Relating to settlement definitions for real estate transactions
SB667 amends the West Virginia Good Funds Settlement Act by revising the statutory definitions that govern real estate settlement and closing transactions. The bill updates terms such as “collected funds” or “good funds,” “disbursement of loan funds,” “loan closing,” “loan documents,” “loan funds,” “parties,” “settlement,” and especially “settlement agent.” It also specifies the forms of funds that may be used at loan closing, including cash, wired funds, certified checks, certain government checks, cashier’s checks, checks from licensed lenders or insurers, attorney or broker escrow checks, and personal checks up to $5,000 per loan closing.
The bill would amend §46A-6K-2 of the West Virginia Code, changing the definitions that control how real estate closings and settlement disbursements are handled under the Good Funds Settlement Act. Its main legal effect is to clarify who may act as a settlement agent and to define the permissible sources and forms of loan funds used in closings, which affects lenders, borrowers, sellers, attorneys, real estate brokers, and settlement professionals involved in West Virginia property transactions.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral and technical rather than controversial. The bill is framed as a definitional update to settlement procedures, suggesting an administrative or clarifying purpose instead of a major policy shift. No opposition or support is documented in the available context.
The most notable point of potential contention is the bill’s focus on the definition of “settlement agent,” which the note says is the purpose of the bill. Because the definition requires the person conducting settlement to be a licensed attorney or have access to one during loan closing or disbursement, the measure may be of interest to attorneys, title/settlement professionals, lenders, and real estate industry participants. Another possible issue is the detailed list of acceptable payment instruments and the $5,000 cap on personal checks, which could affect closing practices, but no explicit objections or competing viewpoints are included in the available record.