together, meeting our other three siblings, including the brother I mentioned at the start of this blog entry.

Points to consider: your privacy is in your own hands, so exercise and assert your right to it all the time, every time and in every way, or don't blame others if it's compromised.

Freehold Capital Partners Testifies Before Ohio Senate Committee

rfranco@sourceoftitle.com — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:30:45 EST

As you know, Ohio has proposed legislation to ban private transfer fee covenants. This past week, a Senate committee held a second hearing on the bill and I was able to make it to the Statehouse to attend. In favor of the bill was the Ohio State Bar Association and the Ohio Land Title Association. In opposition, a representative from Freehold Capital Partners. The interesting thing was that the issues addressed have all been debated here on the Source of Title Blog. I guess you could say that we have been ahead of the curve!

On Wednesday, March 3, the Ohio Senate Judiciary-Civil Justice Committee held a second hearing on H.B. 292. This bill is the one I have previously written about that will ban private transfer fee covenants in Ohio, if passed.

I was in the office on the morning of the scheduled hearing and I just happened to check the status of the bill when I noticed that it was scheduled for a hearing at 2:30pm. I cleared by calendar for the afternoon and drove to the Statehouse out of curiosity. I'm glad I did.

There were two proponents of the legislation testifying. This first was attorney Steve Buchenroth, an attorney with Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP in Columbus, Ohio. He testified on behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association Real Property Section, of which he is a member of the Section Council. The OSBA conceived the proposed legislation and, of course, urged the committee that it be enacted.

The OSBA does not support transfer fee covenants. The covenants could cloud titles for an extended period of time. The original holders of the covenants could be difficult to track down to obtain releases. The covenants have no apparent economic merit other than to create an undeserved windfall, but would cause a nuisance for the title industry.

The second proponent was attorney James Havens, whose firm represents and litigates for title insurance underwriters. He is also the president and founder of Cardinal Title Insurance Agency has has been a licensed title agent for more than 25 years. Havens is a member, and testified on behalf of, the Ohio Land Title Association.

These covenants hinder the safe and efficient transfer of real property. These covenants create an unnecessary and unacceptable risk for lenders, homeowners and land title professionals. They make the transfer of real property more costly and less certain. The long, 99-year timeframe of most of these covenants increase the chances that these restrictions could never be known by the homeowner or are undiscovered during a search of title records. Further, the long timeframe makes it likely that beneficiaries of these covenants will never be found due to death or dissolution.

These covenants reduce transparency and exploit the complexity of real estate transactions. These opaque and confusing covenants are hidden from consumers buried in a veil of legal documents. They can often be difficult for even experienced professionals to comprehend, much less be understood by consumer.

These covenants erode fee simple title and restrain alienation - the unrestricted right of an owner to transfer property. They may be subject to legal challenges as courts have been unwilling to recognize or create new interests in land and they fail the common law "touch and concern" test, which requires that covenants benefit and burden the land. The American Law Institute argues that these covenants are "arbitrary, spiteful, capricious" and an "unreasonable restraint on alienation" and "unconscionable."

Private transfer fees depress home prices. When a private transfer fee covenant is attached to a property, it causes the value to be decreased due to the built in nature of a fee encumbrance. Everyone can agree Ohio home prices do not need to be depressed further.

"The Ohio Land Title Association is pleased the General Assembly is addressing this issue before it becomes as pervasive in Ohio as it has in other states," Havens testified. "OLTA joins the OSBA, the Ohio Association of Realtors and others in supporting this critical bill."

There was one lone opponent of the legislation who testified, Joe Alderman, CEO of Freehold Capital Partners. Alderman did not have a print-copy of his testimony to submit to the committee, so I apologize that I cannot quote him verbatim. However, the impetus of his testimony was that the covenant was designed to inject liquidity into development projects. Basically, through securitizing pools of covenants, developers would have much needed access to funds to complete their projects and buyers in the subdivision would benefit from lower acquisition costs.

He testified that, given the choice, buyers would rather pay $245,000 for a home knowing that they would be required to pay a 1% transfer fee when they sell, than pay $250,000 for the same home without the future obligation. As has been argued by Freehold proponents on this blog in the past, buyers are free to negotiate a reduced purchase price in return for the obligation.

Alderman also testified about the legislation in other states. First, he mentioned the Texas legislation doesn't prohibit transfer fees, but only requires that they be paid by the seller, not the buyer. This has been debated on this blog, too, and I disagree with his interpretation of the Texas statute.

He also mentioned that the other states that have passed bans on the Freehold-type covenant did so without the benefit of public hearings. If that is true, it is shocking. I do not believe that legislatures should ever pass laws without holding public hearings. But, either way, I do believe that they were acting in the best interest of their citizens with the approach they have taken to eliminate private transfer fee covenants.

