Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
04/04/2006 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB311 | |
| SB312 | |
| SB272 | |
| HB393 | |
| HB394 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 394 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 311 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 272 | ||
| += | HB 393 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 272-MORTGAGE LENDING
CHAIR CON BUNDE announced SB 272 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS moved to adopt CSSB 272, version P, as the
working document. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
AMY SEITZ, staff to Senator Wagoner, sponsor of SB 272, reviewed
changes that were on a memo from Terry Bannister, Legal Drafter.
1:45:21 PM
CHAIR BUNDE referenced a memorandum from Terry Bannister with a
question about interstate commerce.
MS. SEITZ replied that it was her understanding that if out-of-
state companies and instate companies were treated the same,
that was not an issue.
ROGER PRINCE, Financial Institution Examiner, Division of
Banking and Securities, Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED), referenced a letter from Ed
Sniffen, Department of Law, regarding the Payday Loan Act that
covered the same enforcement concerns against both instate and
out-of-state companies as well as on-line companies. It said
that as long as the Division of Banking and the law, itself (SB
272), treats interstate and out-of-state companies identically,
there is no violation of interstate commerce clauses.
CHAIR BUNDE asked him if this bill treated both equally.
MR. PRINCE replied yes.
1:48:02 PM
LAURIE HOLTE, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, said she
supported SB 272.
1:48:45 PM
KEN GAIN, Independent Lenders of Alaska, said he reviewed the
draft and considered the changes to be technical. The substance
hadn't been changed and he still supported it.
1:49:33 PM
KEVIN BREELAND, President, Alaska Mortgage Bankers Association,
said he also found the changes acceptable.
1:50:08 PM
JOE BRAMMER, member, Legislative Board, Alaska
Association of Mortgage Brokers (AKAMB). He said they were told
at the last public hearing that the program administration fee
as outlined in AS 06.60.600 would be applicable to all mortgage
loan instruments recorded. He wanted clarification that exempt
folks would still be required to charge the application $10 fee.
He had suggested making the fee negotiable to be paid by the
buyer or the seller in the transaction, because he didn't know
if that would comply with HUD guidelines.
MR. BRAMMER believed that the exemptions were fine and that a
lot of them would be regulated by the feds, but felt that all
parties who believed they were exempt should be required to
apply for the exemption and pay an annual fee - much like
Nevada's model legislation. This would insure that they have a
full list of all the players and make certain that no one slides
through the cracks in believing they are exempt and then harm is
done to the consumer when it's too late to correct. He urged
passage of this legislation.
1:52:20 PM
CHAIR BUNDE asked if his concerns about the revisions been
discussed by the bill's sponsor.
MS. SEITZ replied that the sponsor hadn't heard of these
concerns, but she assured him that they would be addressed in
the next committee of referral.
1:53:09 PM
JOHN MARTIN said he was testifying for himself from Anchorage
and had testified several times on the need to designate the
mortgage broker as a lending institution since they are not a
depository organization and do not have a depository
relationship with their clients. Language in AS 06.60.010
clearly indicates that residential property transactions are to
be covered by the license and will be a concern of the licensee.
AS 06.60.025 would require an independent contractor to obtain a
license and he asked why they would let someone be responsible
for the independent contractor especially when he must agree to
abide by the requirements of the chapter anyway. It just makes
sense to delete this exemption.
He also pointed out that licenses are issued on a biennial
basis, not an annual basis, and he recommended the same for this
license. Also, the initial fee for most licenses is $50 and the
majority of license fees are under $300 and he recommended
adopting the same figures.
MR. MARTIN said an article in the October 2005 issue of Mortgage
Originator Magazine indicated that the cost of background checks
vary from $10 to $125 and he suggested capping the fee at $125
with the balance to be refunded to the licensee if not used.
He recommended in Section .070 that the Department issue a
license within 30 days rather than 90 days, because a person
could waste a quarter of a year waiting around to be licensed to
try and earn money and he didn't think that was fair to the
licensee or the general public.
Regarding Section 250(b), loan files are two or more inches
thick and he thought the Department needed to clarify exactly
which information it wants retained. He didn't think it proper
for the Department to have every single piece of paper, which
may contain privacy issues that would catch the attention of the
FTC. He thought this should be investigated. He also suggested
combining Sections 250(c) and 250(d) and have both entities
accountable on the same level. In Section 610(b), he found it
convenient that the Department would mandate a $10 fee, but it
wouldn't be responsible or liable for an agent's defilification
and he thought there should be some recourse. However, he
thought the biggest component missing on this bill was licensing
of originators because that's where 98 percent of the problem
comes from in this business.
MR. MARTIN said he just received the new P version and hadn't
had the opportunity to review it and wanted to be able to submit
written comments on it.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked him and asked him to submit his comments to
Senator Wagoner after his review.
1:57:45 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to pass CSSB 272(L&C), version P, out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note. Senators Ben Stevens, Ellis, Davis, Seekins and Chair
Bunde voted yea; and CSSB 272(L&C) moved from committee with the
assurance that their questions would be address in the Finance
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|