nailta's "required use" response letter

8/9/2019 NAILTA's "Required Use" Response Letter

1/12

August 27, 2010IA , FEDERAL EXPRESSDavid II . StevensRegulations DivisionOffice of General CounselU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development451 7 f i l Street, SWRoom 10276W ashington DC , 20410-0500RE: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA): Strengthening and Clarifying RESPA's"Required Use" Prohibition Adv ance Notice of Proposed R ulemakingDocket No. FR-5352-A-01Dear Com missioner Stevens:On behalf of the hund reds of independent t i t le insurance agen ts , independen t t i tle insuranceunderwriters and interested title insurance industry stakeholders who are members of ourorganization, please allow me to formally introduce you to the National Association ofIndependent Land T itle A gents (NAILT A) (wvvw .nailta.org).NAILTA was formed inNovem ber, 2008 by concerned independent t i tle insurance agents from across the United Stateswho are d etermined to foster transparency, promote educ ation and understanding and preservethe value of the land title process.NA ILT A is the only land title association in the United States that is based upon and foc uses itsefforts on the issues affecting independent land title insurance agents and like-mindedindependent real estate settlement service providers. NAILTA is uniquely situated to makecomments regarding HUD's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) becauseNA ILTA has extensive experience and know ledge of the harms caused by aff i l iated businessarrangements (ABA s) (also known as controlled business arrangements or CB As).

3 Dickinson Drive, Suite 204 Chadds F ord, PA 19317Phone: 610 . 361 2655 F ax: 610 . 361 2656www.NAILTA.org


2/12

Page 2 of 12Letter to Comm issioner David H. StevensAugust 27, 2010

NA ILTA h as been vocal in its s tance against the proliferation of CB As in the t i t le insuranceindustry. NAILTA believes that C BAs unfairly restrict healthy competition in the ti tle insuranceindustry, create inexorable con flicts of interest between referral sources, land title agencies andtheir consumers a t the closing table, and impair the traditional barriers of a ccess to the insuranceprocess, all to the detriment of consum ers, the very homeow ners and borrowe rs that drive thereal estate industry.On behalf of independent title agents across the United States, we take this opportunity toaddress you and your staff in connection with the AN PR to strengthen and clarify the prohibitionagainst the "required use" of affiliated settlement service providers in residential mortgagetransactions under section 8 of RESPA .' The goals of the ANPR m irror those that NA ILTA hassought s ince it s founding. However , NA ILTA bel ieves that more work is needed as the AN PRseems too narrow to properly address the problems caused by CBAs. With this in mind,NA ILTA advises HUD of the fol lowing and asks that i t be included as an interested industrystakeholder for purposes of further developing and implementing the final rule.

i.ntroduction and B ackground.Title insurance may be one of the least understood and most maligned forms of insuranceavailable to the A merican co nsume r. Since i ts incept ion in 1876, t i tle insurance has sufferedfrom the same problem, the inability of the producer to effectively communicate its value to theconsum er. The reasons for the breakdown in com munication are plentiful. The most importantof which is the fact that t i tle insurance is not marketed to the ult imate consumer o f the product.Instead, it is marketed to the referral source (i.e. the real estate firm, mortgage company,homebuilder, lender, developer) who, in exchange for the referral, often times receives incentivesor other kickback s to encourage the a ffiliation. Consum ers rarely participate in the process ofselecting their title insurance provider and often, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, defer theselection of the title insurance p rovider to the refe rral source. A s a result, t it le insurance is aclosed system of com petition from the inception of each transaction. Further, many consum ershave a negative and ill-informal concept of title insurance and its benefits to consumers.The dam ages of unfair com petit ion in the t i tle insurance industry has been well-docum ented.2Since the 199 0's, the title insurance industry has bee n slowly devolving into a form of qua si-casualty insurance. With the help of massive lobbying efforts on the part of banks, mortgagecompanies, home builders and real estate companies, the title insurance industry has beencollectively overrun by its referral sources. The tit le insurance industry, which c ontinues to be1 Fed. Reg. 31334, V ol. 75, No. 106, Thursday, June 3, 2010.2 Jack Guttentag, "Real Estate Settlement Services Take B ite Out of Borrowers," Inman New s, September 6, 2005;see also, The Pricing and Marketing of Insurance: A R eport of the Departm ent of Justice to the Task Group onA ntitrust Imm unities, January 1977, Pages 250-274; "Chapter XII The Title Assurance and Conveyance Industries"of Real Estate Closing Costs, RES PA, S ection I 9a, V olume II S ettlement Performance Ev aluation prepared by Peat,Marwick, Mitchell and Co. for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, October 1980; State ofCalifornia Department of In surance Bulletin 80-12, Decem ber 24, 1980, Subject: Insurance Code Section 12404 -Unlawful Rebates; Title Insurance A dvisory C om m ittee Final Report to the State Board of Insurance, S eptem ber1986; Nelson Lipshutz, The Regulatory Econom ics of Title Insurance, Praeger Press, Westport, CT, 1994, page 5;Ohio Rev. Code 3953.26.


3/12

Page 3 of 12Letter to Comm issioner David H. StevensAugust 27, 2010dominated by four national title insurance underwriters controlling over 90% of all title businessconducted in the United States, has tacitly supported referral source infiltration as a means toacquire additional market share. Unfortunately, in doing so, the title insurance industry hasallowed this referral source infiltration to color its perception of risk to the insurance product.Speed has been prioritized over safety. Short term profits and controlled market shares havebeen emphasized over long term sustainability and the overall health of the title industry.In the same period that referral source infiltration has blossomed, claims have dramaticallyincreased. Likewise, historic standards of title abstracting have been degraded by the nationaltitle insurance underwriters in order to accommodate the hastened approach to real estateclosings preferred by these referral sources. Current-owner searches (not a full 60 year search onpurchase transactions), title insurance without title searches and risky offshore title searchprocessors have been embraced to the equal detriment of homeowners and insureds. Notsurprisingly, these changes have increased the claims-loss ratios of every single title insuranceunderwriter who has permitted them.

a. Controlled business arrangements and "one-stop" shops.The referral sources that oppose changes to the "required use" definition of section 8 of RESPAseek the ultimate transformation of the title insurance industry by promoting two relatedconcepts -- controlled business arrangements 3 (CBAs) or affiliated business arrangements(AfBAs) and "one-stop" shopping or bundled services. The idea is that title insurance and theother bundled services that accommodate the referral source's business are simply means to anend, rather than important independent services in their own right with no potential conflicts ofinterest ."One-stop" shopping is a concept closely aligned with CBAs and a term of art that describes theprocess that referral sources wish to impose upon the title insurance industry and other settlementservices. "One-stop" shopping is designed to bundle all real estate settlement services (i.e.mortgage lending, title insurance, appraisal, survey and real estate brokerage) under one entity inorder to provide purported cost savings to consumers and to hasten the process of settlement.Unfortunately for homeowners and borrowers, the supposed advantages of "one-stop" shoppingare largely unknown and speculative. 4 Meanwhile, the conflicts that are created in the quest forexpediency help to undermine the traditional barriers to access that have kept title insurancehistorically separate from its incentivized partners.

b. The "One-Stop" Shop Convenience Myth.The results of "one-stop" shopping have had no demonstrable positive impact on Americanconsumers. This fact is even true to the proponents of the concept who refer to the benefits of"one stop" shops as being nothing more than "potential." 5 However, closing costs are not trulylower with "one-stop" shops compared to independent settlement providers and fastersettlements have not lowered title insurance claims or real estate-related litigation. 6 Recent3 24 CFR 3 500.15(a).4lsifieci res/alt18050Lomgtonirrnhoppinghttp://banking.senate.gov/02 05hrg/052302/hanna.htm (visited August 2, 2010)6 http://caare.ora/main/wp-content/uploacis/2008/12/executivesummarvattomeysurvev122008.pdf


4/12

Page 4 of 12Letter to Comm issioner David H. StevensAugust 27, 2010studies paid for by the referral sources who oppose a stronger "required use" definition haveconcluded that 70% or more of homeowners and borrowers are completely unaware of what a"one stop" shop provides.7Complicating the trustworthiness of the surveys conducted by those in favor of "one stop" shopsis the fact that the studies have no statistical margin for error. 8 Consequently, their value is ofquestionable merit. Respondents to the cited studies were new home buyers and future homebuyers who were willing to participate in the study and were online visitors prompted by themembers of National Association of Realtors (NAR) to complete the survey. 9 The informationgained from the study has numerous built-in biases and control errors. To highlight thesedeficiencies, the survey questions used by the pollster were apparently skewed to arrive at aresult favorable to the use of "one-stop" shops, despite no empirically supported need to do so.For instance, respondents to the Harris Interactive Poll commissioned by the NAR in 2008 wereasked the following question:

"If you could purchase all or most of the necessary services or products forbuying a home from one company, in your opinion, how much easier would thatmake buying a home?"19

Clearly, the survey question presupposes that "one stop" shops are easier for buyers to use.There is no data to support this presupposition. However, the "loaded" nature of the surveyquestion does not end there. The survey then lists the following required selections:

"(1) A great deal amount easier; (2) A fair amount easier; (3) Somewhat easier;and, (4) Not at all easier."

Three of the four required responses supported the desired result of the survey data (i.e., that"one-stop" shops are "easier" for consumers). Not surprisingly, 96% of respondents to thisquestion answered it with one of the three presupposed positive responses. In the data collectionand survey industry,' I the data in support of "one stop" shops is unreliable.Unfortunately, this will be the same data that the NAR and other "one stop" shopping supporterswill use to once again support the idea that there is widespread support and understanding of theuse and value of "one stop" shops outside the referral source community. To the contrary, thisbelief is false and unproven.

II .he GAO Studies:In 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided a report and testimony tothe House Committee on Financial Services identifying issues in the title insurance market that7littp://www.realtor.org/wps/wemiconneet/26edd6804a7ad6f3a68abf72b4e3ecdd/NAR+Survey+2008.pdf1MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID .'-26edd6804a7ad6f3a68abf72b4e3eedd (visited July 30, 2010)Id. at 5.9 Id. at 5.1 Id. at 49.1 1 http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/loaded questions.htm (visited July 30, 2010).


5/12

Page 5 of 12Letter to Commissioner David H. StevensAugust 27, 2010merited further study because they purported to shed light on competition and the priceshomeowners and borrowers pay for title services. 1 2 The 2006 GAO report resulted in a furtherstudy that the GAO released in April of 2007 titled, "Title Insurance: Actions Needed to ImproveOversight of the Title Industry and Better Protect Consumers".13In the 2007 study, the GAO recommended that the U.S Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) take two actions to improve the functioning of the title insurance market:(1) improve homeowners' ability to shop for title insurance based on price; and, (2) improve itsability to detect and deter violations of section 8 of RESPA. 1 4 In the 2007 study, the GAO alsorecommended that state regulators take action to: (1) improve homeowners' ability to shop fortitle insurance; and, (2) improve their oversight of title agents by strengthening their regulationof title agents and CBAs, in particular.15In the 2007 study, the GAO indicated that the use of CBAs among title insurance agents,agencies and the banks, real estate companies and mortgage brokers who serve as referralsources was growing not decreasing. 1 6 The 2007 GAO study concluded that HUD and stateregulators should clarify regulations concerning referral fees and CBAs and improve oversight.17In order to improve homeowners' ability to shop for title insurance based upon price, NAILTAbelieves that HUD must rethink its position on CBAs. While it is understood that HUD seeksonly to address the somewhat narrow concerns within the ANPR (i.e. those related to "requireduse" issues and the incentive or discount programs offered by homebuilders), the problem ofCBAs is not confined to the homebuilder or to the concept of "required use." Thus, a newdefinition of "required use" will not abate the spread of CBAs nor improve consumer choice. Itwill only recharacterize the problem thereby making oversight and enforcement more difficult,not less.The problem with CBAs is that they permit real and potential conflicts of interest between thetitle insurance agency and the referral source. Whether or not the title agent performs in acompetent manner in the conduct of its business is immaterial, the conflict still exists. Since thehomeowner or borrower does not actually have a chance to waive the conflict or be advised ofthe consequences of the conflict and HUD rules only require disclosure of the CBA to theconsumer, nothing in the current HUD rules or RESPA statute addresses the problem highlightedby the ANPR.The real estate settlement industry is the only profession that permits kickbacks as a means ofbusiness. In any other profession, the conflicts created by controlled business arrangements

1 2 GAO, Title Insurance: Preliminary V iew s and Issues for Further Study , GAO-06-568 (Washington, DC: Apr. 24,2006); and Title Insurance: Preliminary V iews and Issues for Further Stuck GAO-06-569T (Washington, DC: Apr.26, 2006) (Copy attached hereto as Exhibit A).1 3 G A O , Title Insurance: Actions N eeded to Im prove Ov ersight of the T itle Industry and Better Protect Consum ers,GAO -07-401 (Washington, DC: Apr il 13, 2007) (Copy attached hereto as Exhibit B).1 4 Id. at pg. 6.1 5 Id. at pg. 6.1 6 Id. at pg. 15.1 7 Id. at pg. 56.


6/12


7/12

Page 7 of 12Letter to Commissioner David H. StevensAugust 27 , 2010

54% of respondents believe it is a conflict of interest for a real estate firm, m ortgagecompany and/or a bank to provide incentives or other compensation to theiremployees for their referring the real estate transaction to their preferred ti tle agent ifthey receive a financial benefit from the referral.

The survey is currently in a second phase o f data collection. There w ere nearly three hundredresponses to the first phase and an equal amount projected to be received prior to the November2, 2010 deadline. NAILTA is unaware of any other data that is being collected by land titleassociations on the direct subject at issue in this ANPR. OAITA is likely the only titleorganizat ion cu rrent ly surveying the g eneral public for responses to the issues present in theAN PR. The first phase of data paints a stark contrast to the data compiled, in the NAR fundedstudies of 2002 and 2008.IV. The "Required Use" Definition:

The purp ose of the AN PR is to "strengthen and clarify" the regulatory definition of "requireduse" in RE SPA section 8. How ever, f ixing the presen t definition is similar to repairing a leakyfaucet with your index finger. The fix does not provide a permanent cure to the problem and ca nonly be seen as a temporary solution. The real estate settlement industry is dependent uponHUD for guidance, oversight and support requiring m eaningful and consistent enforcement."Required use" is currently defined in RESPA to mean:

"A situation in which a person must use a particular provider of a settlementservice in order to have ac cess to some distinct service or property, and the p ersonwill pay for the sett lement service of the particular provider or will pay a chargeattributable, in whole or in part, to the settlement service."2

On its face, the "required use" definition suggests that there are si tuations where a homeowner orborrower is "forced" to use a particular service provider in order to receive _some other benefit orservice connected with the service. For instance, a homeowner may be "required" to use abank's controlled title insurance company in order to receive a mortgage loan from thatinstitution or discounts offered in c onnection with that bank's loan, wh ich is interrupted to be aclear RESPA violation. HUD's ANPR, suggesting a preference to study the impacts as theypertain to h omebuilder discounts and forward com mitments only, would apply equally to anyreferral source-controlled title insurance agency since the same tactics are used by those partiesto steer homeowners and borrowers to a referral source's controlled entities.The "required use" definition currently spelled out by RESPA continues:

"However, the offer ing of a package or (combinat ion of set tlement services) orthe offering of discounts or rebates to consumers for the purchase of multiple2 Fed. R eg. 31336, Vol. 75, No. 106, Thursday, June 3, 2010.


8/12

Page 8 of 12Letter to Comm issioner David H. StevensAugust 27, 2010settlement services does not constitute a required use. Any package or discountmust be optional to the purchaser. The discount must be a true discount below theprices that are otherwise generally available, and must not be made up by highercosts elsewhere in the settlement process."21

The current definition suggests that discounts may be "offered" so long as they are: (1) optional;and (2) not "bait-and-switch" type discounts. The definition permits choice. In reality, referralsources provide these types of discounts in such a way that the homeowners and borrowers oftentimes feel "strong-armed" and lack adequate sophistication to compare the value of the discountversus the true cost of the service. In other words, discounts give consumers the choice between"apples" and "oranges." The net result is more confusion, not less.The main reason for this confusion is the fact that title insurance and other independent realestate settlement services are often times marketed to homeowners and borrowers by personsother than the party providing the service. In essence, this is the failure of a reverse competitionsystem. It allows the party who receives the kickback the ability to market the product to thehomeowner or borrower. Not only is the reverse competition system irreparably confusing to thehomeowner or borrower, it is also founded in conflict which makes the net result of therelationship problematic for the ultimate consumers, who are never presented with the option towaive the conflict, and those involved in the arrangement, who must part with a significantposition of their profits in order to maintain the referral source's business.Further, in many states the title insurance premium is determined and set by the insurancedepartment of that state (i.e., Pennsylvania) and thus the only legal savings a title agent can offerwould be through ancillary services, such as recording fees, notary and overnight chargesthereby reducing their bottom line.Thus, changing the definition of "required use" without addressing the bargaining and marketinginequities that exist in the construction of CBAs and the reverse competition system that haschoked off the title insurance industry is not likely to change the problem.

V.he ANP R's Six Qu estions: Viewing a Problem Through a Pigeon-HoleIn the ANPR, HUD seeks answers and information to six specific question areas as follows:1. Can tailoring "required use" to reach abusive incentive schemes, but notbeneficial discounts or packages, be effectively implemented?2. What about forward loan commitments?3. Other issues on homebuilder "required use."

4. What has been the state and local regulatory experience on "required use" issues?2 1 24CFR 3500.2


9/12


5. How will the proposed rule impact "one-stop" shopping?

6. What is the relationship between incentives to use an affiliated settlement serviceprovider versus disincentives or penalties to do the same?

NAILTA has previously stated that the focus of the ANPR is too narrow to address the numerousproblems caused by CBAs, referral source infiltration into the title insurance industry and thegrowth of "one-stop" shops. In order to reexamine the big picture, it would be necessary toremove the current type of analysis that has been used and look at the entire settlement serviceindustry as a whole. To do so would be to embark on a comprehensive analysis that is requiredto return the real estate settlement industry to the place it held prior to the subprime buildup ofthe late 1990's, the subsequent mortgage meltdown and the recession of 2008. The simplest wayto achieve this goal is to permanently prohibit CBAs and recognize what organizations like theAmerican Land Title Association believed thirty years ago when it said the following:

"[C]ontrolled business arrangements are as harmful as the payment of outrightkickbacks prohibited by Congress under Section 8 of RESPA. The AmericanLand Title Association clearly and unequivocally oppose[s] controlled businessarrangements, and HUD should issue regulations to eliminate the problem."

The current scheme of regulation takes up the impossible task of permitting some kickbacksversus others and puts regulators in the difficult position of continually providing policyguidance as kickback schemes continuously evolve. Prohibiting CBAs outright eliminates thisproblem. If a settlement service provider is prohibited from providing kickbacks in exchange forsettlement service business, any discount it provides would be tied to its product or service, notits referral source. Regulators could easily track payments made to referral sources the way thelaw was originally intended instead of having to differentiate between legal and illegal kickbacksin the endless search to find what is and is not prohibited.NAILTA's position on each of the questions posed is as follows:

1.an tailoring "required use" to reach abusive incentive schemes, but notbeneficial discounts or packages work?Simply put, the answer is no. Any discount provided to a consumer through a conflictedbusiness relationship always places the consumer in an inequitable bargaining position. Thus,the only real way to provide benefit to the consumer is to remove the conflict and allow choiceand competition to drive the transaction. Again, this is the main problem with HUD's attempt torewrite "required use" and other RESPA related provisions regarding CBAs. Once you startdifferentiating between legal and illegal kickbacks, there is no end to the variable and no truebenefit to the consumer.


10/12

Page 10 of 12Letter to Commissioner David H. StevensAugust 27, 20102 . W hat about forward loan comm itments?

Forward loan com mitments are of ten ut i l ized by hom ebuilder-owned m ortgage companies inorder to provide aggregate levels of home financing for homebuyers who purchase hom es fromthese builders. In theory, forward loan commitments are a means to an end. They provideavailable financing in what has bee n, at times, a narrow field.However, in practice, forward loan commitments are often used as the pretext to steerhomebuyers into the builders' closely held affiliates and are a prime example of the falsepanacea o f one-stop shopping. Term s, rates and the true value of discounts provided as part ofthe loan commitments are often obscured from the consumer. In many cases, homebuildersmake the broad asser t ion that unless you use their mortgage affiliate through the com mitment,you canno t close on the hom e. Giving forward loan comm itments special treatment provides acarrot without proof of a real benefit.Through the recession of 2008, the idea of free-flowing credit has been shown to have itsl imitations. Creating ano ther preference for a closed-m arket system, such a s that present withforward loan comm itments , would only promote the same errors that helped make too m uchcredit available to too many consum ers. Where the p rovider of the credit has a s take in eachphase of the settlement process, fraud and overreaching are always going to be an issue. Currentdisclosures do little to resolve this issue.