Lastly, Alderman explained the California legislation, which is centered around requiring disclosures whenever a property is sold with a Freehold-type covenant. This is the approach he urged the Ohio Senate committee to adopt, rather than an outright ban.

After the hearing, I got the opportunity to meet briefly with Mr. Alderman. I spoke with him on the phone a couple of years ago, but this was the first chance I had to meet him in person. As one would expect, he seemed to believe in the value of the Freehold covenants and sees them as a useful tool for developers and consumers alike. I got the impression he was sincere about it. Despite the fact that the program has been described as a "scam," or a "sophisticated pyramid scheme" as one a Kansas Senator wrote, I do not believe that Alderman is out to "rip anyone off."

He tried to persuade me to his line of thinking, but we just have very different opinions on the issue. We managed to find some bit of common ground on the issue of required disclosures, but that was still a bit contentious. In a perfect world, there would be theoretically nothing offensive about the covenant if every buyer and seller were aware of the covenant and negotiated in good faith to take it into account in reaching a fair sales price.

I believe that there would still be some negative implications. Even with the disclosure, there may be problems selling homes encumbered by the covenants. Some homeowners might find that they can't sell without a drastically reduced sales price - even less than they thought it might be when they negotiated their purchase price.

But, beyond that, we don't live in a perfect world. It would only be a matter of time until someone bought a home unaware of the covenant. He would pay full fair market value and still be burdened by the required payment at the time of sale. Such a homeowner would lose significantly on the transaction - he would have to pay the missed transfer fee from when he purchased the property, his transfer fee, and he would have to sell the home at a loss. Mr. Alderman's response was that this can happen with any type of missed encumbrance and the owner would be able to go back on his predecessor in title to recover his losses. He may be correct, but it seems to be a better course of action to protect homeowners from having to worry about this scenario through well-crafted legislation.

It was nice to be able to attend the hearing. I haven't had the opportunity to do that since my internship in the Ohio Senate when I was in law school. And, I was glad that I got an opportunity to meet Mr. Alderman. Although we don't see eye-to-eye on the issue, he was a genuinely nice guy and it was a pleasure to meet him. I have enjoyed the legal debate over the issue and from an academic perspective I have learned a lot more about real covenants than I otherwise would have. There will certainly be more on this topic as it gains national exposure. There was even an article in today's Washington Post.

Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE

This Land Is Our Land (?)

bossman@jbizinfo.com — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:57:38 EST

A secret memo by the US Department of the Interior has exposed an Obama administration proposal to put millions of acres of land off-limits to commercial activity and economic development. The impact of such a move could be particularly devastating at a time when the nation is struggling to recover from recession and job-creating investment is badly needed.

The memo, marked “NOT FOR RELEASE” was recently leaked by an unnamed Interior Department insider and circulated by US Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT). It identifies fourteen specific tracts in nine western states which the administration could close off completely by designating them as federal monuments using a little-known federal statute known as the American Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. § 431, et seq.) —all without public comment or legislative action.

As Professor Richard Pipes, former director of the Russian Research Center at Harvard University puts it, “you can have tyranny with property, but you cannot have freedom and the rule of law without it.” The founders of our nation knew this, that private ownership of property—and private ownership of land in particular—is the bulwark of a free society. It was that guiding principle which led them to draft the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The Treaty of Paris, which officially ended the American Revolution in 1783 brought an end to the sovereign right of the King to own and control lands in the colonies. It is important to note here that the treaty was not between England and the federal government, which at that time did not yet exist.

“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, Article One (emphasis mine)

That is why in drafting the Constitution, the framers set forth the only instance in which the United States as a sovereign power is permitted to own land:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”

U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 (emphasis mine)

One of the issues the Constitution was intended to settle was the question of equal sovereignty among the Several States. The Equal Footing Doctrine is the Constitutional principle whose intent was to guarantee the rights of the states to be equal in their sovereign authority. Yet, the federal government, through a series of unconstitutional takings, now owns close to 650 million acres of land. That’s nearly 30% of the total land area of the United States, according to nationalatlas.gov. Almost 98% of the state of Alaska, 86% of Nevada and approximately 65% of all land west of the 100^th meridian are under federal ownership, which flies in the face of the “equal footing” principle envisioned by the framers.

