Golden & LaNeve

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

644 SOUTHEAST 4^TH^ AVENUE

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301

E. SCOTT GOLDEN

EUGENE J. LANEVE

ROBERT A. MORRIS

DANIEL L. HERAK

TELEPHONE (954) 764-6766

FACSIMILE (954) 764-6789

E-MAIL:
[[esglaw@bellsouth.net]{.underline}](mailto:esglaw@bellsouth.net)

OF COUNSEL:

DONIELLE A. MASON

FILE NUMBER DANNIELA SECU

2000-1

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 firm's 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 it 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. This attempt
at RESPA reform does not take into account that the requirements on one
part of a residential real estate transaction affect the other aspects
of the transaction.

Regulations Division

Office of General Counsel

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Re: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)

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

May 7, 2008

Page two

Ensuring that consumers understand the terms of the loans they are
receiving 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
engender confusion.

Furthermore, introducing the potential discrepancies into the
transaction only at the closing will also materially impact residential
sellers, in that, in the majority of transactions, sellers are
purchasing another residence with the net sale proceeds from the sale of
the old one. Closings are usually carefully orchestrated to make sure
that all the parties can plan their sales and moves. A disclosure at (or
the day before) closing of discrepancies or revisions in the loan terms,
rather than an earlier disclosure by the lender/mortgage broker, creates
tremendous pressure on a borrower/buyer to close. If a borrower/buyer
decides at that late date not to close, the result is completely
disruptive to the seller, as well as to the buyer. Therefore,
introduction of discrepancies so late in the process should not be
contemplated by the revisions. Instead, any discrepancies must be
introduced by the lender or mortgage broker in advance, and approved by
the borrower/buyer, so that the closing can occur as scheduled.

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. It would be impractical, if not
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 the laudatory objectives of insuring
that the borrower/buyer has ample opportunity to understand the loan
documents.

Use of the word "optional" on the GFE and the HUD-1 to identify owner's
title insurance is misleading to consumers. The proposed disclosure of
the title agent's and title underwriter's portion of the title premium
also serves no useful purpose on the

Regulations Division

Office of General Counsel

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Re: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)

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

May 7, 2008

Page three

HUD-1 and does not aid consumers in their understanding of title
insurance fees. The purpose of the RESPA requirements in these
residential transactions is to insure that the parties, principally the
buyer/borrower, are apprised of all the fees for which he is charged and
what they are for. Anything further complicates the transaction for
people that, by and large, are unfamiliar with it. Including additional
information on the HUD-1 that does not impact what the parties pay
complicates the transaction; it does not simplify it.

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. Because title review may
result in the addition of pertinent and appropriate riders, and because
lenders do not all use the same forms, or have them printed on the same
paper stock, it is quite common not to know the number of pages of the
mortgage and riders (and, therefore, the recording fees) until the day
of (or the day before) closing. Moreover, because the proposed rule does
not clarify whether title agents may use average cost pricing, which
could be a benefit to consumers and agents, there is no way for a title
agent to solve these minor, but legitimate, cost disparities which are
fairly assumed by borrowers/buyers.

Volume discounts are anti-competitive and will disproportionately harm
small title agencies, [such as our firm]{.underline}. 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 some consumers 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. For
the benefit of the consumer/borrower, the new rules should foster
competition, not create rules that will serve to eliminate it.

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

Regulations Division

Office of General Counsel

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Re: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)

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

May 7, 2008

Page four

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. I am unaware that the
Department has a mandate to increase profits to originators at the
expense of anybody else.

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 revise the
Regulations (i) to the manifest (and beneficial) purpose of simplifying
the GFE and HUD 1, so that consumer/borrowers can make easy comparisons
among loan choices, (ii) without shifting to the settlement agent the
lenders'/mortgage brokers' responsibility of timely disclosing to the
borrower the terms of the loan, and (iii) without fee shifting in favor
of originators and away from settlement agents.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[s/E. Scott Golden]{.underline}

E. SCOTT GOLDEN

ESG/eg

HP3/Mydocs/RESPA.LTR2