XML 66 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

12) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2012
Notes |
12) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies | 12) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies Reinsurance with North America Life Insurance Company On March 30, 2011, the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Security National Life, completed a Coinsurance Agreement with North America Life Insurance Company (“North America Life”), a Texas domiciled insurance company. Under the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life agreed to reinsure certain insurance policies of North America Life in exchange for the settlement amount of $15,703,641. Effective as of December 1, 2010, North America Life ceded or transferred to Security National Life, and Security National Life accepted and coinsured all of North America Life’s contractual liabilities under the coinsured policies by means of indemnity reinsurance. The Coinsurance Agreement was approved by the Texas Department of Insurance. The Coinsurance Agreement also provides that on and after the effective date of December 1, 2010, Security National Life is entitled to exercise all contractual rights of North America Life under the coinsured policies in accordance with the terms and provisions of such policies. Moreover, after the closing date of March 30, 2011, the Company agreed to be responsible for all the contractual liabilities under the coinsured policies, including the administration of the coinsured policies at its sole expense in accordance with the terms and conditions of a services agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life paid a ceding commission to North America Life in the amount of $3,525,875. In addition, North America Life transferred $15,703,641 in assets and $19,229,516 in statutory reserves, or liabilities net of due and deferred premiums, to Security National Life. The $15,703,641 in assets included $12,990,444 in cash, $8,997 in policy loans, and $2,704,200 in promissory note secured by real estate properties located in Bexar, Liberty, Travis and Wilson Counties in the State of Texas. The promissory notes are also guaranteed by business entities and an individual. On September 1, 2011 Security National Life with the approval of the Texas Department of Insurance assumed all of the policies which were issued by North America Life previously assumed and coinsured pursuant to the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement. Security National Life has assumed the same terms and conditions as set forth in each policy and certificates of assumptions were sent to all policyholders. On May 2, 2012 as part of stock purchase agreement with North America Life, as discussed in Note 13, the Company recaptured the 47% of insurance in force that had previously been ceded by Trans-Western Life to North America Life. Mortgage Loan Loss Settlements The mortgage industry has seen potential loan losses increase. Future loan losses are extremely difficult to estimate, especially in the current market. However, management believes that the Company’s reserve methodology and its current practice of property preservation allow it to estimate its losses on loans sold. The amounts accrued for loan losses for the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 were $1,703,000 and $384,000, respectively, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, were $3,238,000 and $1,220,000, respectively. The estimated liability for indemnification losses is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses and, as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the balances were $5,155,000 and $2,338,000, respectively. Settlement with Wells Fargo On April 7, 2011, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into a settlement agreement with Wells Fargo Funding, Inc. (“Wells Fargo”). The settlement agreement provides that it is intended to be a pragmatic commercial accommodation between SecurityNational Mortgage and Wells Fargo and is not to be construed as an admission of responsibility, liability or fault for either party’s claims. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage paid an initial settlement amount to Wells Fargo in the amount of $4,300,000, of which $1,000,000 had already been paid to Wells Fargo in January 2011, leaving a balance of $3,300,000. The $3,300,000 balance was paid shortly after the parties executed the settlement agreement. In addition, under the terms of the settlement agreement, Wells Fargo has the right to deduct 10 basis points (.0010) from the purchase proceeds of each loan that SecurityNational Mortgage sells to Wells Fargo during the period from April 8, 2011 to March 31, 2017. The amounts deducted by Wells Fargo for the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 were $502,396 and $315,534, respectively and for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 were $1,371,966 and $530,329, respectively, representing 10 basis points from the purchase proceeds of the loans that SecurityNational Mortgage sold to Wells Fargo during that period. SecurityNational Mortgage is also required under the settlement agreement to set aside 10 basis points (.0010) during the period from April 8, 2011 to March 31, 2017 from the purchase proceeds of any loans that it sells to any mortgage loan purchaser other than Wells Fargo and pay such amounts to Wells Fargo. The amounts deducted by Wells Fargo for the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 were $192,441 and $25,171, respectively and for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 were $367,639 and $37,540, respectively, representing 10 basis points from the purchase proceeds of the loans it sold to mortgage loan purchasers other than Wells Fargo during that period. Finally, SecurityNational Mortgage is required under the settlement agreement to set aside 50% from the net proceeds that it receives from any sale, liquidation or other transfer of certain real estate properties that it owns, after subtracting taxes, commissions, recording fees and other transaction costs. These real estate properties consist of 28 real estate properties with a total book value of $5,597,900 as of September 30, 2012. In consideration for SecurityNational Mortgage making the initial settlement payment to Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo and related parties, including Wells Fargo Bank, released SecurityNational Mortgage and related parties, including the Company and Security National Life, from any claims, demands, damages, obligations, liabilities, or causes of action relating to residential mortgage loans that Wells Fargo purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage prior to December 31, 2009. Similarly, SecurityNational Mortgage released Wells Fargo and its related parties from any claims, demands, damages, obligations, liabilities, or causes of actions relating to residential mortgage loans that Wells Fargo purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage prior to December 31, 2009. As of September 30, 2012, the Company reserved and accrued $5,155,000 to settle investor related claims against SecurityNational Mortgage for the allegedly defective mortgage loans that SecurityNational Mortgage sold to Wells Fargo and other mortgage loan purchasers. Mortgage Loan Loss Demand Third Party Investors There have been assertions in third party investor correspondence that SecurityNational Mortgage sold mortgage loans that allegedly contained misrepresentations or experienced early payment defaults, or that were otherwise allegedly defective or not in compliance with agreements between SecurityNational Mortgage and the third party investors consisting principally of financial institutions. As a result of these claims, third party investors have made demands that SecurityNational Mortgage repurchase certain alleged defective mortgage loans that were sold to such investors or indemnify them against any losses related to such loans. As of September 30, 2012, third party investors had asserted total potential claims and notices of potential claims relating to mortgage loan repurchases, indemnifications and other issues that are substantially greater than $20,000,000. Additional potential claims and notices of potential claims from third party investors have been made since September 30, 2012. The Company has reserved and accrued $5,155,000 as of September 30, 2012 to settle all such investor related claims. The total amount of potential claims and notices of potential claims are greater than the net asset value of SecurityNational Mortgage, which was $22,955,000 on September 30, 2012, and its reserve for mortgage loan loss, which was $5,155,000 on September 30, 2012. SecurityNational Mortgage disagrees with the claims and notices of potential claims asserted by third party investors against it and believes it has significant defenses to these claims. Any additional losses in excess of the current loan loss reserve cannot be estimated as SecurityNational Mortgage is currently in the process of reviewing repurchase demands and notices of potential claims from third party investors. If SecurityNational Mortgage is unable to resolve demands by the third party investors on acceptable terms, legal action may ensue in an effort to obtain amounts that the third party investors claim are allegedly due. In the event of legal action, if SecurityNational Mortgage is not successful in its defenses against claims asserted by these third party investors to the extent that a substantial judgment is entered against SecurityNational Mortgage which is beyond its capacity to pay, SecurityNational Mortgage may be required to curtail or cease operations. JP Morgan Chase Indemnification Demand The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, SecurityNational Mortgage, received a notice of claim for indemnification relating to mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage, LLC (“EMC Mortgage”) allegedly purchased as a third party investor from SecurityNational Mortgage. The notice was from JP Morgan Chase & Co. (“JP Morgan Chase”) in behalf of EMC Mortgage. According to the notice, the alleged indemnification claims relate to mortgage loans that SecurityNational Mortgage sold to EMC Mortgage under a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated December 5, 2005, between SecurityNational Mortgage and EMC. The notice also referenced an Agreement of Guaranty, dated February 23, 2006, by the Company relative to EMC Mortgage. The notice states that EMC Mortgage allegedly purchased mortgage loans from SecurityNational Mortgage, which were later securitized by means of mortgage pass-through certificates. The notice of indemnification claims from JP Morgan Chase also states that EMC Mortgage has been named in a lawsuit by the Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR2 (the “Trust”), which was filed on September 13, 2011 in the Delaware Court of Chancery. A copy of the complaint and the amended complaint has been provided to the Company by JP Morgan Chase. The amended complaint contends that more than 800 residential mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage sold to the Trust contained breaches of representations and warranties concerning the mortgage loans. The