This certainly wouldn’t be the first administration to utilize the Antiquities Act in such a fashion. President Jimmy Carter used the Act to seize over 50 million acres of land in Alaska, more than any than any of his predecessors. President Bill Clinton effectively ended energy development in southern Utah by creating the 1.7 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument, including the Kaiparowits Plateau, which contains the nation’s largest undeveloped field of low-sulfur, low polluting coal. Only two other locations of such coal exist worldwide. One is a remote area of Colombia in South America; the other is Kalimantan Island, Indonesia. Mr. Clinton defended his actions at the time, citing environmental concerns. Some media watchdog groups, however, have criticized the move as a political favor to longtime Clinton associate James Riady, whose development firm the Lippo Group held a majority interest in the Kalimantan coal field. Taking the Kaiparowits coal off-line gave Lippo a virtual monopoly on the environmentally friendly coal.

I’m sure that everyone reading this knows about some of the financial troubles plaguing the nation of Greece. According to an article in the UK Guardian, German politicians have floated the idea that Greece should consider selling off some of its assets, including the Aegean Islands, which are under state ownership, and even such ancient treasures as the Acropolis and the Parthenon to meet its financial obligations to the European Union. How much of a stretch is it to consider that China could demand that we sell off such landmarks as Mount Rushmore or Yellowstone National Park to make good on some of the $750 billion of our debt that they still own?

International political implications aside, this kind of federal control of the means of production is something that I find personally disturbing, for a host of reasons. Taking these lands out of the hands of farmers, miners and energy producers stifles our ability to compete in the world economy. Right now, this nation possesses sufficient resources to not only provide much-needed jobs to its citizens, but to retire our debt and to achieve economic self-sufficiency well into the next decade. But no, say the environmental extremists. It’s much more important to save a snail darter than to ensure our nation’s economic security and energy independence. One rancher was forced off of his 180,000-acre ranch by federal officials from the US Forest service who asserted claims of ownership, despite the fact that the rancher’s family had legally owned and worked the land for more than 100 years. This is just one example of hundreds of productive, law-abiding citizens whose lives have been turned upside-down by over-zealous environmentalists, backed by the full weight and force of federal power and bureaucracy.

Hey, here’s an idea…why don't we give these guys total control over our healthcare system!

FAQ NEW FANNIE MAE ADDENDUM

CHARLENE PERRY — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:04:39 EST

WOW!!

Thank you all for reading my post relating to the new Fannie Mae Addendum, titled NPDC FORM 001 DATED 11-30-09. Maryland

WOW!!

Thank you all for reading my post relating to the new Fannie Mae Addendum, titled NPDC FORM 001 DATED 11-30-09. I will attempt here to answer some of the questions that have been presented to me over the last week or so from many of you who have called or e-mailed your questions to me. I want to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to read my blog and to invite you to continue to feel free to call on me. Naturally, I will be happy to assist you with all of your title and settlement needs here in Maryland too!

Let me start out by saying a few things:

I am not an attorney
I CANNOT give you a copy of the Addendum
I am not a Realtor
I ONLY work in Maryland
I DO NOT know Fannie Mae rules outside of Maryland

So, with that being said, here goes:

Why was the form changed?

The form was changed to enable Fannie Mae to sell their properties in a more traditional way when acting as sellers of foreclosed properties.

What are the most pertinent changes affecting buyers:

The most pertinent changes that affect your buyer are (in no particular order)

An affirmative statement that specifically states that the purchaser has the right to choose the place of closing and the right to make an independent selection of their own attorney, settlement company, escrow company, title company and /or title insurance company in connection with their closing.
A statement allowing the seller to terminate the contract if the purchaser changes his financing or choice of lender. (This would typically cause a delay in the settlement date) so I can only assume that is the purpose of this language.
A clarification as to the acceptance date; The term Verbal Acceptance has been changed to read "Acknowledgment of Sufficient Offer", which occurs on the "Acknowledgment Date" Acknowledgment date refers to the date that the seller has deemed the offer to be materially sufficient. Fannie Mae uses the Acknowledgment date to calculate many dates.
TRANSFER TAXES: Seller will pay if usual and customary for a seller to pay if the Fannie Mae exemption is not recognized.
CLOSING COSTS: Without going into a long winded discussion the gist of it is that any closing costs negotiated to be paid by the seller on behalf of the buyer are EXCLUSIVE of any transfer taxes and stamps paid by the seller, if those transfer taxes and stamps are usually and customarily paid by the seller.
Re-Key, this is not an actual change, but a clarification. The buyer will be charged at closing the cost of re-keying the property to a Master Fannie Mae key. This being said, the buyer should still be reminded that they are going to want to change the locks immediately after their settlement as those master keys are used statewide.
AND FINALLY, this form is being used throughout the nation.

Please feel free to comment on this blog and to contact me with any questions you may still have relating to this new addendum. Wishing you all the best in your REO transactions.

Sincerely

Charlene

You May Be Over 90% Predictable

William Pattison — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:32:55 EST

Research published in a recent edition of Science suggests that analyzing patterns of cellphone use which includes locational data could be upwards of 93% successful in predicting the behavior patterns of users.

