LAW OFFICES OF

**WEISS SEAVEY, P.A.**

[2400 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 204]{.smallcaps}

[Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308]{.smallcaps}

[Telephone:]{.smallcaps} (954) 489-1444

[Facsimile: (954) 489-9993]{.smallcaps}

**[Mona Weiss, Attorney]{.smallcaps}**

May 27, 2008

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
(March 14, 2008)

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I am a Florida real estate attorney, primarily handling residential real
estate closings, so I am submitting these comments from my direct
experience and knowledge as a practitioner.  I am very hands-on from
start to finish and I handle all of my own closings.  As such, I
experience first hand which areas of the mortgage loan/closing process
cause my clients the most confusion, frustration, and dismay.  I hope
you find my comments informative and that you consider them in your
evaluation process of the proposed rule. 

Although I commend and support the Department\'s stated objectives to
aid and protect the home mortgage loan consumer, for many reasons,
including as set forth below, the proposed rule is far overreaching and
fraught with conflicts. Not only would the proposed rule fail to
accomplish its stated objectives, but it would likely lead to conduct
and practice that would cause much more harm than good. I fear that the
proposed rule would ultimately result in an increase in mortgage
settlement costs to the consumer, and a decrease in the quality of
service and level of professionalism in the title related closing
industry.

# 

# I. CLARIFICATION AND SIMPLIFICATION 

I agree that the GFE needs to be clarified and simplified and adapted to
be user friendly to consumers.  I also agree that the GFE terminology
and categories should be adapted to correspond more directly with the
costs and expenses and other amounts reflected on the HUD-1.
Unfortunately, however, the proposed changes fail to simplify and/or
clarify the GFE and/or the HUD-1. In fact, the proposed changes would
serve to complicate instead of simplify the

Page 2

information, and would thereby leave the consumer even more confused and
less informed, and a bigger target for deception. 

To clarify the GFE and to assist the consumer in understanding the
information contained on the GFE, I would suggest revisions more in line
with the following:

(1) Keep the GFE to one page. Lengthy documents become overwhelming, and
    the consumer fails to digest and understand any of the information.

(2) Only the lender fees should be designated to have a zero tolerance
    since the lender is in a position to know their own fees. 

(3) Require a clear disclosure and explanation of any yield spreads or
    POC\'s that affect the pricing of the loan. 

(4) Third Party Fees/Costs: (a) Designate third party fees and costs in
    a separate category and clearly disclose them as estimates. (b)
    Provide a conspicuous (bold print) informational note that the
    consumers should obtain their own accurate quotes for these amounts
    from their respective service provider(s), for example, title
    service providers, property insurance agencies, surveyors, etc. (c)
    Provide an added notation that the lender will re-do the GFE upon
    the consumers' request to reflect the third party fees quoted by the
    consumers' service providers.

(5) Title Premiums and Endorsements: (a) Include estimates of title
    premiums and endorsements in the third party fees/costs section. (b)
    Provide a conspicuous (bold print) informational note that reissue
    or other lower rates may be available.

(6) Document Stamps/Intangible Tax/Recording: (a) Designate governmental
    transfer fees in a separate category. (b) Provide a conspicuous
    (bold print) informational note by the recording charge that it is
    only an estimate based on a stated number of pages, and that the
    actual recording costs can be higher or lower depending on the
    number of pages of document(s) to be recorded.

(7) Comparison to HUD-1: The fees and costs in the GFE should follow the
    same format and order as the fees and costs as they appear on the
    form HUD-1. In essence, the fees and costs section of the GFE could
    basically be a reproduction of the Borrower's column on the second
    page of the HUD-1. This would make it abundantly clear and simple
    for the consumer to compare information.

(8) Recurrent Problem with Underestimating Payoffs, Insurance and Taxes:
    It is common to find GFE's with substantially underestimated amounts
    for payoffs, insurance premiums, and real estate taxes.  It is well
    known that consumers oftentimes only look at the bottom lines.
    Accordingly, if the loan payoff and/or insurance premiums are
    underestimated, then the bottom line total will appear lower, and
    the unknowing consumer is mislead into thinking that a particular
    lender\'s costs are less than another\'s, when in fact they are
    not.  Additionally, in a loan with escrows, underestimated insurance
    premiums and real estate taxes will result in an underestimated
    monthly payment, which is highly problematic. First, the consumer
    may be mislead into choosing the lender with the lower total monthly
    payment, when in fact the principal and interest was the same or
    even higher than another\'s, but where the escrowed amount(s) were
    underestimated. Second, if the actual

> Page 3
>
> monthly payment is substantially higher than the estimated one, then
> it is conceivable that had the consumer been given an accurate monthly
> payment amount, the consumer may have chosen an entirely different
> loan program, lender, and/or perhaps an entirely different course of
> action. [For the foregoing reasons: (a) Lenders should be required to
> obtain accurate payoff, insurance and real estate tax information to
> produce a more realistic GFE. If they need additional time to get such
> accurate information, then they should be required to do so and to
> furnish a revised GFE.  (b) There should be a conspicuous note (in
> bold print) next to such amounts indicating that these amounts are
> only estimates and that the lender will obtain more accurate payoff,
> insurance, and/or real estate tax information, and furnish the
> consumer with a revised GFE.]{.underline}

The above suggestions and discussions are to give you the point of view
from an experienced practitioner's perspective as to where the consumer
could stand to benefit, and were not intended to be an all-inclusive nor
exclusive list.

