The state’s Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) audited our company’s mortgage practice last month with little notice.
I’d be lying if I didn’t admit the audit – before, during, and after – made me feel unsettled, mistrustful, and maybe even confused. We’ve all heard stories about new Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, and I’m sure some of them get blown out of proportion – you know, the mythical $50,000 fine for having a file’s paperwork in the wrong order.
Even as we knew most of our files were in order, one concern was the additional mortgage disclosures which became required starting in January 2007. The paperwork and attending regulations tend to be confusing to borrowers and loan officers. The changes ushered in by S.B. 185 required a new Mortgage Loan Origination Disclosure Statement (MLODS), as well as re-disclosure of certain documents if the terms, payment, closing costs payable to us, or escrow changes.
The burdensome part of the new law is this re-disclosure is required 24 hours before closing. While it sounds like a common sense requirement, in the reality of our broader real estate industry it can be an aggravation to the very people it is supposed to protect.
In one humorous situation last year, we had a purchase closing scheduled during the summer. One of our borrowers happened to be a DFI employee. When the settlement statement was completed and approved by all the parties the morning of closing, it was discovered that the closing costs had changed - by less than $100. The borrower understood and agreed to the change. However, we were required to delay the closing until the following week in order to have a re-disclosure signed by the borrower. The borrower had to re-schedule his moving company, and the Realtor had a delay in their paycheck.
Needless to say, the borrower was not happy with us or the law. But they understoood – and we’d rather stay in business and help more Ohioans find the right mortgage product for their needs.
Another cause for concern was stated income mortgages – or in the current environment, called ‘liar’s loans.’ In making a loan, it is very important for loan officers not to lead borrowers to state a specific income. It is also unethical to leave that issue out of the loan application and later ‘back in’ the level of income that an underwriter would approve. Without internal auditing of every closing (which a small business like ours only does in a cursory way), we did not know what the state auditors would find.
The two state employees were unexpectedly thorough, spending 4 days occupying our conference room instead of the 2 they had asked for when first announcing their assignment. But they were courteous enough.
The result in our office was immediate. After getting an in-person clarification about new regulations, company owners called a meeting and made the requirements very clear.
All in all, I think the audit was positive in that it reinforced the need for more assertive management and record keeping if we are to stay out of ‘QC jail.’ But I know the company will be in the game - for another few decades at least!