Combining this with sorely lacking privacy features that most social network users fail to toggle "on" in their account settings which allow datamining services like RapLeaf to compile, the ease of IP Address identification and new techniques for tracking people's locations based upon email trace routes being developed by Google, I am sure that astute weilders of information tools could get this certainty up by a few more percentage points.

Heck, enable your pda, notebook, tablet computer or cellphone with GPS and I can locate you 100% of the time, minus when you forget the phone in a bathroom or leave it at work.

In one American school district, a high school principal is defending the use of webcams to record student activities at home (after school hours and off school grounds). The laptops issued by the public school to the students would turn on randomly at all hours of day and night, as the school administrators spied on students remotely through the webcamera built into the laptops. One student was suspended for popping "pills" which turned out to be candy treats.

In the UK, the situation is just as dire. People under house arrest, probation or parole are monitored in their homes by closed circuit television cameras. One family was placed under criminal investigation by child protective services, because they were seen to allow their child to stay up and watch television past a reasonable hour, hence endangering the child's welfare. Can we now safely cry out "nany state", anyone, or is this just a paranoid rant?

Lets flip back to America for a moment and discuss how your television watches you. A dear and recently departed friend told me that my television might be surveilling my activities. I dismissed Wilbur's rantings from the Patriot / Common Law / Militia community as a paranoid delusion. Within months, however, a new generation of big screen televisions were on the market bearing cameras with facial recognition technology built into them. This allows the tv to recognize the viewer, turn on, and surf directly to their favorite channel much like Dell laptops running Win7 do now (run by BestBuy online if you don't believe me). Within weeks, a hacker had cracked the television and demonstrated how to remotely access the camera through the internet. Your cable television feed can be a window for others to watch you eat Cheetos on the couch in your underwear, so beware!

Citibank terminated a bloggers bank account for posting anti-banking opinions online. Whether corporate surveillance of people or government intrusion on the privacy of rights of citizens, these trends are part of a dance wherein the individual must take responsibility for his role in securing his information, while the outside world must bear consequences for transgressing reasonable boundaries of good citizenship and polite social demeanor.

Technology like this falls easily to more ancient tech. The powerful and arcane science of electricians tape has magically managed to disable many of these mighty and mysterious tools. The use of device options to "turn off" the public features and "turn on" the privacy options can also derail the best efforts of people to locate you... that is, IF and only IF, you have not already put all of this data on the internet for years or decades (remember, what's already out there is on the net forever).

Freehold Licensing, NKA Freehold Capital Partners, At It Again

rfranco@sourceoftitle.com — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:02:09 EST

For more than two years, I have been blogging about private transfer fee covenants and the group that is promoting them, Freehold Licensing. Freehold has actually attempted to patent their business strategy of creating private transfer fee covenants (a separate act that I find offensive). The group now has a new name and a new strategy, all evolving while several states and trade organizations are trying to put a stop to private transfer fee covenants.

To summarize, a private transfer fee covenant is a covenant that purports to run with the land and bind subsequent owners of property to pay a 1% fee to the original covenantor. Freehold, of course, gets to share in the fee for their assistance in setting up the covenant. To briefly recap my previous blogs, In Patently Stupid, I explained the covenant and my opinion of their attempt to patent the practice as a "business strategy." In Freehold Licensing Defends Covenants, I addressed comments posted by a representative of Freehold and the Texas legislation aimed at banning private transfer fee covenants. And in a third blog, To Touch and Concern, I hypothesized that such covenants are unenforceable under common law.

After I suggested in my blog that states should pass legislation, as they had in Texas, to ban private transfer fee covenants, four states did just that - Florida, Missouri, Kansas and Oregon. I followed up with a blog about Ohio's pending legislation, Banning Transfer Fee Covenants in Ohio.

After the blog about Ohio's legislation, I started to get calls from people across the country with an interest in these covenants. I was contacted by an attorney in South Carolina who was referred to me by a national underwriter that issued a bulletin stating that they would no longer insure property subject to a private transfer fee covenant. He was representing an organization of homeowners' associations concerned about transfer fee covenants commonly used to fund their members' associations. I responded with a blog about the importance of legitimate uses of transfer fee covenants to fund homeowners associations and not-for-profit groups that actually provide a benefit to the property and their communities, Underwriters Refuse to Insure Transfer Fee Covenants.

I was later contacted by the American Land Title Association (ALTA) which is working with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) on model legislation to assist states with banning the Freehold-type covenants. (See The American Land Title Association Opposes Private Transfer Fee Covenants).

Just last week, I was interviewed by a journalist with the Washington Post who is working on an article for consumers about private transfer fee covenants.

With all the activity centered around prohibiting private transfer fee covenants, I thought I'd see what Freehold was up to these days. I was surprised to find out that they are still quite active and even more aggressive in their marketing of private transfer fee covenants.

Freehold Licensing issued a press release a couple of weeks ago to announce the move of its corporate offices from Austin, Texas to Midtown Manhattan.

Bringing the Freehold team to the heart of the financial markets is important for the Company's continued growth. The move will provide close proximity to major investment banks, will allow the Company to attract top talent, and further illustrates Freehold's focus on strengthening its growing portfolio of financial instruments.

It has also apparently changed its name to Freehold Capital Partners. Maybe because of the extensive bad press associated with "Freehold Licensing." If you Google Freehold Licensing, the search results include such listings as "Closing the Door on Freehold Licensing" and "Is this a scam..." In fact, when you enter the search term "Freehold Licensing" in Google, they suggest the search term "Freehold Licensing Scam."

But, the name isn't all that has changed. What Freehold used to refer to as "Transfer Fee Instruments" on its old Web site is now called "Reconveyance Fee Instruments" on its new Web site. Again, could this possibly be because of the negative press associated with the former?

If this isn't enough to make you cringe, Freehold is now touting the benefits of pooling and securitizing the covenants into securities that can be sold to provide a lump sum payment to the covenantor, usually a developer, of the present value of the covenants. We are now familiar with Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) that contributed to the financial crisis. It was once thought that there was no risk associated with MBS. Freehold makes the bold statement that "Reconveyance Fee Instruments represent a fully-collateralized financial instrument with no meaningful risk of default... Investors acquiring shares of the pool would own a long-term income-producing asset secured by a real property interest, and which carried no meaningful risk of default."

Of course, it states in the small print that "this is not an offer to sell, buy, market, offer, broker or securitize Reconveyance Fee Instruments. There is no assurance that any particular Instrument will be suitable for sale or securitization or that public market for Reconveyance Fee Instruments will develop, mature or persist." Even so, I think the Securities and Exchange Commission should keep a close eye on Freehold's marketing material.

And what of their claim that there is "no meaningful risk of default" on such instruments? Could that be true? I don't think so. In fact, in my opinion there is a very real and substantial risk of default. A handful of states have already banned private transfer fee covenants. Though they only apply to attempts to create such covenants after the passage of the legislation, there seems to be a general sense that private transfer fee covenants violate public policy and there is a concern that they may be held unenforceable under common law. Should that happen, investors would likely stand to lose their entire investment.

Freehold realizes the controversy surrounding private transfer fee covenants and has provided a page in its brochure dedicated to "Reconveyance Fees Rights & The Law: A Primer for Lawyers."

Filing the Freehold Reconveyance Fee Instrument in the public records obligates future sellers to pay a 1% fee at the time of sale. The process is analogous to deed restrictions and common subdivision restrictions, though the Freehold instrument has been crafted with particularity to Reconveyance Fees.

In order to constitute an UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT ON ALIENATION, the restraint must (a) be unreasonable and (b) actually restrain alienation. The mere obligation to pay money will generally not suffice to unreasonably restrain alienation because the sales price will adjust to account for the restraint. This is particularly true when the restraint is limited to a de minimus fee (e.g. 1%).

The Freehold Reconveyance Fee Instrument does not violate the RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES because the term is limited of 99 years and because the rights VEST immediately upon recording.

If a state passes laws to ban Reconveyance Fees, not only must they ban them for charitable purposes (or run afoul of the constitution) but they must "GRANDFATHER" existing Reconveyance Fee Instruments or it would be an impermissible "TAKING."

Freehold also provides several "representative cases" and claims that "the Freehold system is based upon sound legal principals." Poppy-cock! Freehold cites cases and picks precise quotes that appear to support its position. However, the cases are not "representative" of the Freehold system. All of the cases clearly involve covenants that "touch and concern" the land in some way. Some involve restrictive covenants prohibiting certain types of buildings (e.g. multi-family), fences or tree lines. Others deal with affirmative covenants requiring the payments of fees for recreational purposes (e.g. to support a recreational facility), upkeep of dams, roads and other improvements, or homeowner's association dues. All of these clearly touch and concern the land and benefit the property owners in some fashion.

By contrast, the Freehold covenant does not provide any benefit to the property owners or their community. It is, as Freehold says, "a mere obligation to pay money." The only party that benefits from the fee is the original covenantor/developer, who is likely to be out of the picture before the payments are due. The funds collected do not go toward supporting common areas, recreational facilities, or homeowner's associations; it merely creates "a long-term income stream" for the covenantor or investors.

The Supreme Court of Florida explained this distinction in Palm Beach County v. Cove Club Invs., 734 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1999).

