P-53 Update (2018 Ethics Course) Dawn Lewallen and John Rothermel - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome to todays webinar! P-53 Update (2018 Ethics Course) Dawn Lewallen and John Rothermel March 15, 2018 In order to obtain a CE Certificate or CLE Credit, you must listen to the webinar for a minimum of 55 minutes obtain
and
2
Because of opinions expressed by the Texas Department
available only to: Attorneys who own title agencies that are Stewart Title Guaranty Agents Attorneys employed by a title insurance agent licensed with Stewart Title Guaranty or Stewart entities Fee attorneys who have an Escrow Officer license through a Stewart Title Agent or Stewart entity
We welcome any other lawyers to listen, but cannot provide continuing education credit to you.
3
Dawn Lewallen
Senior Compliance Officer Senior Underwriter
Post Oak Office Stewart Title Guaranty Company
John Rothermel
Senior Vice President Regional Underwriting Counsel Senior Underwriter
SW Regional Underwriting Office Stewart Title Guaranty Company
5
P-53 is the rule regarding favors/gifts for those who bring us business. DO NOT:
– Joint Advertising – Advertising or promoting any one property for sale or lease – Hosting an open house – Prizes, food, beverages, gifts, decorations, entertainment or professional services given at open houses; or – Parties or receptions which promote properties or activities of the Producer.
6
DO:
– Join a Trade Association and voluntarily participate in a Trade Association's activities provided that the level of such participation does not exceed normal participation (not more than two hours per business week) of a volunteer member of a Trade Association and is not an activity that would ordinarily be performed by paid staff of a Trade Association; – Purchase advertising promoting the title insurance company or the title insurance agent at market rates from any person in any publication, event, or media;
7
DO:
– Deliver to a party in the transaction or the party's representative legal documents or funds which are directly or indirectly related to a real estate transaction closed by the Authorized Person; and – Engage in legal promotional and educational activities that are not conditioned on the referral of title insurance business.
8
9
Any one in a position to refer title insurance transactions Covered: Real Estate Brokers and Agents Mortgage Bankers and Mortgage Brokers Attorneys Probably Not covered: Home Warranty Companies Hazard Insurance Agents Appraisers Flood and Tax Service Providers Home and Pest Inspectors
10
“Giving or accepting a fee, kickback or thing of value pursuant to an agreement in exchange for referral of settlement” P-53 and 2502.051 Much the same.
11
12
referral, no matter how small.
amount.
13
Any quid pro quo referral agreements:
– Steering business based on fees or revenues received; – Lead agreements
– Fees and credits to influence selection; – Setting fees for marketing services based on number of referral and revenue.
Texas is similar but we will discuss particular situation later.
14
If a thing of value is given to a referral source, regulators tend to infer an agreement for referrals.
15
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the payment of a fee… Normal promotional and educational activities that are not conditioned on the referral of business and that do not involve the defraying of expenses that otherwise would be incurred by persons in a position to refer settlement services or business incident thereto.
16
Exception to RESPA’s Prohibitions including:
educational activities”
the referral of business;
proportional share of expenses at fair market value.
17
Title Bulletin No. 23 To: ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES WRITING TITLE INSURANCE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS Re: Interpretation of Article 9.22 1951 Texas Insurance Code The title insurance companies operating in Texas have, from time to time, asked the Board
great many questions about whether actual or proposed methods of doing business would be in violation of law or regulations, with special regard to paying for the solicitation and development of business. These have had to do with the payment of commissions to others than contract representatives operating abstract plants and to the division of premiums, under various methods, also to persons soliciting businesses outside and away from the company home office, including the increasingly prevalent "branch office" managers. What field of activity is proper for licensed attorneys in relation to solicitation and development of title insurance business, including how they may be recompensed, has also been discussed frequently.
