Builders sue HUD over incentives

RESPA rule change kicks in Jan. 16

Inman News®

The National Association of Home Builders has become the second industry group to file suit to block changes to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, seeking a court injunction that would allow builders to continue offering consumers incentives for using their affiliated mortgage and title insurance companies.

Some aspects of the new RESPA rule -- such as new standardized loan disclosure forms -- are being phased in over the course of the year (see story). But beginning Jan. 16, the Department of Housing and Urban Development will prohibit builders from offering incentives such as payment of closing costs or home upgrades when consumers use their affiliated companies.

Enacted in 1974, RESPA is intended to prevent settlement services providers from paying illegal kickbacks and referral fees to people or companies that are in a position to send business their way.

Since 1992, however, HUD has allowed real estate brokers, builders, title insurers and others to form affiliated businesses that offer "bona fide" discounts and packages of settlement services. Under RESPA, consumers must be informed about the relationships between the companies and cannot be required to use any particular provider.

But in issuing final RESPA rule changes on Nov. 17, HUD narrowed the definition of "required use" to stipulate that only settlement services providers -- and not home builders -- qualify for the exemption for affiliated businesses.

In its complaint, NAHB claims the final rule "singles out home builders" in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner, because settlement services providers will still be allowed to offer incentives through affiliated businesses under RESPA. Home builders have made "substantial investments" to open affiliated mortgage companies to reduce costs and uncertainty over the closing process, the lawsuit claims.

HUD, in its impact analysis of the proposed rule change, said most builders offset the cost of incentives by charging a higher interest rate, jacking up a home's price, or inflating closing costs.

"The agency believes that, more often than not, consumers do not gain from, and can be misled by, deals involving economic incentives from a builder to obtain a loan or settlement services from an affiliate," HUD said in its analysis.

HUD said that because only one-sixth of home sales are of new homes -- and that only one-third of single-family homes are built by large home builders -- no more than 5 percent of home sales would be affected by the new "required use" definition. The number is likely to be smaller, HUD said, since that estimate assumes that all large home builders have affiliated businesses, when many do not.

Plaintiffs in the NAHB suit include Centex Homes and the company's affiliated mortgage lender, CTX Mortgage Co. LLC; D.R. Horton Inc., its affiliated mortgage lender, DHI Mortgage Company Ltd., and D.R. Horton's affiliated title company, DHI Title of Texas Ltd.; Hovnanian Enterprises Inc., its affiliated mortgage lender, K. Hovnanian American Mortgage LLC, and Hovnanian's affiliated title company, Eastern Title Agency Inc.; and Pulte Homes Inc. and its affiliated mortgage lender, Pulte Mortgage LLC.

NAHB is the second industry group to sue HUD over RESPA in recent weeks. The National Association of Mortgage Brokers sued HUD on Dec. 19 over the new Good Faith Estimate (GFE) form, which requires the disclosure of yield-spread premiums paid by lenders when borrowers take out loans with higher interest rates. The GFE also requires that the rebates be credited to borrowers (see story).

The lawsuits are unrelated, and HUD actually sided with mortgage brokers in deciding to ban incentives offered by home builders' affiliated businesses -- a point noted with some bitterness by NAHB.

In adopting the new, more restrictive "required use" definition, HUD "accepted the arguments of mortgage brokers that compete directly with the [home builders'] affiliated mortgage lenders -- without any explanation or reasoning, much less the type of independent legal analysis that is required," NAHB said in its Dec. 22 complaint. "HUD's decision to endorse the view of the mortgage brokers, particularly in light of the current financial climate, is insupportable."

***

What's your opinion? Leave your comments below or send a letter to the editor.

Share with REmessenger

You must login or register to post a comment.

 
Submitted by Jose Lopez on December 30, 2008 - 2:08pm.

Gee, you are not happy? Well lets sue somebody. Protection is needed for the consumer, and that is what HUD is trying to do. But the special interest groups are coming in and trying to protect their piece of the pie. The better the protection to the consumer, the less likely that we will see these kind of corrections in the future.

Jose Lopez
wwww.SellSarasota.com/Bradenton-Foreclosures.html

 
Submitted by Andrew Chooljian on December 30, 2008 - 3:15pm.

Mortgage 101:

If my options are to use the builder affilliate and come to closing with $5000 vs. $7000 outside and the rate and payment are identicle, am I not better off going with the builder, even if some of the "incentive" is used towards additional points and fees? In most cases the buyer DOES benefit from the affilliated lender's package. How is that unfair to the buyer??

 
Submitted by Dan Connolly on December 30, 2008 - 7:04pm.

My experience is that the preferred lenders that are pushed by the homebuilders and the foreclosure specialists are typically more difficult to deal with than the tried and true lenders that we deal with on a day to day basis. Since the "in house" lenders are handed clients without having to work for them, they seem to be less likely to return calls quickly, and more difficult to deal with in general. I have never seen particularly good rates or low closing costs with an "in-house" lender. But the days of the builder dictating that type of arrangement are over anyway... if you tell them to pay closing costs with the Buyer's lender or the deal's off, watch them roll over!

Dan Connolly
The Atlanta GA Real Estate Guide
http://www.realty4atlanta.com
http://www.realty4atlanta.com/blog/