A covenant running with the land differs from a merely personal covenant in that the former concerns the property conveyed and the occupation and enjoyment thereof, whereas the latter covenant is collateral or is not immediately concerned with the property granted. If the performance of the covenant must touch and involve the land or some right or easement annexed and appurtenant thereto, and tends necessarily to enhance the value of the property or renders it more convenient and beneficial to the owner, it is a covenant running with the land.

. . .

A personal covenant creates a personal obligation or right enforceable at law only between the original covenanting parties whereas a real covenant creates a servitude upon the reality for the benefit of another parcel of land. A real covenant binds the heirs and assigns of the original covenantor, while a personal covenant does not.

See also, Regency Homes Ass'n v. Egermayer, 243 Neb. 286, 295 (Neb. 1993).

Generally, in the United States the three essential requirements for a covenant of any type to run with land are (1) the grantor and the grantee intend that the covenant run with the land, as determined from the instruments of record; (2) the covenant must "touch and concern" the land with which it runs; and (3) the party claiming the benefit of the covenant and the party who bears the burden of the covenant must be in privity of estate.

. . .

If the covenant at issue is personal, it is not binding on [subsequent owners]; if the covenant is real, it runs with the land, and the [subsequent owners] are bound by the terms of the Declaration.

And, to put it even more simply, see Beeter v. Sawyer Disposal LLC, 2009 ND 153, P9 (N.D. 2009).

If a covenant or deed restriction benefits the grantor personally, and serves no real benefit to the land, then the covenant is personal in nature and does not 'run with the land' upon a subsequent sale of the property.

Of course, none of these case, including those cited by Freehold, are exactly on-point. I have not been able to find a published case that has addressed the type of covenant being promoted by Freehold. That will not likely happen for some time. It will take a property encumbered by a Freehold covenant transferred to a subsequent purchaser who desires to challenge it in court. These covenants are still fairly new and there haven't likely been many re-sold yet.

It will be interesting to see what legislation develops and the effect that has on transfer fee covenants. With the new efforts of ALTA and NAR to raise awareness among state legislators, it is likely that the bans will spread to more states soon. Of course, most of the laws on this issue, including those proposed by ALTA and NAR, contain exceptions for non-profit organizations. Freehold contends that this "runs afoul of the constitution." We could see some litigation in the near future, but I suspect that such laws would be upheld.

Whether Freehold calls them "transfer fee instruments" or "reconveyance fee instruments," they just don't pass the smell-test. Clearly, many organizations and state legislatures do not favor them. One state senator called them "sophisticated pyramid schemes which steal equity from the owner." Public sentiment is against Freehold on this one.

Imagine what would happen if everyone were to sell their property with such a covenant? If this type of covenant were allowed, theoretically, any seller who is not satisfied with the sales price he is able to get could just include a covenant in the deed to the buyer that required him to be paid 1% every time the property sells for the next 99 years. And, what would happen when the property had been sold two or three times with each subsequent owner reserving such payment rights by covenant? That would create a terrible mess and would, of course, be absurd. But, what would prevent it from happening (other than common sense)?

But, I digress. Freehold has continued to get my dander up... first by coming up with this ridiculous concept, then by attempting to patent it, and now... trying to securitize the covenants in to an investment. Where will it all end?

Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE

Digital Archive Failures in the Information Age

William Pattison — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:57:39 EST

American Scientist's recent article on data preservation raises the spectre of a “digital dark age” if archival techniques are not properly The magazine American Scientist, recently ran an article on data preservation which raises the spectre of a “digital dark age” if archival techniques are not adequately maintained.

With most data in the future being digital through the inevitable tide of technological progress, the standards and practices we use in these early days of the information age may lend toward gaps in the records for future generations.

Multiple failure points can occur as time marches on. A failure to keep “Rosetta Stones” that allow us to transit from one storage format to another, or to do so with accuracy, may create holes in our collective knowledge. Like Creutzfeld-Jacob Syndrome, holes in our digital “brains” that form the basis for not only the current World Wide Web, but for a future WWM (World Wide Mind) that links our minds to cyberspace avatars and each other, could form.

An “upgrade” on such a future system which fails to maintain backwards compatibility, could revolutionarily create a loss of vital data necessary for the functions of an ever faster-paced civilization to run. Imagine the science fiction future of the Star Wars capital world of Corrisuant; streams of flying cars falling from the sky, markets collapsing in moments, artificial limbs that no longer work, billions of people without water supplies or power or heat. A planet of tens of billions thrown into chaos.

