AbstractorPro (Real Title Services)
Register
Log In
Forget your Password?

Home
Directory
Bulletins
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Links
Classifieds
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise
FAQ
Privacy Policy


Freehold Capital Partners Enters Written Agreement With Fidelity National Title
press release
   

Freehold Capital Partners recently entered into a written agreement with Fidelity National Title Group (which covers an estimated 60% of the title insurance market) that requires Fidelity to obtain a signed separate disclosure of a private transfer fee covenant at closing.  Freehold, the nation's leader in helping real estate developers utilize private transfer fees (PTFs), is advocating for a national disclosure standard requiring the inclusion of a stand-alone disclosure form to be filed in the office of the public records for the buyer to sign at the time of closing.  Freehold supports a disclosure alternative to the current guidance under review by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) that seeks to restrict Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from insuring mortgages on property that is encumbered by PTFs.  

A private transfer fee (PTF) is a real estate financing tool that allows developers to more fairly apportion the high upfront infrastructure costs of building new developments like sewer lines, roads and water pipes. PTFs are legal covenants that attach to the property.  Each seller during the covenant period – usually 99 years – pays a 1 percent fee to a trustee when they sell the property.

"We firmly believe that clear and prominent disclosure will enable the private transfer fee financing tool to be utilized to benefit consumers," said Bryan J. Cohen, Esq., General Counsel and Executive Vice President of Freehold Capital Partners.  "Our agreement with Fidelity was a key step in ensuring uniform disclosure throughout all 50 states."

The disclosure form at the center of the Freehold/Fidelity agreement mirrors the disclosure form required by California in its well-balanced approach to transfer fees, which can be found in California Civil Code Section 1098 et. seq.  A federal disclosure bill (H.R. 6332), patterned after California's statute, was introduced into the House of Representatives on September 29, 2010.  This disclosure bill should alleviate the concerns raised by critics and the FHFA.

Clear and prominent disclosure ensures that the future obligation is easily discoverable through ordinary diligence; that homebuyers and sellers are knowledgeable and take the fees into account in their negotiations for a fair sales price; and that those entitled to the fee's income stream – including homeowner associations, developers, investors and community non-profits – all are paid in a timely manner.



to post a comment on this article: login - or - register

Did Fidelity just crawl in bed with the devil? Why would Fidelity enter into a contract with Freehold that creates additional requirements for them? What did Fidelity gain from this?  If Freehold is publishing these types of self-bolstering press releases, perhaps it would be willing to publish the complete contract so the average American can get the whole truth.

to post a reply: login - or - register

Of course we don't have Fidelity's side of the story on this, but of the big four underwriters, I'm not surprised that it is Fidelity that would sign a deal with Freehold to lock up "market share" that others won't touch.  The underwriters aren't very transparent, so it is sometimes hard to tell, but Fidelity appears to be the most aggressive of the underwriters as far as taking risks. 

-- We just saw Fidelity release a statement last week saying that it was business as usual on foreclosure transactions for them-- the only company to make such a statement.  I took that as a sales pitch to lenders plagued by these bad affidavits and mortgage assignments.  Old Republic, on the other hand, took a much more cautious approach.

-- Fidelity was the company that immediately went aggressively after the carcass of LandAmerica when it went bust, and snapped up the title operations of LandAm. 

-- Fidelity is not alone in aggressively outsourcing backoffice tasks offshore, but it appears to be doubling down on the strategy with the recent report from India that it was doubling its staff there with about 1000 more title searchers and other back office personnel.

Fidelity's executives have a very lutcrative bonus structure attached to meeting various financial benchmarks, more reminiscent of an investment bank than a typical title underwriter, which likely plays into their decision-making.

to post a reply: login - or - register

 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1482381/000148238110000006/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

Looks like Freehold Capital Partners filed a Form D with the SEC in June of this year indicating that they had already sold $5,000,000 worth of these securities. The exemption was based on Federal Rule 506. Unfortunately for the average American consumer, federal law does allow exemptions from securities filings which allow certain types of securites to fly under the radar. No audited financials have to be filed and no preliminary audit takes place. However, in order to keep the exemption, Freehold cannot engage in general solicitation of their securities and they cannot misrepresent the securities for sales purposes, as well as a few other types of actions that would cease the benefit of the exemption.

Civil remedies for a blown exemption include recission of the whole offer, which allows any purchasers to demand that the original issuer buy back all of the securities sold.  This is the issue that is currently being bounced around in reference to the mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The MBS's were overvalued and certain irregularities were not disclosed to the end investor. This led, in part, to the current economic state of affairs, as well as the record number of wall street firm and bank bailouts.

My questions are these.....how is Freehold valuing these transfer-fee-backed securities to the end investor? Who is making the determination of when the current homeowner will sell the residence, what the value of the home will be at the time, and whether the fee will be collectible if missed? What is the value of protracted litigation when these fees are missed or if sellers refuse to pay them? How can there be any historical information that would allow Freehold to value these securities on the open market?  Based on the current real estate market, it can only be speculation at this point.

Finally and more generally, does this sale of securities truly qualify under 506 for the federal exemption in the first place?

If the title and realtor organizations cannot stop Freehold, perhaps federal and/or state securities regulators can.

 

to post a reply: login - or - register

I could be wrong... securities is not my area of law.  However, it appears to me that they sold equity in their company - not securitized transfer fee covenants. 

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE

to post a reply: login - or - register

I was assuming that the value of their company was based solely on the income or the ability to receive income from the sale of these covenants. One should not assume, right? Good observation. I suppose the builders or developers of the covenant would be the true owners of the right to collect.  I wonder if Freehold has made any pre-emptive agreements to assist these developers in securitizing these covenants after the fact.

to post a reply: login - or - register

Guys,

Nothing FH is doing is illegal, yet you act as if they are breaking the law somehow. Just because you don't like the concept doesn't me it is wrong under the law. You just don't like it. These agreements for full disclosure  where everyone in the transaction knows how to negotiate is the cure for all of this nonsense.

to post a reply: login - or - register

Bobby,

Just because these transfers fees aren't illegal yet in every state, doesn't mean they are not unconscionable. Use them on sophisticated commercial developments where the parties are represented by counsel and understand the terms for the next 99 years. Don't make the average American take a hit because Freehold wants to get rich on it's share of the fee. If homeowners want greenspace and better infrastructure, let them pay for it directly through purchase price.

to post a reply: login - or - register

I posted Freehold's press release verbatim.  How is that objectionable? 

~Slade, Source of Title

to post a reply: login - or - register

It's not objectionable. Just referring to "tone" of posts.

to post a reply: login - or - register

i have said this all along.  The practice is not deceptive if it is held up to the light and fully disclosed.  Indeed, some of the people against it, use California as one of the states in their examples of those that have regulated it, but in California's case, we did not "outlaw" it, but rather required disclosure, much like the Fidelity agreement.  Open, honest disclosure is indeed the way to go. 

to post a reply: login - or - register

William, you are correct. Full disclosure is absolutely the only way to go. I don't believe anyone would think that this was a legitimate concept if the hope was to "trick" someone into paying a percentage at closing without their full knowledge up front. However, that has been the spin for the anti FH folks. As well as describing anyone who participates as, "greedy", "unscrupulous", etc. etc. developers or Wall Street types.

If the concept doesn't work and people choose to not buy in subdivisions that have imposed this covenant. The loser will ultimately be the developer. Private transfer fees are currently on millions of homes( and have been for decades) and if you look at the CAI or other community associations, they say their private transfer fees are incredible and people want to live in these subdivisions because of the benefits that they provide. They say there are no reported closing problems, title insurers close them with no problem, they actually help property appreciate and on and on.

The armageddon of people just discovering the covenants (that has been put forth on various blogs and media reports) as they are about to sell is a total fabrication. It is just not happening. Maybe you can find someone who says they did not know, but hell, I can find anyone to say anything.

Again, if the concept doesn't work, the ultimate losers will be the developers. But I tend to think that it will. Just a "new" way to finance a portion of development costs. FULL DISCLOSURE before the closing table is the key.

 

 

 

to post a reply: login - or - register


Directory

The Source of Title Business directory has 8917 listed companies.

Leave feedback on a company:
SOT ID #:  learn more...
DRN Title Search
Blogs

Read other users' blogs-- or start your own!

Most Recent Blog Posts:

Unveiling the Costs: Why Commercial Title Searches Command a Premium
Security American's Blog
2024/04/17
0 comments

Protecting Your Home: The Ins and Outs of Deed Theft and How to Shield Yourself
Security American's Blog
2024/03/21
0 comments

Exploring the Implications of Eliminating Mandatory Title Insurance
Security American's Blog
2024/03/11
0 comments

Forums

Source of Title's Forums are the place for title industry discussions.
Recent posts in the forums:



Classifieds

Buy, sell, or trade! Browse the ads or post your own!

© 2020, Source of Title.