From
: Lila Hayes
Sent : Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Subject : OFRG weekly update
Meeting Reminder
From: "Schahrzad Berkland"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:26 am
Subject: Re: [cfrrg] Interest that mortgage companies are to be paying usI researched this before. The only laws on escrow accounts is HUD's Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act. It sets limits on the amounts that a lender
may require a borrower to put into an escrow account for purposes of paying
taxes, hazard insurance and other charges related to the property. In 1992 and
1993, legislation was introduced in Congress that would have required lenders to
pay interest on escrow account balances, but it never passed. Some states do
require interest to be paid on escrow account funds, but many do not. As you
noted, California is one state that does require interest be paid, and the rate
is 2%.I e-mailed the Insurance Commissioner a few months ago, and noted that we need
similar laws for restricted escrow accounts arising from insurance
reimbursements. Perhaps a letter would have been better, because I did not get
a response. I was frustrated because my mortgage company was holding onto my
money and slow in disbursements. It felt like a tug of war. I wondered if they
can use our funds to increase their reserves, and thus increase their loans,
because they were so reluctant to make the proper payments. It was only after I
wrote a letter to the Office of Thrift Supervision that my disbursements were
quick.These are the pertinent sections from the California Code, and they apply again
only to real estate transactions.California Financial Code 854.1
854.1. Notwithstanding Section 10145 of the Business and
Professions Code or any other provision of law, but subject to the
limitations of Section 854, benefits accruing from the placement in a
non-interest bearing account of a commercial bank (including a
national banking association) of funds received by a real estate
broker who collects payments or provides services in connection with
a loan secured by a lien on real property under subdivision (d) of
Section 10131 or Section 10131.1 of the Business and Professions Code
shall inure to the broker, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
broker and the lender or note owner on the loan. A borrower shall
receive at least two percent simple interest per annum on impound
account payments covered by Section 2954.8 of the Civil Code.
California Civil Code Section 2954.82954.8. (a) Every financial institution that makes loans upon the
security of real property containing only a one- to four-family
residence and located in this state or purchases obligations secured
by such property and that receives money in advance for payment of
taxes and assessments on the property, for insurance, or for other
purposes relating to the property, shall pay interest on the amount
so held to the borrower. The interest on such amounts shall be at
the rate of at least 2 percent simple interest per annum. Such
interest shall be credited to the borrower's account annually or upon
termination of such account, whichever is earlier.
(b) No financial institution subject to the provisions of this
section shall impose any fee or charge in connection with the
maintenance or disbursement of money received in advance for the
payment of taxes and assessments on real property securing loans made
by such financial institution, or for the payment of insurance, or
for other purposes relating to such real property, that will result
in an interest rate of less than 2 percent per annum being paid on
the moneys so received.
(c) For the purposes of this section, "financial institution"
means a bank, savings and loan association or credit union chartered
under the laws of this state or the United States, or any other
person or organization making loans upon the security of real
property containing only a one- to four-family residence.
(d) The provisions of this section do not apply to any of the
following:
(1) Loans executed prior to the effective date of this section.
(2) Moneys which are required by a state or federal regulatory
authority to be placed by a financial institution other than a bank
in a non-interest-bearing demand trust fund account of a bank.
The amendment of this section made by the 1979-80 Regular Session
of the Legislature shall only apply to loans executed on or after
January 1, 1980.
From: Reimus1@aol.comSent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 5:07 PMSubject: SB 2 StatusDear Friends,Senator Jackie Speier's homeowner's insurance reform bill, SB 2 came up for hearing in the Senate Banking, Finance & Insurance Committee yesterday. As you all know, her bill was drafted in direct response to compelling testimony provided by the San Diego Fire Survivor community last November.I flew to Sacramento yesterday morning and personally testified in support of the bill. Legislating change is difficult and it was clear that some of the Senators could not fully understand the difficulties we have faced. For example, one of the Senators suggested that disaster victims should just live with their extended families while their home is being rebuilt, rather than collecting ALE. Hmmmmm.The bill was debated yesterday and will be voted on, on Wednesday, April 20. Perhaps most surprising to me was that the senator from our area - Senator Dennis Hollingsworth did not appear to support the bill. While the bill was not voted on yesterday, I would have predicted a "No" vote from him given his demeanor and questions during debate.We have all been through a lot. It would be nice to know that we at least helped others from having to go through some of the same crap.
It was a long day yesterday. I arrived in Sacramento at 11:30 a.m. The hearing on SB2 was delayed and I didn't testify until about 5:30 p.m. Then, hearing Senators say that we should have all just lived with our families until our home was rebuilt didn't do a lot for me. I literally had to run through the Sacramento airport to make my 7:15 flight home. Man, was I happy to return to San Diego. I will be praying that the nightmare we all lived through will contribute to something good happening for someone in the same situation in the future.
Kind regards to all,
Karen Reimus
East
Volume 5 number 42;
The San Diego
Regional Energy Office (SDREO), City of
San Diego City Councilmember Brian Maienschein presented the ceremonial check for $9,617 to Bret and Nicole Fitzpatrick at their newly rebuild home located in Scripps Ranch. Maienschein noted, “Using the rebates from the Rebuild A Greener San Diego program, the Fitzpatrick’s have rebuilt their home even better than before by installing a solar power system. They generate their own green power and they’re helping the community by taking a load off the grid and improving air quality.”
Scott Anders, director of Policy and Planning for SDREO, offered his own observations. “Speaking as someone who also lost his home during the fires of 2003, I’m very impressed by the Fitzpatrick’s accomplishments. My wife and I are still in the planning phase with our replacement house while Bret and Nicole are already living in theirs! I’m jealous! At least Abby and I will also be installing a photovoltaic system in our new hose using rebates from Rebuild. If all goes as planned, they should save us almost 50% of the total cost,” said Anders.
Michelle Mueller, Vice President of Customer Services for SDG&E, added, “Rebuild is all about encouraging people to build more efficient homes that can also generate their own power. However, even if people aren’t able to take advantage of the rebates, the program also offers free educational workshops that can help homeowners through the planning process. From fire-resistant landscaping to more efficient lighting and insulation, homes can be designed that cost much less to maintain and have lower utility bills. Even a simple site change can have a dramatic impact on energy use.”
In accepting the check, Bret Fitzpatrick noted, “In a perfect world, no one would ever have to go through a fire and rebuild their home. Unfortunately we did. At least in rebuilding we were able to do something that will help the community. I strongly encourage others who are still in the process to learn about this program. The energy efficiency rebates and cost savings over a relatively short period can completely pay for the simple upgrades involved.”
Rebuild a Greener
San Diego offers financial incentives of up to $2,000 for using energy-efficient
materials and installing energy-efficient equipment in a rebuilt home. The program also provides rebates for
solar electric systems of $4.00 per watt.
For example, a typical 2500-watt residential system would be eligible for
$10,000 in rebates. Rebuild also
sponsors free home planning, design and construction workshops and seminars in
local communities throughout
For more information on “Rebuild a Greener San Diego,” visit http://www.rebuildsandiego.org or call the program hotline toll free at 1-877-284-5373.
This program is a
partnership between the San Diego Regional Energy Office, the City of