|
Issue Date: April 28, 2009
Audit
Report No.: 2009-DE-1003
File Size: 93.14KB
Title: SecurityNational Mortgage Company, Murray, Utah, Did Not
Follow HUD Requirements in Underwriting Insured Loans and Did Not
Follow Quality Control Requirements
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office
of Inspector General audited SecurityNational Mortgage Company (SecurityNational),
a Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-approved direct endorsement
lender, to determine whether it properly underwrote insured loans
and whether its quality control function met requirements.
SecurityNational did not follow HUD regulations when underwriting
18 FHA-insured loans. One of the loans contained significant underwriting
deficiencies because the borrower overstated their self-employment
income and SecurityNational did not detect the borrower's misrepresentation.
In addition, SecurityNational did not review all FHA-insured loans
that defaulted within the first six months, nor did it perform its
monthly quality control reviews in a timely manner.
We recommend that HUD require SecurityNational to reimburse it
for the loss on the loan with a significant deficiency. We also
recommend that HUD monitor SecurityNational to ensure that it effectively
monitors its underwriters' actions and properly performs its quality
control reviews.
Issue Date: August 10, 2007
Audit
Report No.: 2007-DE-1006
File Size: 182.50KB
Title: The State of Utah Did Not Comply with HOME Investment Partnerships
Program Requirements
HUD-OIG audited the State of Utah's (State) HOME Investment Partnerships
Program (HOME). We selected the State's HOME program for audit because
it received more than $12 million in entitlement funds from 2004
to 2006 and the Office of Inspector General had not performed an
audit of the State's HOME program. Our objectives were to determine
whether the Utah Department of Community and Culture, Division of
Housing and Community Development (Division), properly used and
recorded HOME program income in compliance with U. S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements; established
and completed HOME projects within the required time periods; properly
performed the required monitoring of the HOME projects; and, ensured
that HOME funds were used for HOME activities.
The Division incorrectly used more than $1 million in HOME funds
when program income funds were available for use. The Division generated
so much program income that it did not effectively expend its entitlement
funds and could lose more than $4 million in entitlement funds because
it did not establish and complete HOME projects within the required
periods. The Division also did not conduct the required monitoring
of the contract recipients' HOME activities. It used about $300,000
in HOME funds to pay expenses for the Utah Capacity Building Collaborative
without substantiating that the expenses were for HOME-related activities.
We recommend that the director of HUD's Denver Office of Community
Planning and Development require the Division's management to establish
and implement written policies and procedures for the HOME functions
and the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund's board to bring its goal
into agreement with its objective and HUD requirements. We recommend
that the director determine whether the questionable costs were
necessary and require the Division to repay any unnecessary costs.
We also recommend that the director monitor the Division's HOME
activities and provide technical assistance.
Issue
Date: July 28, 2006
Audit
Report No.: 2006-DE-1005
File Size: 793KB
Title:
Utah Non Profit Housing Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah
HUD's
Office of Inspector General audited the Utah Non Profit Housing
Corporation (Utah Non Profit), a management agent for nine properties
assisted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). We wanted to determine whether Utah Non Profit ensured projects
generated sufficient income to meet obligations, appropriately allocated
costs to HUD assisted properties, and followed HUD requirements
when purchasing goods and services.
Utah
Non Profit did not ensure that seven properties generated sufficient
funds to meet their financial obligations. It deferred payments
to itself so that it could pay the projects' other expenses.
Utah
Non Profit also improperly charged salary costs to properties based
on an arbitrary, unsupported rate and billed properties for over
$49,000 in supervisor salaries that its management fee should cover.
In addition, Utah Non Profit did not comply with HUD requirements
when obtaining goods and services. It paid more than $21,000 for
unnecessary expenses and may be paying as much as $30,900 annually
more than necessary for services.
We
recommend that HUD require the project owners to ensure Utah Non
Profit submits rent increases in a timely manner to reduce operating
deficits and to pay the accrued management fees, implements an acceptable
allocation plan, reimburses the properties for ineligible salaries
and unnecessary costs, and develops and implements adequate management
controls to ensure compliance with HUD requirements.
Issue Date: September 16, 2005
Audit
Report No.: 2005-DE-1005
File Size: 103.3KB
Title: The Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, Utah
Adequately Controlled Occupancy Functions, but Inappropriately Loaned
Funds
HUD-OIG reviewed the Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake's
internal controls over its Housing Choice Voucher Program and Public
Housing to determine whether the controls provided reasonable assurance
that the Authority's programs complied with HUD requirements.