Now, step back and imagine that today. Our manuals that allow engineers to manage the power at a nuclear plant, pump clean water from our resovoirs, and deliver gas to our homes. If those manuals were not backed up on paper, as they (mostly) are today, but rather on a PDA like a Kindle or Blackberry or Ipod or Android Smartphone, then the consequences could be just as dire for our civilization. No heat or electricity or water in urban areas could make our cities look like disaster areas.

This latter future is not nearly as far away as some Luke Skywalker fantasy. It is plausible that, in the next ten years, we have such a switch to digital technology in critical walks of life.

The impact of data loss, whether by truly losing information or an inability to access it, could spell harsh lessons for us in the near future. Back up you data, keep candles and batteries and water available, and have an emergency radio handy!

ACCIDENTAL RELEASE

CHARLENE PERRY — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:31:46 EST

A call from a servicing lender asking me to help them re-record a DOT that they accidentally released.

I took a call yesterday from a "servicing company" in California relating to a property here in Maryland. Their question to me was one I had never had before. It seems that they accidentally released a Deed of Trust in the local land records and they wanted me to tell them how to get the Deed of Trust re-recorded. The larger problem is that they did not want the borrower to know that they had accidentally released the DOT.

I was pretty sure of the answer but went ahead and called the clerk's office anyway and was advised that the borrower would have to re-execute the document in order for it to be re-recorded AND that it would be subjected to documentary stamps again.

When I called the servicer back to advise him of the clerk's answer he was stunned to learn that, based on the loan amount named in the DOT, the cost of re-recording the DOT was going to be several thousand dollars. (Maryland has a very expensive recording system). His concern was two fold at that point; how to get the consumer to re-exeucte the instrument and who was going to pay for the re-recording. I have not heard back from this gentlemen, but I am curious about how they are going to go about fixing this error. I am also curious as to whether or not any of the loan closing documents from the orignal settlement will "force" this consumer to re-execute the DOT.

I have conducted thousand of closings and there is always a complaince document in the closing package that states that if the lender needs to borrower to re-execute a document the borrower will comply. But, does that apply to this situation? In the ordinary course that compliance document is utilized in cases where perhaps a document was lost or misplaced. Does an accidental release fall into the same category? I am just not sure. I don't think that the lender should suffer a loss due to a true human error, but at the same time, one has to wonder whether or not the borrower can be foreced to re-execute this document. It's a curious question. I WELCOME YOUR INPUT AND INSIGHT.

CHARLENE

FANNIE MAE HAS A NEW ADDENDUM READ IT CAREFULLY

CHARLENE PERRY — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:13:40 EST

New Fannie Addendum February, 2010

I was very pleased to learn last Friday that Fannie Mae is using a new addendum for their REO properties.

As you may know all banks use their own addenda for REO sales. For many years now Fannie Mae has been using basically the same addendum which stated that the buyer MUST use the seller's title agent and that the cost of transfer taxes and stamps would be bourne in full by the buyer. Fannie Mae is in fact EXEMPT from the payment of transfer taxes and stamps, although some local jurisdictions push the entire burden on the buyer without taking the exemption into account. The burden on the consumer for the payment of all transfer taxes and stamps, as you might imagine, can sometimes make or break a deal.

The addendum has been dramatically changed in that it now states "The closing shall be held at a place so designated and approved by the Purchaser". This is an absolute turnaround from previous versions wherein it stated that the purchaser MUST use seller's title agent! Additionally, the contract no longer states that regardless of local custom Fannie Mae will NOT pay any portion of the transfer taxes and stamps! These two major changes have long be awaited by those of us who do REO work in Maryland.

The net effect of this new addendum is that the buyer can now make his/her own selection as to title agent and will then be better protected against any prior title defects. The fact is that the seller's title agents do not do 60 year title searches because they are not required to. In most cases the title agent who is "representing" the seller is merely acting as a liasion between Fannie Mae and the buyer. Even in cases where the seller's title agent is doing the closing they still don't do a full title search. I have been told time and again that the only thing they (the seller's title agent) do is to get the title report from the foreclosure attorney who has reviewed title from the date of the foreclosed deed of trust forward.

Additionally, and most importantly as far as the consumer is concerned, is that Fannie Mae will split the transfer taxes and stamps, AND, they won't use those transfer taxes and stamps costs as part of the buyer's closing cost credit!! This is a huge win for the consumer.

It is my hope and belief that with the advent of the new HUD-1 all REO sellers will be forced to make the same changes in their addendum, specifically as it relates to the purchaser selecting their own title agent. I would urge those of you who do a lot of REO work to review any addendum that comes across with the contract to see if your seller has made similiar changes.

Coming Soon: The Ohio Association of Independent Title Agents Convention

rfranco@sourceoftitle.com — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:00:47 EST

Ohio independent title agents and abstractors should give serious consideration to attending the Ohio Association of Independent Title Agents' (OAITA) convention on April 19, 2010. There is finally an association dedicated to addressing the unique concerns of the independent agents and it is worthy of your support. I'll be there this year and I hope to see a strong turn out from Ohioans!