18
Other questions have had to do with giving of rebates and discounts, and asked whether it constituted a rebate to do such things as the giving of free legal service to a builder, or to give a sign to a subdivision developer, or furnish shrubs for an operating builder, or take customers on hunting trips, or give them free legal forms. Downtown offices have paid parking tickets for customers. It has even been urged that an operative builder, who closes a loan in permanent form in his own name is entitled to credit for the mortgagee's policy premium at some subsequent date when he sells the property to a purchaser acceptable to the lender. It should not be difficult to determine whether or not a particular course of action constitutes the giving of a premium rebate, or discount. The ordinary definition of a rebate is to make a reduction from or allow a discount to, or to give anything of value, or any inducement amounting to a rebate or discount; a discount being defined as "a deduction from the usual price". (The Winston Dictionary, 1944). The statute (Article 9.22), however, seems to enlarge upon these ordinary definitions of terms by including, as prohibited, the giving or permitting of any kind of indirect or intermediate thing of value, or inducement, whether to the policy buyer or intervening persons in the getting, or paying for, title insurance. Title insurance premium schedules in Texas are established after due hearing, and once having been fixed must be charged without variation therefrom. Hence, any method of doing business, and all devices, whereby the purchaser of a title insurance policy does not pay the full premium, which has been fixed for that particular coverage, constitutes a rebate in violation of the provisions of Article 9.22 (Rebates and Discounts), 1951 Texas Insurance
manner.
19
The problems concerning division of premiums between the title insurance company and
below will be of assistance to the companies in applying Article 9.22 to specific questions as they arise; they do not purport to be complete but are intended to set forth and illustrate certain basic interpretations involving rebates and discounts. The possible fact situations differ in varying degrees and intermingle to such an extent as to make a complete analysis
It may be pointed out that the primary responsibility for seeing to it that all title insurance business in Texas is conducted in a proper, lawful manner, in all the details thereof, rests upon the title insurance companies. Each company and its representatives should exercise this responsibility with great care, manifested by an honest attempt to comply with the Statutes and with the rules and regulations governing the doing of a title insurance business in Texas. It is the purpose of the Board to aid the companies in these effort. On the other hand, Article 9.25, 1951 Texas Insurance Code, makes revocation of the permit to do business or forfeiture of corporate charter the penalty for failure to comply with, or violation of, the terms and provisions of Chapter of said Code.
20
The Board in administering the law in question, must assume that the law is valid and must follow the plain wording thereof. If the intention of the Legislature was different from the wording used, judicial, rather than administrative interpretation should be sought. Neither may an administrative agency enlarge the scope of a statute, nor fail to take cognizance of prohibitions, restrictions and limitations contained in the law. Present Article 9.22 was formerly Section 21 of Article 1302a, Vernon's Annotated Revised Civil Statutes, and was enacted as Acts 1929, 41st Legislature, p. 77, Ch. 40. The only change in the language of Article 9.22 (formerly Section 21, Article 1302a) was to abbreviate the last four words of Section 21, to wit, "Board of Insurance Commissioners" to the present last word "Board". This shows that the meaning thereof has not been altered in the past 23 years, nor has any material change in wording been made; nor have any amendments affected the statutory provision relative to rebates and discounts since original enactment in 1929. Neither has any court of competent jurisdiction declared these statutory provisions dealing with title insurance rebates and discounts to be unconstitutional, void nor in any degree ineffective as written.
21
Article 9.22 is as follows: No commissions, rebates, discounts, or other device shall be paid, allowed or permitted by any company, domestic or foreign, doing the business provided for in this chapter, relating to title policies or underwriting contracts; provided this shall not prevent any title company from appointing as its representative in any country any person, firm or corporation owning and operating an abstract plant in such county and making such arrangements for division
It may be noted at the outset that the only statutory authority for a title insurance agency is contained in that part of Article 9.22 which permits arrangements for a division of premiums between issuing companies and persons, firms or corporations "owning and operating an abstract plant in such county". Such arrangements are permitted only as an exception to the prohibition against rebates and discounts, which is the main subject of this article.
22
It seems plain, therefore, that all others than those owning and operating abstract plants must be bona fide employees of the title insurance company, as differentiated from agents
by the issuing company but this will be accomplished by the services of employees, not agents, of the issuing title insurance company. Agents, by the statute, must be limited to those representatives (persons, firms or corporations) owning and operating abstract plants, since only with these may the issuing company divided premiums (after Board approval and limited further to one county). Employees must, then, be limited to those persons whose compensation for services does not come, in whole or in part, directly nor by device, from commissions, rebates, discounts,
These limitations and prohibitions are clearly stated in the wording of Article 9.22 and are the body of the law, setting forth the intent of the Legislature to prohibit title insurance companies from doing the named acts, with only the one stated exception. The intent of the Legislature is the essence of the law, but the intent is to be derived from the words of the statute itself (Gilmore v. Waples, 188 S. W. 1037). The wording of Article 9.22 seems clear and unambiguous. It need only be applied, as written, to the facts of each instance as it arises.
23
Consideration of the following situations may prove helpful in applying the quoted law: 1. The title insurance company issues its policies through the office of an attorney in an adjoining town, in the same county as the home office of the title company. The attorney does not own and operate an abstract plant but one is owned and operated in its home
The attorney pays the rent for the space he occupies, which has at the entrance signs stating that it is both a law office and a branch office of the title company. He also pays all administrative office expense, such as stenographers, telephone, etc. He examines titles of applicants for title insurance from data furnished by the company, closes the deal by delivering a policy issued at the home office, collects the premium, retains, or receives back, an agreed percentage thereof, the balance go to the company. Neither the attorney, nor anyone in his office is listed as an employee by the company for Social Security taxes. The percentage of the premium received by the attorney is called an "attorney's fee" by the company. Thus far it has been assumed that the attorney does not directly solicit title insurance business, although he may indirectly do so by virtue of the branch office sign at his entrance or on his door and his control of the business of his clients.
24
If he directly solicited business there would seem to be no doubt that he was an agent of the title insurance company and Article 9.22, requiring ownership and operation of an abstract plant, would apply to him. If he solicits business indirectly by having, or permitting, a sign stating that the office he
agency situation would still exist, in our opinion. In either event dividing the premiums with him violates the statute.
25
2. The foregoing discussion does not, however, dispose of the question of whether the relationship between the company and attorney may be entirely beyond the purview of Article 9.22 because of being that of attorney and client, as contrasted with the principal and agent or purely an employer-employee relationship. To establish a true professional, or attorney and client, relationship the services of the attorney must all be legal services; in other words he must be "practicing law" in the work he does for the title company. Insofar as the attorney furnishes opinions as to the condition of the title to real estate, or advises interested parties as to the purpose and legal effect of the instruments drawn by him in connection with the issuance of title policies; to wit, deeds, notes, mortgages, deeds of trust, mechanic's and materialman's lien contracts, releases, transfers, etc., he is practicing law. (See Hexter Title and Abstract Co. V. Grievance Committee, etc., 179 S. W. (2d) 946) Thus, the examination of title and rendering of a title opinion to the title insurance company may, to that extent at least, constitute the company a client of the attorney and entitle him to a legal fee from the company for such professional services. The search and examination of the title necessary to determine the condition or status of the title to be guaranteed is a legitimate expense of the title insurance company. (T may be here noted, however, that the title examination could be made by a non-attorney agent
26
The preparation of the legal instruments above indicated is customarily done at the expense of the buyer and seller, or mortgagor and mortgagee, not the title insurance company, so non of the attorney's remuneration from the company arises from that phase of legal work. "Closing the deal", as defined in the Texas Title Insurance Manual (Section II, 5a) is an expense of the company and may properly, but not necessarily, be handled by an
attorney-client relationship, although not conclusive. Other factors should also be considered. Bearing in mind that the statute prohibits the division of premiums with anyone not
determine the nature of the attorney's remuneration for his services to the company. Licensed attorneys, as such, are not exempted from the prohibition against division of premiums and can only come within the exception by either owning and operating an abstract plant in the county, or being in the employment of the company. In this sense an attorney may be deemed in the employment of the company, as his client, if his legal services and resulting fees are not contingent, and are based on their professional value. So called "fees" contingent upon the attorney originating business, dependent upon the issuance of a policy, or measured by the amount of premium, do not indicate the customary relationship of an attorney in the professional employment of his client, the title insurance company.
