American Dream or New York State-Created Nightmare?
The consumer (and voter) needs to have a more objective view of why closing expenses are so high. Is it because of the title insurance companies gouging their customers for services needed and provided? Or, is it because of a plethora of NYS taxes and excessive fees that add thousands of dollars to each real estate transaction?
November 17, 2017 at 02:57 PM
3 minute read
I am an attorney admitted to the NYS Bar since 1978 and have actively managed two different title insurance abstract companies for over a combined 25 years.
My letter is intended to advise your readers (one of whom I hope is our Governor) of the imminent implementation of two (2) new regulations prepared by the DFS; an administrative arm of the State government that is mandated to champion our citizen's rights and to protect consumers from unscrupulous practices by entities operating within our borders.
These specific “protections” are intended to rein in the Title Insurance Underwriters licensed by NYS Insurance Department and their many Agents (of which I am one). They reduce the rates to be charged for title insurance policies; they eliminate the entertaining of business clients by underwriters and agents; they limit fees to be charged for mandated services provided; and they eliminate the acceptance of gratuities that have historically been given at closings to the title company representatives (title closers) by satisfied consumers.
At first blush, this is a noble exercise—and to be commended. After all, title closings are VERY expensive, touch so many of our citizens (and VOTERS), and impact directly on the basic American dream of acquiring a home.
What's my gripe? Is it just sour grapes? Am I merely a greedy businessman preying on overburdened home buyers?
Let's consider a few things about closings. First, there's the mortgage tax. 1% of the amount you're borrowing goes to NYS (in NYC, over 2%) for the privilege of going into debt. I'm unaware of any other state in our country that assesses any mortgage tax at all.
Then there's the 1% “Mansion Tax” that applies to all home purchases of over $1 million dollars (a tax we all have paid since Governor Cuomo's father, Mario, first dreamt it up in 1989).
Lastly, there are the recording fees charged by the various county clerks. These fees have literally doubled (and in some cases, tripled) within the last year. Why, you ask? So-called document verification surcharges of $300 per document can add an additional $900 (or more) to a typical home re-finance bill. The consumer is paying double (or more) to ensure the bank documents recorded are affecting the correct property. Isn't that what the original recording fee is for?
By the way, Nassau County has advised their fees will increase AGAIN come January 2018. Can Suffolk be far behind?
I guess my point is that the consumer (and voter) needs to have a more objective view of why closing expenses are so high. Is it because of the title insurance companies gouging their customers for services needed and provided? Or, is it because of a plethora of NYS taxes and excessive fees that add thousands of dollars to each real estate transaction?
Maybe the DFS should inspect its own house before laying the blame on the title industry—again.
Steven Bodziner
Vice President & Manager,
Bridgehampton National Bank
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRepealing Fault Grounds for Divorce Would Have Little Effect on NY Matrimonial Law
11 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250