Monarch Title, Inc.

Review: We purchased a house and the settlement company over charged us.

Monarch said that they would match our quote from [redacted] and we could get a re-issue discount. However, the quote they were using on the settlement was not the quote that we sent to Monarch. They over charged us $470.Desired Settlement: Refund the $470 overcharged amount.

Business

Response:

[redacted] has unfortunately confused the issue. The quote that she provided to Monarch was not for the same services required for her transaction. It is unfair to ask for a refund based on pricing that bears no relationship to the actual parameters of a settlement. Monarch had given [redacted] a quote for her closing costs in advance to insure that she still wanted to move ahead with settlement. Acceptance of that and the subsequent completion of the transaction indicated to Monarch that the discrepancy had been resolved.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Review: Monarch Title served as the Title Company for the sale of my house in Washington, DC which closed on December 27, 2012. I just received in the mail a letter dated August 20, 2013 stating that "it has come to my attention that there is a remaining balance due from you in the sum of $1,741.65" and requesting that I send a check to Monarch Title for that amount "to allow us to close out your file properly."

The point of hiring a title company is to process a real estate transaction in a manner which is accurate and timely. Monarch Title has demonstrated itself to be neither.

Line 210 of the HUD-1 Settlement statement prepared by Monarch Title in the fall of 2012 for the sale of my house includes a line item for adjustments for "City/town taxes." This amount was listed by Monarch Title in the amount of $834.58 -- which is the amount which was credited to the purchaser of my house.

So Monarch Title ) Apparently made an error in the amount of $1741.65, which calls into question their competence as a title company, 2) Sent me a letter eight months later regarding the problem -- which calls into question their ability to process transactions -- and resolve any discrepancies associated with those transactions -- in a timely manner.Desired Settlement: I would like Monarch Title to send me a formal letter acknowledging that they made errors, both A) in the original handling of the transaction for the closing of the sale of my house, and B) in sending me a letter over eight months later regarding the problem.

I would also like Monarch Title to ensure that, as a result of their errors, there have not been any adverse consequences relative to DC property tax authorities or regarding my credit history. And if there have been any credit history problems for me resulting from Monarch Title's errors; I would like Monarch Title to send letters ASAP to all credit agencies as soon as possible in order to resolve this matter. I would also like Monarch Title to provide me with copies of those letter to credit agencies -- and to follow up on this matter with credit agencies until the matter is successfully resolved.

Business

Response:

**. [redacted], Please see our formal response to complaint ID [redacted]. Monarch Title has settled this matter with the customer. He had a misunderstanding of the facts, which are as follows: 1. The customer was delinquent on his real property taxes and failed to identify this in a sworn statement that he executed and is part of this transaction’s file.2. Procedurally, we verify taxes via the online District of Columbia tax assessment database, but often this website is not up to date on late or non-payments. We can discover delinquencies but this is more difficult if we are notified as specified in our closing documents package.3. We audit the files for this exact reason so that we may cure any deficiencies. While this process takes time, perhaps more than the customer would like, it is an essential step in making sure that title is clear and that all parties to the closing are satisfied legally and in accordance to the laws of the District of Columbia. The customer was advised that our files are subject to final audit in a document that he reviewed and signed at settlement.4. As soon as we discovered that the customer had not paid his tax bill, Monarch Title paid the customer’s delinquent tax bill in good faith, so that no penalties and interest would accrue on the account.5. Monarch Title then sent the customer a letter that explained the on-going tax issue and respectfully asked that he reimburse the company for the tax payment. Monarch never threatened or contacted any credit reporting agencies and no negative consequences exist do to any actions or corresponding communications from Monarch Title in relation to this matter.6. The customer has since repaid Monarch for the tax payment. Thank You for your attention and follow up to this matter. [redacted]PresidentChief Executive OfficerMonarch Title, Inc.6861 Elm Street, Suite 100 | McLean, VA 22101703-852-1926 | [redacted] FaxMonarchTitle.net Recognized by Washington Business Journalas a "Best Place to Work".