27
In the foregoing example the fact that the attorney's remuneration is keyed to the amount
commission, rather than a true legal fee. Legal fees for title examinations may vary according to the value of the property but it is not customary in the practice of law to make the amount of a legal fee dependent upon the amount of title insurance premium, nor upon whether a policy is issued or not. The current recommended schedule of fees of the Travis County Bar Association, which is deemed typical, contains a sliding schedule
at under $1,500.00 up to $75.00 for property valued at $50,000.00 to $75,000.00. Our conclusion is, therefore, that a title insurance company cannot, in view of Article 9.22, legally divide a title insurance premium with an attorney any more than it could with anyone other than a "person, firm or corporation owning and operating an abstract plant in such county...". Nor is the vice cured by calling the division a legal fee. It follows from the clear language of the statute, in our opinion, that no commissions, rebates, discounts,
broker, developer, builder, nor anyone else, save only an abstracter representative, and then only after the division of premiums has been approved by the Board.
28
In the foregoing example the fact that the attorney's remuneration is keyed to the amount
commission, rather than a true legal fee. Legal fees for title examinations may vary according to the value of the property but it is not customary in the practice of law to make the amount of a legal fee dependent upon the amount of title insurance premium, nor upon whether a policy is issued or not. The current recommended schedule of fees of the Travis County Bar Association, which is deemed typical, contains a sliding schedule
at under $1,500.00 up to $75.00 for property valued at $50,000.00 to $75,000.00. Our conclusion is, therefore, that a title insurance company cannot, in view of Article 9.22, legally divide a title insurance premium with an attorney any more than it could with anyone other than a "person, firm or corporation owning and operating an abstract plant in such county...". Nor is the vice cured by calling the division a legal fee. It follows from the clear language of the statute, in our opinion, that no commissions, rebates, discounts,
broker, developer, builder, nor anyone else, save only an abstracter representative, and then only after the division of premiums has been approved by the Board.
29
This is in accord with our interpretation, issued 12 April 1948, wherein it was stated, "However, there is nothing in the Title Act to prevent an approved attorney from rendering legal services for the Title Insurance Company in connection with the examination of title
A separate consideration of the facts of each case will reveal whether in fact, the attorney is paid a legal fee for legal services, or is, on the contrary, receiving a division of the premiums.
30
3. Variations of existing "branch office" and "attorney" situations appear in the following examples:
suburban office are referred to the home office in the same county, where an abstract plant is owned and operated by the company. Search, examination of title, and
disbursed by the operator at the suburban office, who collects the premium. Of the gross premium for each particular transaction involved he sends an agreed percentage to the home office and retains the balance as his compensation for services rendered. As above pointed out, this arrangement violates the statutory prohibition against division of premiums with one not owning and operating an abstract plan, making it unimportant who pays the administrative expense of the suburban, or "branch",
each policy handled through the branch office is retained by the individual operating the "branch" office. This, in our opinion, constitutes a "commission" or "division of premiums" as prohibited by Article 9.22.
31
pay all employees, Social Security payments, rent an overhead of the branch office. The full premium for each policy issued on orders originating in the branch is sent to the issuing company, which deducts a flat charge therefrom. The remainder is then divided between the issuing company and the individual operating the branch office. If the reasoning used in the previous discussions is sound, it will appear that this method still constitutes an illegal division of premiums. c. A different situation exists in the following set of facts: A title insurance company
insurance business and accepts applications for title insurance. The company issues the policy from its home office. The employee in charge of the company office does not receive any part of the resulting premium, being on a straight salary basis. This procedure is permissible in our opinion. The statute does not proscribe solicitation of title insurance business by the issuing company but only the paying, allowing or permitting of (commissions, rebates, discounts or other devices), or the (division of premiums) with anyone not owning or operating an abstract plant. None
company is a single line company, issuing title insurance only, although the method may be more economically employed by so called multiple line companies, so that the employee looks after other lines of insurance also. The answer would be the same in either case.
32
pay all employees, Social Security payments, rent an overhead of the branch office. The full premium for each policy issued on orders originating in the branch is sent to the issuing company, which deducts a flat charge therefrom. The remainder is then divided between the issuing company and the individual operating the branch office. If the reasoning used in the previous discussions is sound, it will appear that this method still constitutes an illegal division of premiums. c. A different situation exists in the following set of facts: A title insurance company
insurance business and accepts applications for title insurance. The company issues the policy from its home office. The employee in charge of the company office does not receive any part of the resulting premium, being on a straight salary basis. This procedure is permissible in our opinion. The statute does not proscribe solicitation of title insurance business by the issuing company but only the paying, allowing or permitting of (commissions, rebates, discounts or other devices), or the (division of premiums) with anyone not owning or operating an abstract plant. None
company is a single line company, issuing title insurance only, although the method may be more economically employed by so called multiple line companies, so that the employee looks after other lines of insurance also. The answer would be the same in either case.
33
is, but need not be, an attorney, we may suppose the basic facts to be that all salaries in the branch office, including that of the individual in charge, all Social Security payments, rent, telephone and administrative expenses are paid from accounts carried in the name of the issuing company, the gross amount of premiums collected are deposited to the credit of the title company. The company does not own and operate an abstract plant in the county of the branch office. In addition to a straight monthly salary the branch office manager has a contract right to receive a year end bonus calculated upon the amount of premiums developed by his branch office, the expense of its operation and the resulting annual net profit to the issuing company from the branch office operation. No conflict with the provisions of Article 9.22 exists under the foregoing facts, in our
purpose the division of premiums is paid or permitted between the issuing title insurance company and its branch manager; (such branch office manager not being a person owning and operating an abstract plant in the county and, therefore, not legally qualified to receive a premium division under the statute)
34
It is true that the amount of the branch office manager's annual salary, compensation,
flowing to the company from his solicitation and efforts. However, his compensation is not tied to a specific part of each premium, nor to any one premium at all but is, on the contrary, gauged by the annual profit of his office as an over all annual operation. We find nothing in Article 9.22 prohibiting this way of determining payment for services since it does not purport to prevent, or restrict, higher pay to company employees in proportion to their production profit, so long as it is not accomplished by payment of a commission, etc. or division of premium, as set out in the limiting provisions of the Article. Many, and in fact innumerable, variations and combinations of the foregoing illustrations are possible, and it is, accordingly, necessary to consider each case by its own fact basis and upon its own merits. It should be further pointed out that the facts are not necessarily complete in the examples used by it is believed that sufficient basic facts have been given in each case to support the reason for our
Very truly yours, BOARD OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS /s/ Joe P. Gibbs Casualty Insurance Commissioner
35
Title Bulletin No. 36 To: ALL COMPANIES WRITING TITLE INSURANCE IN TEXAS AND TO THEIR REPRESENTATIVES Re: Violations of Article 9.22, Chapter Nine,1955 Texas Insurance Code Article 9.22, Chapter Nine, 1955 Texas Insurance Code, is as follows: "Art. 9.22. Rebates and Discounts No commissions, rebates, discounts, or other device shall be paid, allowed or permitted by any company, domestic or foreign, doing the business provided for in this chapter, relating to title policies or underwriting contracts; provided this shall not prevent any title company from appointing as its representative in any county any person, firm or corporation owning and operating an abstract plant in such county and making such arrangements for division
The Board of Insurance Commissioners recently completed its investigation of a proposed agency contract appointing a representative to issue title insurance policies; it being necessary under the above statute for the Board to determine in each such instance, (1) that the proposed representative owns and operates an adequate abstract plant in the county in which it is appointed; also for the Board to (2) approve the division of premiums proposed by the contract submitted by the title insurance company.
36
The investigation revealed that the proposed representative did not as yet own and operate an abstract plant in the county, but was securing its title information from a near-by abstracter, who did have an abstract plant. Hence, the so called abstract company could not qualify to represent any title insurance company for the issuance of its policies, due to the limiting language of Article 9.22. It further appeared (and these are the facts important to this Bulletin) that the so-called abstract company was, and had been for sometime, acting as the representative of the title insurance company submitting the contract, despite the fact that the Board of Insurance Commissioners had not approved an agency agreement of representation between them. The device used was that the title insurance company had signed a supply of its policies in blank and had delivered them to the so-called abstract company, which filled in the blanks, delivered them as needed to its customers (i.e., customers produced by the representative, or so-called abstract company, not by the title insurance company), collected the premium, all of which it sent to the title insurance company. The title insurance company, in turn, paid the unqualified representative (so-called abstract company) a sum of money called a "service charge". The service charge was not a uniform percentage of the premium, but was said to vary according to the amount of services rendered in each transaction in which a policy was
but was arranged without approval of the Board of Insurance Commissioners. .
37
Apparently the title insurance company and the so-called abstract company, or representative, were of the opinion that this method of issuing policies was proper because it constituted a "home office issue" of the policies. The point was made to the Board, in support of the legality
company and that the entire premium was sent to the home office of the company. The Board pointed out that such a way of doing business is illegal, being in violation of Article 9.22, above quoted, which prohibits payment by an device and limits the appointment of a representative to those owning and operating an abstract plant in the county, with the further limitation that the Board must approve the division of premiums. In the opinion of the Board of Insurance Commissioners the significant factors in the present instance are, (1) that the title insurance company placed a supply of signed policies beyond its control to be sold and delivered whenever, and on whatever risks, the representative selected; (2) that the business was produced by the representative, not the title insurance company, and (3) that the first knowledge the title insurance company had of the sale and delivery of its policies was when it received the premium, policy data, and charge for services rendered applicable to each particular policy.
38
It seems obvious to the Board of Insurance Commissioners that the type of sales arrangement here discussed defeats the purpose of Article 9.22, and would, if permitted, justify the title insurance companies operating in Texas to deliver signed policies in bulk to persons, firms, or corporations not owning and operating abstract plants, as required by law, in the counties in which they propose to sell the policies. It would remove from supervision of the Board all such unqualified representatives as so-called abstract companies purchasing title information as needed from others, as well as so-called "closers", who advertise to close a real estate transaction and to act as escrow agents; also real estate brokers, insurance agents in lines
lawyers, and innumerable other persons, firms, and corporations, not owning and operating abstract plants. By this theory signed policies could be delivered for sale to anyone who might desire to sell title insurance, either for the remuneration of the "service charge", or to aid the successful conclusion of other business, such as a real estate sale or mortgage loan
they chose without reference to Board supervision. Article 9.22 is designed to prevent this from happening. In view of the foregoing, it is the purpose of the Board of Insurance Commissioners, by this Bulletin, to advise all title insurance companies and their representatives operating in Texas that no arrangement substantially similar to the one herein detailed will be approved by the Board of Insurance Commissioners and that such arrangements now in existence should be discontinued.
39
Inasmuch as the facts of particular cases may vary somewhat, the Board will be glad to consider individually all arrangements submitted to it to determine whether or not the same meet the tests laid down by the Legislature of Texas in Article 9.22 above quoted. Continuation of any such arrangement described herein will leave the Board no alternative but to cite any title insurance companies involved to show cause why their authority to do business in this State should not be cancelled. Very truly yours, BOARD OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS /s/ J. Byron Saunders Casualty Insurance Commissioner
40
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) was enforced by HUD.
Dodd-Frank, RESPA is now enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) TDI enforces P-53 in Texas.
41
settlement service.
court costs.
reputation.
42
In addition to any other sanction or penalty which the Commissioner may impose by law, after notice and
Authorized Person) found to have violated this Rule is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each act of violation and for each day of violation, unless a greater penalty is specified by the Insurance Code or another insurance law of Texas. The Escrow Officer, Title Insurance Agent or Direct Operation license or the certificate of authority of any person found in violation of this Rule may be suspended or revoked, after notice and opportunity for hearing.
43
Mortgage Brokers
Agents
Providers
44
RESPA involves residential transactions. P-53 involves all transactions.
45
“Normal promotional and educational activities”
market value.
Texas—P-53.3 allows for much the same thing
46
To determine what is legal and educational it is always a good idea to create a file (P-53.4 requires) for such activities and to keep a written analysis of each activity:
47
If you have a file and you are challenged by TDI, it’s way better to have thought about and answered the foregoing questions before you did the activity and spent any money than to try to create and explain your reasons “right now”. If you tried to comply and TDI disagrees you have a better chance of a better outcome than if you just did it, period.
48
CAN I GET INTO TROUBLE FOR THAT?
49
I get emails from our competitors like the one below. I was wondering if you know if our attorney could do a class like this? Thank you!
“Probate and Heirship Q & A” Thursday, October 12 at 10:00 am __________ , Attorney at Law, Board Certified in Estate Planning and Probate, will review and educate on the following: 1. What to do if someone passes without a will; 2. What if someone has a will and has not been probated; 3. Blended family and 1 parent passes without a will.
Instructor: J David Little, Attorney at Law Location: Other Title Company – NEW OFFICE LOCATION – ___________, Houston, 77059 Cost: no charge Yes No
50
Can we donate wine to the SPCA charity event?
51
We paid $314 a night to put a good realtor client up for their honeymoon night because their bed and breakfast was flooded during Hurricane Harvey. Is this okay?
52
Title company provides a venue and arranges for food and drink from a 3rd party. Realtors pay for Botox. Okay or not?
53
Can we sponsor wine & cheese?
realtor’s upcoming open house.
54
Can we host an educational class as long as we have plenty
Okay or no way?
55
We have been asked to be a part of a grand opening for a new space for a real estate office. What can we do without violating RESPA or the P-53 Rule? Can we offer door prizes from Stewart Storefront and call it advertising? What would you suggest? They have been a good customer.
56
Bus Trip to Casino
57
Can we pick up, pay for and deliver a good realtor’s laundry?
58
Can we provide notary services to a realtor in our office? What about theirs?
59
Can we sponsor a kids baseball team?
– If all of the kids are realtor kids? – Or mortgage company kids? – Or law firm kids?
60
transaction (after a tragedy)
luxury brokerage
– Can’t do indirectly what you can’t do directly P-53.1(c) Affiliates defined
“Affiliate" means:
– an officer, director, agent or employee of an Authorized Person or a Producer; – a member of the immediate family of an officer, director, agent, or employee of an Authorized Person or a Producer; – a Person who owns a Producer or Authorized Person; – a Person who is owned by a Producer or Authorized Person; or – a Person who is under common ownership with a Producer or Authorized Person
61
closing?
62
friend, an expensive birthday present?
63
case involving property report with title company name on many pages with realtor card stapled to cover.
64
Senior Compliance Officer Senior Underwriter
Stewart Title Guaranty Company Houston, Texas
SW Regional Underwriter Senior Vice President Senior Underwriter
Stewart Title Guaranty Company San Antonio, Texas
65
To Receive CE Credit
Each individual seeking credit hours must send their own certificate request to: CEcertificate@stewart.com Please include the following information:
Update (2018 Ethics)” In the body of your e-mail:
for example: License Number: 1234567-890123) For Attorney CLE Credit also include:
– Employed by Stewart Title Guaranty Company; – an affiliate; or – a Stewart agent
For more details, see the CE and CLE FAQs at:
http://www.stewart.com/en/stg/texas/education/texas-tips/ce-cle-faqs.html
66
CEcertificate@stewart.com
67
Join us for the next Texas TIPS webinar!
For Questions/Comments Email john.rothermel@stewart.com
heidi.junge@stewart.com
68