Admin

Builders & Their Lenders - it could be changing in Texas

By
Real Estate Agent with Castle Connections Realty 0517896

I wanted to let you all know about a bill that has been filed in the Texas House that would have an effect on our business with new home builders & their lenders and get your opinion on if you support it or not.  House Bill 3798(see below) would not allow new homebuilders to tie incentives to the use of a specific lender. 

In light of the big news on the sub-prime front, where builders are guilty of pushing their buyers into sub-prime mortgages to the tune of 20% of all sales last year in the case of one big builder (don't want to mention names) and higher rates on prime mortgages, the builder mortgage companies are also contributing more than necessary to foreclosures and lower valuations in their subdivisions.   As we know, builders have gone from offering a small incentive to go to their mortgage company to now withholding up to $25,000 in upgrades if a buyer doesn't go to their mortgage company.  As a result, an unsuspecting buyer signs a contract with that incentive/penalty, after being assured that the builder's mortgage company will offer a market rate and costs, only to find out prior to closing that the rate is considerably higher than the market but they can't get out of the contract at that point - - and are stuck choosing between losing thousands of dollars on the mortgage or losing thousands of dollars of their own purchase money that was supposed to go toward the house.  

I think this bill would be a huge win for the consumer and allow them to get the best lender and best financing available.  The Texas Association of Realtors is not taking an official position on this bill so it is very important as individual realtors to let our legislators know we support this bill.  I support this bill and have let my representative know.  Our legislators see thousands of bills so it is very important they hear from us on this issue.  

Obviously, the big builders have a large lobby group against this bill so it important legislators hear from us! And not all lenders are in support of this bill because some of them would lose alot of business and money.   

If you are not sure you your representative is, you can visit http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/.  Just put in your address and all your elected officials will come up and you can send them an email regarding this topic.    

 

                                                                       H.B. No. 3798

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to certain sellers of homes offering a benefit contingent on the use of a specific mortgage lender.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1.  Subchapter D, Chapter 35, Business & Commerce Code, is amended by adding Section 35.65 to read as follows:

Sec. 35.65.  SELLER PROHIBITED FROM MAKING BENEFIT CONTINGENT ON USE OF MORTGAGE LENDER.  (a)  A person who builds and sells a single-family residence may not offer or provide a benefit to a potential purchaser of the residence as consideration for the purchaser's agreement to use a mortgage lender specified by the person for a loan to purchase the residence.

(b)  A person who violates Subsection (a) is liable to the purchaser for:

(1)  any damages arising from the violation; and

(2)  reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

(c)  A purchaser may not waive the right to sue under Subsection (b).

SECTION 2.  This Act applies only to the sale of a single-family residence closed on or after the effective date of this Act.

SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

 

Comments(6)

Show All Comments Sort:
Amy Laws
HL4LIFE - Blacklick, OH

This would have a significant impact here in Ohio.  However, I think it would protect the buyers more.  Most buyers assume that the builder has their best interest in mind, but I think we all know that this is not necessarily the case.  This just goes to enforce the fact that they need a representative to be looking out for them.  This also includes reviewing the proposed mortgaged they are offered and giving them a realistic overview of what they're being offered.

Apr 09, 2007 10:50 AM
Tom Cunningham
Agent Support 360 - Austin, TX

As a guy who has won and lost against this exact scenario, I'm for it. There are a few builders out there who will contribute closing costs in addition to upgrades. In the most recent example I've been a party to, the builder paid for the title policy if the buyer used his title company and contributed a point in closing costs if the buyer used his mortgage company. I really don't care who does the title work, because policy premiums in Texas are regulated so they're the same everywhere. In the case of the closing costs, the rate that the builders mortgage company quoted was so far off market that the point didn't matter. They were better off without it. I've also run into a situation where the builder offered the buyer the max seller contribution of 6% in closing costs, but their mortgage guy was so unresponsive, that they agreed to pay the buyer's closing costs anyway, when they came to me. (Probably because I can underwrite, close and fund a loan in one day if I have to, and they were in danger of missing the close.)

Most of the time, when I've lost deals to builder owned mortgage companies, it's been because the builder was forcing the buyer to either use their mortgage company, or pay for the entire title policy, which could be a couple thousand dollars additional out of pocket. In those cases, there's nothing I can do. If the builder's mortgage company is at 6.25% and I'm at 5.875, but the buyer has to pay an extra 2500 dollars for a title policy because they didn't use the builder's mortgage company, guess what? It would take them four and a half years to recoup the additional out of pocket expense, and I lose the deal. 

The worst part of it is, on that particular deal, at 6.25%, the builder's mortgage company was making about 5000 on that loan. At 5.875% I would have made about 1800. The builder makes an extra 2500 over the cost of the title policy, and the buyer is forced to pay 600 a year more then they should have had to. Great "incentive", huh?

 

Those kinds of deals and the ones where the incentives are tied up in upgrades and add ons should be illegal. That to me, is a prime example of predatory business practice.  

Apr 09, 2007 11:23 AM
Tom Burris
NMLS# 335055 - Baton Rouge, LA
Texas/Louisiana Mortgage Pro - 13 YRS Experience

Anxiously awaiting the vote!!!

I have seen some of th upgrades these builders give.... and am convinced they just fluff the price anyway.

While there can be good builders, there are a lot of bad ones who abuse this practice.

 

Apr 26, 2007 06:00 AM
Linda Box Taylor
Castle Connections Realty - Plano, TX
Your Plano, TX Realtor
This bill is still in the Financial Institutions committee so I hope it gets out of committee so it can be voted on.
Apr 26, 2007 10:19 AM
Leigh Bates
Atlantic & Pacific Real Estate - Flower Mound, TX
The Trinity Group

I have been following this as well. I have a client now that we have fought, and lucky for us, won against a builder and their so-called upgrade incentive to use their lender. They refused to give us anything up front when I attempted to negotiate these costs... stating that is was just a "known fact" that if they couldn't beat my clients mortgage rate within a .25 of a point, they would understandably let it go.

When it came time to move forward with the mortgage, they were within .02 of a point - and they weren't budging. The fees were increased to cover some pathetic LO's bonus, and they kept trying to push off on us that the new lender had the taxes wrong on the good faith??? Prepaids are what prepaids are, and my clients were smarter than that!

No offense on the "pathetic LO" that's my background as well.. but this guy really was worthless!

Anxiously awaiting it's return as well!!!

 

Apr 29, 2007 05:53 PM
Linda Box Taylor
Castle Connections Realty - Plano, TX
Your Plano, TX Realtor
Looks like this isn't going to get out of committee.  There are so many other important issues facing the state with transportation and water issues that this bill just didn't make it out to the House for a vote.
May 15, 2007 01:00 PM