Why is the OAITA so important? Well, I certainly do not speak for the association, but from my perspective many of the changes our industry has seen over the past decade have created an environment that threatens the existence of small, independent title agents. Traditional land title associations are made up of broader members, which includes underwriters and large agents with many affiliated business arrangements. This is not to say that the Ohio Land Title Association is bad - quite to the contrary, they do a fine job in most respects. However, when it comes to issues like AfBAs, they have a conflict of interest; some of their largest members support AfBAs. There are other issues, too; such as the requirement for closing protection coverage and the annual CPA audit.

And... in the words of the OAITA:

OAITA promotes fair standards regarding title insurance in Ohio and advocates for the advancement of issues relevant to the independent settlement service provider. We are participating in private policy change by pursuing litigation to help reinforce existing Ohio law regarding title insurance and real estate settlement services. We also support favorable initiatives relative to the independent title insurance and independent real estate settlement service provider movements in Ohio.

Personally, I think it's great that independent agents have an association that will represent their concerns.

Here are the details for the convention:

OAITA Convention
Monday, April 19, 2010
Crowne Plaza Hotel
Columbus, Ohio

For more information or to register visit www.oaita.org.

8:30am - 9:00am
Opening Remarks
Robert B. Holman, Esq.
OAITA Founder & Organizational Counsel
Cleveland, Ohio

"State of the OAITA: Making the Case for Independence in Ohio"

9:00am - 9:30am
Keynote Address
Charles Proctor, Esq.
President, National Association of Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

9:30am - 9:45am
BREAK

9:45am - 10:45am
Independent Title Agent Panel

Moderator: Kim Himmel - Netwide Title Agency, Inc.

Scott Goldberg, Esq. - Golden Title Agency, Inc.
Susan Happ - American Home & Commercial Title
Jim Lindsay, Esq. - Louisville Title
Amy DeGennaro - Diamond Title
Rachel Torchia - Gateway Title

10:45am - 11:00am
BREAK

11:00am - 12:00am
Paula Knodel, Agency Auditor
General Title Insurance Company
1.0 Hour of CE (pending approval)

"Understanding Escrow"

12:00pm - 1:00pm
LUNCH
Sponsored by Ohio Title Corporation

1:00pm - 2:00pm
Christopher Flowers, Esq.
Ohio Title Corporation
1.0 Hour of CE and CLE (pending approval)

"2010 Industry Caselaw Update"

2:00pm - 2:15pm
BREAK

2:15pm - 3:15pm
Independent Title Closer & Abstractor Panel

Moderator: Rob Holman, Esq.

Robert A. Franco, Esq. - Attorney at Law
Doug Gallant - Independent Examiner
Mary Lou McMahan, Senior Examiner for Ohio Title Corp.

3:15pm - 3:30pm
BREAK

3:30pm - 4:00pm
Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
Quinn, Gordon & Wolf, Chtd.
Baltimore, MD

"Title Industry Class Actions from the Plaintiff's Perspective"

4:00pm - 5:00pm
Kim Himmel, President
Netwide Title Agency, Inc.
Massillon, Ohio

"Understanding the Short Sale Process"

5:00pm
Closing Remarks
Douglas A. King, Esq., President OAITA

Special Guests:
Robert H. Myers, Jr., Esq., OAITA At-Large Trustee
Scott Goldberg, Esq., OAITA Survey Coordinator

The 2010-2011 Board of Trustees

OAITA Honorary Life Membership Award Winner

As you can see, I'll be there and they have asked me to participate as a panelist on the Independent Title Closer & Abstractor Panel. If you make it, hopefully you will get to hear my opinion on the issues facing the independent abstractors and why those issues are important for the industry.

Much like issues that are unique to independent title agents, independent abstractors also have interests which diverge from those of the underwriters and large agents with AfBAs. I don't know exactly what the panel will be asked to discuss, but there are several issues that I think deserve attention.

Abstractor Qualifications - why aren't there any?
Search Standards - why are the underwriters' requirements so different from the Ohio Bar Title Standards?
Vendor Management Companies - faster and cheaper doesn't mean better.
Compensation/Liability - why are abstractors always asked to reduce their fees when their liability and E&O premiums continue to rise?

I'm excited to hear what issues will be discussed at the convention. Anytime agents gather, they ultimately end up discussing problems they face - usually on breaks in the back of the room. Finally, there is a conference devoted to those issues and providing an opportunity for agents and abstractors to vent their concerns to an organization that is actually interested in what they have to say.

I hope to see many of you there!

Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE