0
0
I guess it took some strong lobbying. But, now two Congressman, Rep. French Hill, (R/AK) and Ruben Kihuen (D/NV) want to improve upon how title insurance premium costs are disclosed under TRID.
This has been a sticking point with lenders and title companies since the TRID rules were finalized. It was not addressed in the most recent TRID updates.
Rep. Hill has long been an opponent of the CFPB and believes they need to be reined in, having actually harmed consumers and their opportunities for home financings.
The Bill recently introduced by these Representatives, calls for a more accurate disclosure of the costs to a consumer for title insurance.
This would be accomplished by allowing lenders to reflect any simultaneous discount provided when a consumer purchases both the Lenders and Owners Policies at the same time. The current rules do not allow for such a disclosure of the premium costs.
The original intent of the TRID rules was to provide consumers with a more detailed, accurate disclosure of the fees and costs associated with their mortgage.
Lenders, title companies, and now these legislators argue that the current system doesn’t accomplish this when it comes to title insurance. Many consumers agree. It’s a little confusing.
Seems to me like a pretty simple fix. The rule can be modified to either allow lenders to provide a rebate figure that represents the simultaneous issue discount or just disclose the premiums that would be charged at closing, based on the discount. Either way, would better disclose to the consumer the real cost of their title insurance.
An alternative, not popular with title companies, is to develop and offer one policy to ensure the title for both the lender and the owner. Why do we need two separate policies to ensure the same title? The policy could cover both party’s interests.
That would sure simplify things. One fee, one policy, one coverage. No need to confuse things with simultaneously issued policies covering the same things.
Wouldn’t that be best for the consumers?