The Authority's controls provided reasonable assurance that its
staff properly assessed tenant eligibility, verified tenant income,
calculated Section 8 subsidy payments, calculated Public Housing
tenant rents, and used Section 8 housing choice vouchers. In addition,
the Authority's controls over housing inspections provided reasonable
assurance of timely and well-documented inspections, and enforcement
of corrective actions for identified violations. However, the Authority
inappropriately loaned $375,000 of HUD funds to the Housing Authority
of Salt Lake City.
We recommended that HUD require the Authority to establish a policy
concerning proper documentation of any future loans and to use the
funds repaid by the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for HUD-related
housing activities.
Issue Date: May 6, 2005
Audit
Report No.: 2005-DE-1004
File Size: 328.45KB
Title: Aspen Home Loans, American Fork, UT, Did Not Follow Federal
Housing Administration Requirements for Loan Origination and Quality
Control
We audited Aspen Home Loans (Aspen) in American Fork, UT. We determined
an audit was warranted based on loan origination and quality control
deficiencies identified in a prior audit.
Our audit objectives were to determine whether Aspen complied with
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations,
procedures, and instructions in the origination of insured loans
selected for review and to determine whether Aspen's quality control
plan, as implemented, met HUD's requirements.
Aspen did not comply with HUD regulations, procedures, and instructions
in the origination of any of the 11 loans selected for review. Loans
were originated by independent contractors who were self-employed
individuals. In addition, Aspen operates out of unapproved branch
offices. We also identified one loan that did not have a proper
verification of employment.
Aspen's quality control plan is incomplete and inadequate as implemented.
For example, (1) the required number of quality control reviews
is not performed; (2) the owner, who also originates insured loans,
is the only quality control reviewer; (3) quality control reviews
are not performed or reported accurately; (4) the owner did not
know about the HUD requirement that all early default loans be reviewed
in addition to the normal random sample selection; and (5) the owner
is the branch manager for three separate office locations.
Issue Date: May 4, 2005
Audit
Report No.: 2005-DE-1003
File Size: 147.62KB
Title: Citywide Home Loans in Salt Lake City, UT, Did Not Comply
with Federal Housing Administration Loan Origination and Quality
Control Requirements
We audited Citywide Home Loans (Citywide) in Salt Lake City, UT.
We determined an audit was warranted based on loan origination and
quality control deficiencies identified in a prior audit.
Our audit objectives were to determine whether Citywide complied
with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations,
procedures, and instructions in the origination of insured loans
selected for review and to determine whether Citywide's quality
control plan, as implemented, met HUD's requirements.
Citywide did not comply with HUD regulations, procedures, and instructions
in the origination of 20 of the 23 loans selected for review. Citywide
used independent loan officers to originate insured loans. HUD prohibits
this practice because it represents an increased risk to the insurance
fund.
Citywide's quality control reviews were not performed in a timely
manner, and corrective actions taken for deficiencies identified
were not documented. Citywide used a contractor to implement its
quality control plan. However, the contractor completed only 42
percent of the required quality control reviews of the loan files
within the 90 days timeframe requirements.
Issue Date: October 13, 2004
Audit
Report No.: 2005-DE-1001
File Size: 487.8KB
Title: Ineffective Loan Origination and Quality Control Processes
at First Source Financial USA's Midvalve, UT, Branch Office
We audited First Source Financial USA’s (First Source) Midvale,
UT, branch office. We determined an audit was warranted based on
deficiencies we identified in the areas of loan origination and
quality control during a prior audit, Use of Independent Contract
Loan Officers to Originate FHA [Federal Housing Admnistration]-Insured
Loans, Audit Report 2004-DE-0002, dated April 23, 2004.
Our audit objectives were to determine whether the mortgagee complied
with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations,
procedures, and instructions in the origination of insured loans
selected for review and to determine whether the mortgagee’s quality
control plan, as implemented, meets HUD’s requirements.
First Source’s Midvale branch office did not comply with HUD regulations,
procedures, and instructions in the origination of 24 of the 25
loans selected for review. We found employment information that
was invalid or questionable and/or passed through the hands of an
interested third party, the selling agent for the transaction. In
addition, loans were originated by nonemployees or independent contractors.
For 6 of the 24 loans, HUD’s total cost was $787,188. HUD suffered
a loss ($227,031) on the sale of four of the properties and paid
insurance claims ($183,157) to lenders on two of the properties
totaling $410,188. As of June 30, 2004, the remaining 18 loans have
a total unpaid insured mortgage balance of $2,205,329, which represents
a continuing or imminent insurance risk.
First Source has a quality control plan that complies with HUD
requirements. However, the quality control plan was not implemented,
and related quality control reviews were not performed at the Midvale,
Utah, branch office. The lack of implementation of a quality control
plan has contributed to higher default and claim rates and, therefore,
unnecessarily high risk to the Federal Housing Administration insurance
fund.
Issue Date: September 29, 2004
Audit
Report No.: 2004-DE-1004
File Size: 862.3KB
Title: New Freedom, Salt Lake City, UT, Did Not Fully Disclose
the Intended Use of Payments Collected from Borrowers of Streamline-refinanced
Loan
We audited New Freedom Mortgage Corporation (New Freedom), in Salt
Lake City, UT. We selected New Freedom for review because it is
a large nationwide mortgagee with the origination and refinancing
of Federal Housing Administration insured loans as its main source
of revenue.
Our audit objectives were to determine (1) whether New Freedom
complied with Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (the Act) and
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) related
requirements when streamline refinancing Federal Housing Administration
insured loans and (2) whether New Freedom's Quality Control Plan,
as implemented, meets HUD requirements.
Issue Date: March 27, 2003
Audit
Report No.: 2003-DE-1004
File Size: 452KB
Title: Pryme Investment and Mortgage Brokers, Inc., Murray, UT
We completed a review of Pryme Investment and Mortgage Brokers,
Inc. (Pryme Investment) a FHA approved non-supervised loan correspondent
with a main office located in Murray, Utah and branch office located
in Pocatello, Idaho. We did not perform an on-site review at Pryme
Investment’s branch office. We selected Pryme Investment for review
because of their high default and claim rates. The objectives of
our review were to: (1) determine whether the mortgagee acted in
a prudent manner and complied with HUD regulations, procedures,
and instructions in the origination of FHA-insured loans selected
for review; and (2) determine whether the mortgagee’s quality control
plan, as implemented, meets HUD requirements.
We found that Pryme Investment has not adequately implemented
its quality control process and is deficient in its overall quality
control activities. Furthermore, Pryme Investment did not administer
or carry out its non-supervised loan correspondent activities in
conformity with HUD-FHA approval requirements. In addition, Pryme
Investment did not always originate FHA-insured loans in accordance
with HUD requirements and prudent lending practices.
We recommended that Pryme Investment's participation in HUD's Single
Family Mortgage Insurance Programs be discontinued, and that HUD
take any administrative action(s) as deemed appropriate. We also
made recommendations to prevent the reoccurrence of deficiencies
should HUD determine removal of Pryme Investment's approval as a
non-supervised loan correspondent is not warranted.
Issue Date: September 25, 2002
Audit
Memorandum Number: 2002-DE-1005
File Size 478KB
Title: Congressionally Requested Audit of the Outreach and Training
Grant Awarded to the Crossroads Urban Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
Grant Numbers FFOT98028UT and FFOT00039UT
We completed an audit of the Crossroads Urban Center's two Outreach
and Training Grants (OTAG) and a Public Entity Grant. Crossroads
Urban Center is a nonprofit organized in the State of Utah. The
audit identified that the Crossroads Urban Center did not adequately
document costs of the grant and did not have a Federally approved
cost allocation plan when it charged at least $23,600 of indirect
costs to a HUD grant. Also, the Crossroads Urban Center used at
least $14,400 in grant funds for ineligible costs that consisted
of a 20% indirect cost allocation for donated rent.
Overall the Crossroads Urban Center used its grant funds for eligible
activities. The nonprofit documented its lobbying activities and
as a matter of policy did not charge these costs to the HUD grants.
However, the Crossroads Urban Center did not adequately document
costs of the grant and did not have a Federally approved cost allocation
plan when it charged at least $23,600 of indirect costs to a HUD
grant. Also, the Crossroads Urban Center used at least $14,400 in
grant funds for ineligible costs that consisted of a 20% indirect
cost allocation for donated rent. Our report contains four recommendations
to address the issues identified in the report.
Issue Date: March 12, 2002
Audit
Memorandum Number 2002-DE-1801
Title: American Union Mortgage, Inc., Sandy, Utah
Our review of American Union's management controls over its loan
origination and quality control procedures for the origination of
FHA-insured loans showed American Union not to be in compliance
with HUD requirements in two areas: (1) American Union used independent
contract loan officers to originate FHA-insured loans, in American
Union's name; and, (2) American Union did not have sufficient management
controls necessary to effectively oversee its loan origination procedures.
Issue Date: October 7, 1996
Audit
Case Number 97-DE-214-1001
Title: Rawson Management Company Multifamily Management Agent,
Hooper, Utah
We found that the agent was not complying with the terms and conditions
of the Regulatory Agreements or HUD regulations and instructions
relating to the operation of HUD-insured projects. The agent: (1)
has charged the projects for ineligible salaries; (2) has improperly
distributed project funds to the project owner; and (3) has not
established adequate controls over project funds. In addition, the
agent has not thoroughly investigated conversion to energy saving
individual utility meters.
|