David Romness

🚨 BREAKING NEWS for the Title Industry 🚨 A major legal development has impacted the FinCEN Residential Real Estate Rule, which went into effect March 1, 2026. A federal judge in Texas has vacated the rule in its entirety, stating that FinCEN exceeded its authority under the Bank Secrecy Act. ⚖️ However, this decision conflicts with a recent Florida ruling, creating uncertainty across the industry. 📌 What this means right now: • The future of the rule is uncertain • An appeal is likely • The rule could be reinstated quickly if stayed 💡 Industry Guidance: The cautious approach is to continue collecting information as if reporting is still required until further guidance is issued. TNLTA and ALTA are actively monitoring developments and will continue to keep members informed as updates become available. #TNLTA #TitleIndustry #FinCEN #BreakingNews #ALTA #RealEstateCompliance #TitleProfessionals #StayInformed

20

1 Comment

Monday's Quick Update regarding FinCEN: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated FinCEN's Residential Real Estate (RRE) reporting rule nationwide. The court ruled that FinCEN exceeded its authority under the Bank Secrecy Act. This means no reporting is currently required for non-financed residential transactions involving entities or trusts (effective immediately, pending any appeal or stay). At Stewart we're prioritizing your smooth operations:  We’ll continue collecting required data at no charge through April 2026 (or until clarity emerges) — covering in-progress and new orders.   No submissions to FinCEN will occur until the rule is reinstated or confirmed in force. This complimentary service extends to new approved clients signing agreements by March 31, 2026. Check our updated FinCEN resource page for details and the full ruling. We’ll keep monitoring and updating you promptly. Thank you for your partnership—let's keep closing with confidence. #TitleInsurance #RealEstate #FinCEN #Compliance #RegulatoryUpdate

47

For those following Texas #SB140 and its intent on throwing #SMS marketing into chaos, here's some good news: the state just walked it back. When the law took effect September 1st, businesses faced $10,000 bond requirements and registration just to text their customers. Many companies pulled back entirely from SMS marketing to Texas consumers. The Texas Attorney General has now clarified in court filings: if you have proper written consent from consumers before texting them, the registration and bonding requirements DO NOT apply. ​ This is essentially what many of us predicted, but getting here was messy and needlessly resource intensive for businesses caught in the uncertainty. That said, a few things still remain unclear: *The "customer" exemption for current and former customers is still undefined ​ *Private rights of action haven't disappeared ​ *The constitutional challenge to SB 140 is ongoing, so this will still be around a while ​ Bottom line: if your SMS program runs on solid consent mechanisms, you were already in good shape. If not, fix your consent documentation now. My colleagues Megan New, Sarah Harrell, and Emily Pearl just published a new alert breaking this down for us (link in comments). What do you think? Is this a relief? Will you still be making changes to your SMS program? #DataPrivacy #SMSMarketing #TexasLaw #TechLaw

8

2 Comments

The “AS-IS Clause That Killed a $5.5 Million Claim” The Two Words That Erased a $5.5 Million Lawsuit In a 1995 Texas Supreme Court commercial real estate, (Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jefferson Associates, Ltd., 896 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. 1995)) two words once wiped out an entire lawsuit. Two words: “AS IS.” A company bought a large office building in Austin. Everything looked good. Good location. Good strong tenants. Clean inspection materials. After closing, the buyer discovered the building had asbestos. They sued everybody: • the seller, • the broker, • the consultants. They claimed millions in damages. But the Texas Supreme Court saw it differently. There was a simple clause in the agreement: “Buyer accepts the Property AS IS.” That tiny phrase shifted the entire risk of the transaction to the buyer. The Court held: • In commercial real estate, sophisticated parties are free to allocate risk. • This buyer agreed to take the property “as is.” • Therefore, the buyer assumed the risk of unknown defects. Result: Lawsuit dismissed. Buyer recovered nothing. And the seller walked away clean. All because of two words. The takeaway? In commercial real estate deals, the smallest clause can control the biggest consequences. As a Buyer you’ve got to do your homework. The lesson: If you don’t allocate risk on the front end, the court will do it for you. And their version of the deal may be a lot different than yours.

9

1 Comment

Partner Bill Pedersen shared insights on the newly established Texas Business Courts, including their impact on complex commercial litigation and what businesses should know as the courts begin operations.

30

Lenders evaluate structure, collateral, and risk before approving financing. Houston businesses benefit from legal counsel that understands the banking side of commercial lending transactions. See how experienced guidance strengthens financing strategy: https://lnkd.in/gEGGqdsg

2