We've issued the following Course 1100 Series updates after the date the course manuals were created. Please incorporate this new information into your presentations.

Course 1100 Series Instructors: Are you conducting Course 1100 Series classes for a sponsor who licenses the course? If so, would you like to receive our email updates directly? Simply email your request to staff@glrsonline.com. Type "Course 1100 Series Updates" in the Subject line. Also, include in your message the name(s) of the sponsor(s) for whom you're instructing.

Update No. 01 (Replaced by Update No. 05 below)

Update No. 02 (Replaced by Update No. 06 below)

Update No. 03

Module 4: Federal Laws and Rules Update

November 23, 2009

Word Version

Replacement Slide #57

This update pertains to the Chinese Drywall topic on pages 60-62 of Course 1100-24.

The text states on pages 61 and 62 that, as of mid-2009, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) had received more than 460 reports from homeowners in 19 states, but that it had not received any reports from Michigan residents.

In November 2009, the CPSC announced that it had to-date received approximately 1,900 reports from homeowners in 30 states (including Michigan) and the District of Columbia who believe that their health symptoms and the corrosion issues in their homes are related to the presence of Chinese drywall.

We've posted a replacement PowerPoint slide #57 above that includes all 30 reporting states.

Update No. 04

Module 4: Federal Laws and Rules Update

December 29, 2009

Word Version

This update pertains to the Mortgage Fraud Update - Federal topic on pages 63-66 of Course 1100-24, and specifically to the Home Valuation Code of Conduct subtopic on pages 64-66.

The text states on page 66 that HUD has adopted similar appraisal rules for FHA-insured loans effective for all case numbers assigned on or after January 1, 2010. HUD has now delayed implementation of the new rules until February 15, 2010 for all case numbers assigned on or after that date.

Update No. 05 (replaces Update No. 01)

Module 4: Federal Laws and Rules Update

May 3, 2010

Word Version

This update pertains to the Chinese Drywall topic on pages 60-62 of Course 1100-24, and replaces Update No. 01 issued on November 16, 2009. This is an informational update only; it doesn't modify the material contained in the course manual.

In November, 2009, approximately 600 "Chinese drywall" cases from across the country were consolidated and assigned to a federal court in Louisiana. The court immediately scheduled seven of the lawsuits for trial; the purposes for doing so were to test both the plaintiffs' theories of liability and the defendants' defenses, and to resolve some of the pending litigation or simplify some of the issues.

The lawsuits were brought against five drywall manufacturers. However, all defendants were in China, only one was actually served with the complaint, and that defendant never appeared in court to defend itself. The seven plaintiffs then moved for a default judgment.

On April 8, 2010, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a judgment finding that the drywall had caused extensive damage within the plaintiffs' homes. The court ordered removal and replacement of all drywall, replacement of the electrical and HVAC systems, and inspections certifying the homes as habitable. The court also awarded over $2.6 million in damages to the seven plaintiffs. In re Chinese Mfrd Drywall Prod Liab Litig, No 09-6687, MDL No 2047 (ED La Apr 8, 2010).

Update No. 06

Module 4: Federal Laws and Rules Update

June 9, 2010

Word Version

This update pertains to the FTC Red Flags Rule topic on pages 67-69 of Course 1100-24. The text states that the effective date of the Rule was November 1, 2009. The FTC, at the request of Congress, later extended the compliance date to June 1, 2010. It has now further extended the compliance date to January 1, 2011.

Update No. 07

Module 1: Michigan Laws and Rules Update

June 30, 2010

Word Version

This update pertains to the Mortgage Fraud Update - Michigan topic on pages 7-8 of Course 1100-24, and specifically to the Mortgage Loan Officer Licensing subtopic on page 8.

The text notes that, as it pertains to the S.A.F.E. Act: "Without amending legislation …, sellers who finance the sale of a one-to-four unit residential property they didn't occupy as a residence must be licensed as loan officers for transactions conducted on or after July 31, 2010!"

On June 29, 2010, Michigan's Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation (OFIR) issued a document titled SAFE Act FAQs, which states:

•

Subject to a final rule by HUD to the contrary, OFIR doesn't currently consider a land contract to be included in the definition of "residential mortgage loan." Thus, it appears that the S.A.F.E. Act does not apply to sellers who finance a sale using a land contract.

•

A seller who provides financing in the form of a residential mortgage loan must be licensed. Therefore, the S.A.F.E. Act does apply to sellers who finance a sale using a purchase money mortgage.

•

Subject to a final rule by HUD to the contrary, OFIR doesn't currently consider a lease with option-to-buy to be included in the definition of "residential mortgage loan." Thus, it appears that the S.A.F.E. Act does not apply to sellers who enter into such agreements with buyers.

Update No. 08

Module 2: Real Estate Related Case Law

July 28, 2010

Word Version

This update pertains to the Tenancy by the Entirety topic on pages 30-31 of Course 1100-24, and specifically to the Tkachik v Mandeville case summarized there.

In an unprecedented decision filed July 27, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals as summarized, and ruled that the surviving husband was obligated to his deceased wife's estate for his share of the expenses that the wife incurred on the entireties properties from the time he abandoned her and until her death:

"…Janet made those payments to preserve the undivided interest in the properties that she and her husband shared. Failure to make these mortgage and tax payments would have resulted in the loss of the properties to foreclosure. Simply put, but for Janet's payments, there would be no property to pass to defendant by operation of law…."

Tkachik v Mandeville, No 138460 (Mich Sup Ct July 27, 2010).

COPYRIGHT © 1998-2010 GREAT LAKES REALTY SYSTEMS, INC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.