3. Other issues on homebuilder "required use."Unde r subsection (f) of the ANP R, HU D asks whe ther there is data on the extent to which thecurrent affiliated business disclosure encourages consumers to comparison shop withnonaffiliated service providers before signing contracts and whether the disclosure can beimproved to inform consumers of the advantages and disadvantages of affiliated lendingpractices. This question is asked in suc h a w ay as to assum e that the disclosure is f irst adequateand second that i t can be improved. NAIL TA does not bel ieve the CB A disclosure is adequateand that improvem ent can only be g ained through revisiting the CB A qu estion in total. Short ofthat, a disclosure should be aba ndoned in favor of the traditional waiver of conflicts of interest asapparent in the legal profession.The principles of loyalty and independent judgment are fundamental to the attorney-clientrelationship and mirror the conflict of interest issues present in the real estate settlement arena.HU D shou ld adopt a process to inform consu mers of con flicts of interest similar to that presentwith attorneys and their clients. Instead of merely disclosing CB As, HUD should opt to requireCB As to opt out of represen ting consum ers if there is a substantial risk that the referral source'sability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for that consumerwill be m ater ially l imited by the referral source 's responsibil it ies to other con sumers and thetransaction. HUD should also create a conflict waiver that provides consumers with informationdetailing the known risks of using CB As and allows each affected con sum er to give informedconsent confirmed in writing to proceed with a particular CBA.

4.hat has been the state and local regulatory experience on "required use" issues?


11/12


This question is posed directly to adm inistrative and law enforcem ent officials. It has b een theexperience of NAILTA that state regulators and law enforcement officials lack clarity andknowledge of the conduct of real estate settlement procedures. Thus, whether on "required use"issues or other enforcem ent issues the GA O opinion that more needs to be done is the answer.Enforcement in m ost states is woefully inadequate, sporadic, and put in the hand s of people withno true real estate or title insurance experience .

5. How will the proposed rule impa ct "one-stop" shopping?There is no rel iable data with the exception of that prepared by the OA ITA on the subject of"one-stop" shops. To say that "one-stop" shops provide any benefit to consum ers is to assum esomething that lacks proof. When c onsum ers are informed ab out the risks of "one-stop" shopsand the apparent con flicts of interest present in these b usiness enti ties, the majority of consum ershave indicated a preference to avoid them. Since current HUD disclosures merely disclose theCB A relationship and do not allow for informed consent to the potential harms of said businessentities, it is impossible to truly gauge whether consumers have been impacted by "one stop"shops. The proposed rule change does nothing to alter this analysis.

6. W hat is the relationship betwee n incentives to use an affiliated settleme nt serviceprovider versus disincentives or penalties to do the same?In the ANPR, HUD seeks information concerning cases where an incentive to use a certainprovider wo uld not have the sam e effect as a disincentive for failure to use another provider.Incen tives to use an a ffiliated provider are no different than disincentives for failing to use anaffiliated prov ider. The que stion itself illustrates the con fusing nature o f trying to distinguishbetween leg al and illegal kickback s in the real estate settlement industry. Incentives to use anaff i liated set tlement service provider without an op t-out or informed con sent waiver m erelysugarco ats the reality that most consu me rs are typically steered to their settlement provider bysomeo ne other than the provider themselves. To incent ivize this conduct is to compoun d theconflict of interest. To patronize or sanc tion this conduct is even worse.When a provider punishes a consumer for failing to use their affiliated partner, the providerpunishes the consum er for fail ing to participate in the k ickback schem e. Incentives to participatein the same arrangem ent are no better. Again, a lack of informed consent concerning the con flictof interest that exists between providers in a CB A w ill not abate unless comprehensive changeoccurs within the system.Subtle changes to the "required use" definition to single out homebuilder conduct to theexclusion of that conducted by banks, m ortgage com panies and real estate firms is too arbitraryto be mea ningful . NA ILTA supports comprehe nsive change in al l the areas addressed in thisletter.


12/12

Page 12 of 12Letter to Comm issioner David H. StevensAugust 27, 2010

If you have any questions concerning our comments or suggestions and the underlying datasupporting them, please feel free to contact me. We look forward to working with HUD as itdevelops this important step in helping to repair the real estate settlement industry.

Charles W. Proctor, III, J.D., C.L.T.P.CWP/rbhcc: NAILTA Board

NAILTA Membership

nailta's "required use" response letter

Documents