# 

# II. COMPLIANCE IMPRACTICAL

A. There are various aspects of the proposed changes that would be
impossible and/or impractical to comply with in an actual closing.  For
instance, to include the government recording fees in the \"zero
tolerance\" category is setting up the procedure to fail right from the
start. The number of pages to record is what determines the cost; and
the number of pages is simply not known at the time when the GFE
is prepared.   There are many factors that would affect the number of
pages of the mortgage to be recorded, such as the attachment of
applicable riders for the type of loan program (fixed, adjustable,
balloon), the type of property (Planned Unit Development, Condominium,
etc.), exhibits for legal descriptions, additional notary pages, etc. 
Additionally, the title examination could reflect the need to record
corrective documents, affidavits, satisfactions, etc., all of which
would be in the government recording fees category.  Again, this amount,
if any, would not be known when the GFE is prepared.

B. Another quagmire is in the proposed requirement of the closing
script.  First, logistics alone would sometimes make the \"reading
aloud\" requirement impossible, such as in the case of electronic
closings, mail closings and/or escrow closings. 

Second, it is the lenders, not the closing agents, who should be
required to complete and present the closing scripts, and the lenders
should be required to do so early on.  Lenders are in a much better
position to have the necessary information, and they should explain in
detail that information to the consumer as early in the process as
possible.  The closing table should not be where the consumer first
learns about the loan he or she \"has chosen.\'\' 

Third, since there appears to be no obligation on the part of the lender
to provide the closing agent in advance with the information needed to
complete the closing script, this would create an undue burden on the
closing agent.  In the majority of instances, the loan packages are
emailed to the closing agents by the lenders at the last minute, and it
is oftentimes a time crunch to work up the HUD-1 and get the file ready
for closing.  If the closing agent were given the added task of

Page 4

preparing the closing script at the last minute as well, this would
cause delays and would significantly increase the amount of time
required to prepare for and to conduct closings.  This could very well
contribute to an increase in closing fees. 

# 

# III. CONTRARY TO EXISTING LAW AND REGULATIONS

It is my understanding that the intended objectives of requiring
mortgage lenders to furnish GFE\'s in the first place, (along with TIL
Statements and other mandatory disclosures), were to protect consumers
against deceptive and greedy lenders; to assist consumers in making
informed decisions when shopping for lenders and loan products; and to
allow the consumers to rely on the accuracy of the loan fees and terms
as disclosed in the GFE.  Accordingly, this was a regulation imposed on
lenders, to protect the consumers against "bad lenders." However, the
effect of the proposed rule would have those bad lenders regulating
third party service providers, namely the title related service
providers, and simply put, that would be outrageous.

Although the GFE form requires the inclusion of estimates of certain
third party fees, I am sure that it was never the Department\'s
intention to have the lenders shop and affiliate its business with title
related service providers, nor to control that market.  But that would
be the effect of the proposed rule. This type of arrangement would ring
a similar bell to the old practice of banks directing their borrowers to
their affiliated casualty insurance companies, as a result of which
activity we now have anti-coercion laws and regulations in place.\
\
Unfortunately, the proposed rule may very well re-ignite the lender
coercion fire, and it is the consumers who will once again get burned. 
Lenders will be able to direct a high volume of title/closing business
in exchange for discounted fees and costs.  But these savings would
likely never go into the consumer\'s pocket.  Surprisingly, under the
proposed rule, the lender can actually take the spread of that savings
and add it to the lender's origination fee.  Accordingly, the consumer
would save no money and would likely get a sub-par title related service
provider.   Lender's claims, in this case, of lower settlement costs
would be deceptive and illusory, and perhaps fraudulent.

In addition, the small independent title agencies and title attorneys
would be unfairly pushed out of the competitive marketplace, with only
the large title related service providers left to compete among
themselves.   There can be nothing good to come from this either,
especially to the consumer.  The lack of competition would ultimately
result in higher closing costs and lower levels of service to the
consumer.

It is clear from the current crisis in the mortgage loan industry that
lenders do not always make the best decisions, and that their focus is
on their profit margin in making loans, and not on protecting the
consumers. Had lenders been concerned with the protection of consumers,
they would not have given the vast majority of the sub-prime loans
and/or the 95%-100% LTV loans, the resounding effects of which have
gravely contributed to our crippled real estate market.

Page 5

In sum, I respectfully request that the Department reconsider the
effects of the proposed rule on both consumers as well as small business
title agents, and limit the scope of the proposed changes to simplifying
and clarifying the GFE and HUD-1 for the benefit of the consumer. If the
GFE were clarified as suggested above, then the consumer would be an
informed one. I truly believe that there is no better shopper than an
informed consumer in a free and competitive marketplace.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Respectfully Submitted,

WEISS SEAVEY, P.A.

By:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Mona Weiss

MW