to post a reply: login - or - register

I can tell by the fact that you post on every article and blog about private transfer fees that you enjoy reading about the subject.  I guess it is time to write another blog about Freehold.  I have read a few interesting articles, but I haven't been in the mood to revisit this topic.  I ordinarily prefer not to kick a man while he is down... but, you clearly need something to get you to stop yawning.  I miss your sharp wit and unwaivering support for a concept that hasn't got much time left.  I know you can do better than "yawn."

By the way Paul, you have been lurking around for a while now.  Why don't you share a little information about who you are.  I imagine that you are either a partner or an agent of Freehold... am I close? 

Slade is on a long walk-about, so I don't have a lot of time, but I'll start working on that blog.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE

 

to post a reply: login - or - register

Robert,

I am neither, just anti big lobby and enjoy arguing with people who, because their associations say so, believe they are completely right on an issue.  And from what I have seen, the title industry is very good at "working for the best interest of its members".

However, everyone else (consumers) continue to suffer.  If you want to talk about  "articles", there are plenty on the title industry as well. Not just "papers" or opinions put out by biased associations.

 

 

to post a reply: login - or - register

Now you have gone and hurt my feelings.  You seem to imply that am apposed to private transfer fees because my "association says so."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  First, ALTA is not my association... I haven't been a member since around 2004.  Second, I was letting people know about this scheme years before it caught ALTA's attention.  I don't mind arguing with you, but try to get your facts straight.

I am also wondering why, if you are so endeared to private transfer fees, you don't post your opinions using your real name, "Whitt Wilson."  I have a hard time taking anyone who feels the need to obscure their identity seriously. It makes me wonder what else you are hiding.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE

to post a reply: login - or - register

Just posting opinions on a blog.  Nothing more nothing less.

to post a reply: login - or - register

ALTA's argument is that a transfer fee paid at closing will cause mortgage problems for Fannie and Freddie. ALTA's assumption is that the title company did not do the job it was paid to do. I'm also curious as to how this threat to Fannie and Freddie, posed by a 1% transfer fee paid at closing, is any different from any other routine and ordinary fee imposed by a covenant.

ALTA implies that the fees are designed to "simply generate additional revenue", yet this ignores the fact that developers spend millions to install streets, utilities and other infrastructure, elevating the tax base and creating jobs. The fee spreads the costs of capital improvements over those who benefit.

ALTA's comment that a 1% transfer fee "will create perverse incentives for the holder of the rights to destabilize the neighborhood so as to create the churn that would maximize the repeated collection of fees" is particularly bizarre. Were they serious?

First, how exactly would someone accomplish this? Second, wouldn't the homes then sell for LESS money (and generate LESS income)? and Third, the reality is exactly the OPPOSITE: developers, as owners of a long-term income stream that is directly correlated to the value of the homes in the development, now have an incentive for the values to remain HIGH for a longer period. Instead of cashing a check and walking away, they have a vested interest in a quality project. Quality will always sell for more.

Isn't this the same group (ALTA) that lobbied for lax lending standards, subprime loans, etc., all in the pursuit of more closings and more fees? They have been called a "cartel" that "fleeces americans" and which "cheats homeowners out of their equity". (See www.fairtitle.org). Just google title insurance overcharge and check out articles from serious sources such as the WSJ, CNN, etc., as well as congressional testimony, all documenting how the industry overcharges consumers thousands of dollars. So, the question is, Why would anyone actually listen to anything ALTA has to say?

As to the FHA reference, the letter was not written by the general counsel - it was written by a woman leaving HUD. The letter said that HUD has a provision that prevents a covenant that restricts the maximum sales price a seller can charge. You don't need a law degree to realize that a transfer fee does not cap the sales price a seller can charge - it simply reduces the proceeds. To interpret the letter as ALTA suggests would mean that every residential home in the country with a mandatory fee imposed by a covenant would be non-conforming under HUD regulations.

If Fannie/Freddie were actually inclined to listen to ALTA, they would render non-conforming an estimated 2.5 million mortgages nationwide. The only result of this action would be higher costs for homeowners, who would be forced to pay non-conforming mortgage rates, and more protection for ALTA.

The clue to ALTA's "concern" over capital recovery fees can be found near the end of ALTA's letter, where they conclude that a transfer fee would "result in increased costs of underwriting, claims, escrow services and compliance for the land title industry". In other words, a more accurate title for this post might have been "ALTA asks Fannie and Freddie to increase fees on consumers in order to protect ALTA members from their own negligence." It wouldn't be the first time.


to post a reply: login - or - register

Thank you for presenting the facts ,Aileen, on the opposition lobby "talking points". If you read the various letters and quotes for "banning" capital recovery fees(private transfer fees), it is almost "cartoonish". You almost can't believe that , supposedly, serious people and organizations sign off on them.  Of course, I do realize they are trying to make a quick splash to deceive consumers and policy makers and they believe painting some sort of real estate armageddon scenario is the best (laziest) way to do that. I imagine some of the "opponents" will realize, at some point in time,   they weren't given the "whole" story up front and were just "used" to push an agenda for a handful of organizations.

It is also interesting that the majority of the organizations opposing PTF's (as you also point out), haven't changed the way they do business in years and therefore exert a heck of a lot of energy (and member money) to oppose any changes within the industry they have been accustomed to owning for a very long time. Even though  the changes would actually help the industry participants.

 

to post a reply: login - or - register

I've the same and similar points for years.  I believe that consumers need to do two things very consistently:  RTFD and use Common Sense.

The first stands for "Read the Frackin' Document".  Using the superpower of reading the American English language and referring to a dictionary when they come across unknown terms, We the People would do far better as consumers who exercise our own rights, if we  bothered to understand what we were signing.

Secondly, Common Sense, seems far less a concern to the Common Man today than ever before in history.  We don't encourage people to rub brain cells together with dumbed-down educational standards and an infotainment world. 

But, I'm a free market advocate, while others like the nanny state to watch out for their every boo-boo.  I say "caveat emptor"!

to post a reply: login - or - register