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because Monarch Title seems unwilling to simply acknowledge that they have made mistakes.

Review: The dispute is between Monarch Title, Inc. and me concerning the settlement fees of a real estate transaction.

Summary: The HUD-1 was sent to me only an hour prior to settlement. When I questioned the accuracy of the numbers, I was told that the numbers were correct and all would be explained to me at the settlement table. There are major discrepancies in the settlement fees charged by Monarch. The difference is in the amount to $470.00

(1) It was agreed that Monarch would match the title insurance quote that I obtained. This quote was sent to Monarch on Oct. 12, approximately four weeks prior to settlement. The HUD-1 was sent to me an hour prior to settlement. I questioned the numbers and was told they would be explained at settlement. Monarch showed a quote at the settlement table and stated that this quote was the quote my agent provided. I was also told that these numbers were the same as on the HUD-1. However, I later found out that the quote they showed me was not the same as the one I provided. When I questioned the numbers after settlement Monarch told me that they had actually obtained a quote the**elves from the title insurance company and used those numbers on the HUD-1. This is not in accordance with our agreement.

(2) This is a reissue policy so the number $1074 from my quote should have been used on the HUD-1 instead of the $1369 that Monarch used that was for an original policy.

(3) After I questioned the differences in the HUD-1 and my quote, Monarch argued that the quote I provided was only a “flyer”. The quote that I provided is in the same format, from the same company as the quote that Monarch has. Monarch's argument that the quote I provided was a "flyer" that can be modified and not an official quote is invalid.

(4) Since Monarch agreed to match my quote, Monarch's quote is invalid and the numbers on the HUD-1 are incorrect.

(5) Both my quote and Monarch’s quote have a Guaranteed Settlement/Escrow Fee of $535. That is a flat guaranteed fee. Monarch added a $175 Endorsement fee on the HUD-1. This should not have been done.Desired Settlement: I would like a reimbursement of $470.00. This includes the $295 difference between my reissue quote ($1074) and the original policy amount ($1369) that Monarch used and the $175 in Endorsements that, per my quote, should be and are included in the $535 guaranteed settlement charge.

Business

Response:

On October 12th we received an email from the real estate agent working with **. [redacted] asking if Monarch would provide a reissue rate on the title insurance premium for the policy she would be buying with the purchase of her home. Additionally, it was requested that we match another title companies settlement fees. These requests stemmed from a flyer that was forwarded to us by **. [redacted]’s agent. The flyer, from an out of state title company had an initial quote and disclaimer indicating that all charges were subject to change based on further detailed information specific to the transaction. Monarch further researched the company and flyer/price to verify the original quote and upon providing the aforementioned “further detailed information specific to the transaction” came upon the actual cost that the company would charge for this settlement which was greater than the initial flyer had indicated.

Monarch has a long standing policy to match competitor’s fees providing the services are the same and complete accurate information has been recognized (apples to apples). In this instance, after clarifying specifics it turned out that Monarch’s overall charges would be less than the that of the out of state company.

The settlement agent for Monarch explained the premium and fees that are part of the HUD-1 settlement statement and understood that these were all clear and accepted when **. [redacted] signed her documents.

Unfortunately, the loan package from **. [redacted]’s lender did not arrive at Monarch’s office until 1 hour prior to the scheduled settlement time. The lender documents are the final piece which would enable preparation of the final HUD-1 for execution. We suggested delaying the closing to allow all parties to carefully review the final charges and fees, allowing for time to discuss and resolve any possible miss-understandings or discrepancies. The suggestion was rejected and the transaction was completed at its original time.

We are sorry that **. [redacted] feels that Monarch did not match fees that were originally obtained from the out of state company. As previously stated, our company is more than willing to do so as long as the services and information provided are identical which were both not the case in this situation.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: The response provided by the business is misleading to someone not familiar with the case.