amended complaint also contends that despite EMC Mortgage’s assurance to the Trust that the mortgage loans met certain minimum quality standards, there have been defaults and foreclosures in many of such loans. As a result of the alleged defaults and foreclosures, the amended complaint asserts that EMC Mortgage is required to repurchase from the Trust any loans in which it breached its representations and warranties, in the amount of the mortgage loans’ outstanding principal balance and all accrued but unpaid interest. The notice from JP Morgan Chase further states that the Company and SecurityNational Mortgage are required to indemnify EMC Mortgage for any losses arising from the lawsuit against EMC based upon alleged untrue statements of material fact related to information that was provided by SecurityNational Mortgage. The amended complaint includes the loan numbers of the alleged non-complying mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage sold to the Trust. In a letter from JP Morgan Chase accompanying a copy of the amended complaint, JP Morgan Chase asserted that 21 mortgage loans originated by SecurityNational Mortgage were included in the lawsuit as part of the alleged non-complying mortgage loans that EMC allegedly sold to the Trust. Thus, it appears that only a very small percentage of the alleged non-complying mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage sold to the Trust were mortgage loans that SecurityNational Mortgage had sold to EMC. Moreover, to the extent the claims by the Trust against EMC Mortgage relate to mortgage loans that SecurityNational Mortgage sold to EMC, the Company believes it has defenses to such claims with respect to EMC. For example, neither the Company nor SecurityNational Mortgage is a party to any agreement involving the Trust, nor are they privy to any agreements between EMC Mortgage and the Trust. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself and SecurityNational Mortgage in the event that JP Morgan Chase were to bring any legal action to require the Company or SecurityNational Mortgage to indemnify it for any loss, liability or expense in connection with the lawsuit that the Trust has brought against EMC Mortgage. Mortgage Loan Loss Litigation Lehman Brothers - Aurora Loan Services Litigation On April 15, 2005, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into a loan purchase agreement with Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB (“Lehman Bank”). Under the terms of the loan purchase agreement, Lehman Bank agreed to purchase mortgage loans from time to time from SecurityNational Mortgage. During 2007, Lehman Bank and its wholly owned subsidiary, Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Aurora Loan Services”), purchased a total of 1,490 mortgage loans in the aggregate amount of $352,774,000 from SecurityNational Mortgage. Lehman Bank asserted that certain of the mortgage loans that it purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage during 2007 contained alleged misrepresentations and early payment defaults. As a result of these alleged breaches in the mortgage loans, Lehman Bank contended it had the right to require SecurityNational Mortgage to repurchase certain loans or be liable for losses related to such loans under the loan purchase agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage disagrees with these claims. On December 17, 2007, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into an Indemnification Agreement with Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services. Under the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage agreed to indemnify Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for 75% of all losses that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services may incur relative to breaches by mortgagors pertaining to 54 mortgage loans that were purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage. SecurityNational Mortgage was released from any obligation to pay the remaining 25% of such losses. The Indemnification Agreement also required SecurityNational Mortgage to indemnify Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for 100% of any future losses incurred on mortgage loans with breaches that were not among the 54 mortgage loans. Pursuant to the Indemnification Agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage paid $395,000 to Aurora Loan Services as a deposit into a reserve account, to secure any obligations of SecurityNational Mortgage under the Indemnification Agreement. This deposit was in addition to a $250,000 deposit that SecurityNational Mortgage previously made into the reserve account for a total of $645,000. Losses from mortgage loans with alleged breaches were payable from the reserve account. However, Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services were not to apply any funds from the reserve account to a particular mortgage loan until an actual loss had occurred. Under the Indemnification Agreement SecurityNational Mortgage was to pay to Aurora Loan Services each calendar month the difference between the reserve account balance and $645,000, but in no event would SecurityNational Mortgage be required to make payments into the reserve account in excess of $125,000 for any calendar month. Since the reserve account was established, funds had been paid from the account to indemnify $4,281,000 in alleged losses from 31 mortgage loans that were among the 54 mortgage loans with alleged breaches that were covered by the Indemnification Agreement and ten other mortgage loans with alleged breaches. In the last monthly billing statement dated April 24, 2011 to SecurityNational Mortgage, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman Holdings”) claimed that SecurityNational Mortgage owed approximately $3,745,000 for mortgage loan losses under the Indemnification Agreement. During 2010 and 2011, the Company recognized alleged losses of $1,289,000 and $500,000, respectively. However, management cannot fully determine the total losses because there may be potential claims for losses that have not yet been determined. As of September 30, 2012, the Company had not accrued for any losses under the Indemnification Agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage was involved in discussions with Lehman Bank and Lehman Holdings concerning issues under the Indemnification Agreement. During the discussion period, monthly payments for December 2010 and January, February, March and April of 2011 totaling $625,000 were abated or deferred. On May 11, 2011, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a complaint against Aurora Bank FSB, formerly known as Lehman Bank, and Aurora Loan Services in the United States District Court for the District of Utah because it had been unable to resolve certain issues under the Indemnification Agreement. The complaint alleges, among other things, material breach of the Indemnification Agreement, including a claim that neither Lehman Bank nor Aurora Loan Services owned mortgage loans sold by SecurityNational to justify the amount of payments demanded from, and made by SecurityNational Mortgage. As a result, SecurityNational Mortgage claims it is entitled to judgment of approximately $4,000,000 against Lehman Bank, as well as Aurora Loan Services to the extent of its involvement and complicity with Lehman Bank. The complaint also alleges a second claim for material breach of a section of the Indemnification Agreement that contains an alleged “sunset” provision and that the amount of the requested payments made was not justified under the “sunset” provision. On June 8, 2011, Lehman Holdings, which had filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, filed a complaint against SecurityNational Mortgage in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. A Lehman Holdings’ subsidiary owns Lehman Bank. The complaint alleges that SecurityNational Mortgage sold loans to Lehman Bank, which were then sold to Lehman Holdings. The complaint additionally alleges that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services assigned their rights and remedies under the loan purchase agreement, as well as the Indemnification Agreement to Lehman Holdings, which latter assignment purportedly took place on March 28, 2011. Lehman Holdings declared in a letter dated June 2, 2011 that the Indemnification Agreement was null and void, which is disputed by SecurityNational Mortgage. Lehman Holdings’ alleged claims are for damages for breach of contract and breach of warranty pursuant to a loan purchase agreement and Seller’s Guide. Based on claiming that the Indemnification Agreement is null and void pursuant to its lawsuit, Lehman Holdings has initially claimed damages of approximately $5,041,000. Prior to declaring the Indemnification Agreement null and void, Lehman Holdings claimed in a then recent billing statement under the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, that SecurityNational Mortgage owed approximately $3,745,000 for mortgage loan losses under the Indemnification Agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage strongly disagrees with the position of Lehman Holdings and, as set forth in its May 11, 2011 complaint, seeks affirmative relief of approximately $4,000,000 from Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services, which are related to Lehman Holdings. On September 4, 2012, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a motion for summary judgment in its action against Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services on certain material issues, as well as against Lehman Holdings regarding its claims against SecurityNational. Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services filed a cross motion for summary judgment as to the issues in SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion and, in the Lehman Holdings case, Lehman Holdings has requested that the Court allow a cross motion on the issues which are the subject of SecurityNational Mortgage’s September 4, 2012 motion. The cases are before two different federal judges. SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion against Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services and the related cross motion are presently set for hearing on December 13, 2012. SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion in the Lehman Holdings case is presently set for hearing on December 18, 2012. Other Contingencies and Commitments The Company has entered into commitments to fund new residential construction loans. As of September 30, 2012, the Company’s commitments were $5,157,000 for these loans of which $3,995,000 had been funded. The Company will advance funds once the work has been completed and an independent inspection is made. The maximum loan commitment ranges between 50% and 80% of appraised value. The Company receives fees from the borrowers and the interest rate is generally 2% to 6.75% over the bank prime rate (3.25% as of September 30, 2012). Maturities range between six and twelve months. The Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings outside the ordinary course of business or to any other legal proceedings, which, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_DisclosureTextBlockAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration