**LAW OFFICES OF LISA BISAGNI, P.A.**

2400 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 517

#### Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308

#### Telephone: (954) 491-4496

**Facsimile: (954) 491-4497**

**lbisagni@msn.com**

May 7, 2008

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Regulations Division                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Office of General Counsel                                             |
|                                                                       |
| U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development                      |
|                                                                       |
| 451 Seventh Street SW                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| Room 10276                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| Washington, DC 20410                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Re: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA): Proposed Rule to
Simplify and Improve the Process of Obtaining Mortgages and Reduce
Consumer Settlement Costs**

**Docket No. FR-5180-P-01 / 73 Fed. Reg. 14030 (Mar. 14, 2008)**

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am a practicing Florida real estate attorney providing legal counsel,
title insurance and closing services to my clients engaged in selling,
buying and mortgaging real property in this state. I am concerned that
the Department's proposed rule will not achieve its objectives of
simplifying, improving and reducing consumer settlement costs in
obtaining mortgages and, indeed, may create problems that undermine
those objectives. The proposed Good Faith Estimate ("GFE") is long and
complicated and does not allow for an easy comparison to the HUD-1
Settlement Statement ("HUD-1"). The imposition of tolerances and volume
discounts creates an anti-competitive environment that could
disadvantage small businesses and give consumers fewer choices of
settlement service providers from which to choose, and the imposition of
the closing script burdens and liabilities on the closing agent could
result in increased costs for both sellers and borrowers. RESPA reform
cannot be resolved in one sweeping change without considering and
appreciating the many moving parts of a residential real estate
transaction.

Ensuring that consumers understand the terms of the loans they are
getting and whether the settlement costs they are paying are consistent
with the estimates that have been given to them by their mortgage lender
can and should **only** be placed on the shoulders of the mortgage
lender. It is unclear what, if anything, the buyer/borrower or the
settlement agent can do at closing if there are significant
discrepancies in the terms of the loan or estimated settlement costs
provided by the lender to the consumer at loan application. The
information in the closing script comes too late in the process and from
the wrong party to provide any benefit to consumers. It will only
provide confusion.

The proposed closing script also could significantly increase the amount
of time required for closing, which is almost certain to result in
higher closing fees. Not all real estate settlements are conducted
face-to-face with the borrower, which makes it impossible to read aloud
the closing script in such "escrow" or "mail-away" closings. Lenders
have no obligation to provide the information needed to complete the
closing script sufficiently in advance of the time the closing agent
needs it to prepare the script. The mortgage lender is in the best
position to either prepare the closing script or provide an alternative
document to borrowers at some earlier point in time to achieve HUD's
objectives.

Government recording fees should be removed from the proposed zero
tolerance category. Such fees are rarely known to mortgage lenders or
closing agents at the GFE stage, and there are a number of reasons why
these fees may change before or after closing. The proposed rule is not
clear whether title agents may use average cost pricing, which could be
a benefit to consumers and agents.

Volume discounts are anti-competitive and will disproportionately harm
small businesses. Small independent title agencies do not have the
resources to guarantee a stream of business to local title-related
service providers or discount their own prices to compete with large
national title providers. While such discounts may result in lower
prices for the consumer in the short term, once the small businesses
have been pushed out of the competitive marketplace, large providers are
left to compete only among themselves. Under these circumstances,
consumers will have fewer choices for title and closing related
services, and prices will inevitably increase.

Because of the 10% tolerances on fees charged by third parties
recommended by originators, they will want business arrangements in
place that have set prices for services that are not in excess of the
tolerances, and in fact will be highly motivated to find low third-party
prices. The Regulatory Impact Analysis actually explains to originators
that they could raise their origination fees by the savings in
third-party fees negotiated by them and earn more profit per loan. It
further states the borrower could immediately decide to use the
originator's third parties (because of the lower, locked-in amounts), in
which case his or her search for a settlement services provider is over.
In such a scenario, the originator makes more money, the borrower breaks
even (although he had a momentary cost savings), and it's only the third
party settlement services/title insurance agent who suffers a net loss
in the transaction. Clearly, the proposed rule amendments should not
have the effect of providing an economic and transactional direction
advantage to the originator at the expense of the third-party provider
and the consumer.

In view of these inherent conflicts with HUD's stated objectives for the
new regulations, the Department should reconsider the effects on both
consumers and title agents. HUD should limit its efforts to simplifying
the GFE and HUD 1 so that easy comparisons could be made.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Lisa Bisagni, Esquire