XML 70 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

11) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2014
Notes |
11) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies | 11) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies Reinsurance Terminated with North America Life Insurance Company On December 1, 2013, in accordance with the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life, through TransWestern Life Insurance Company (“Trans-Western Life”), recaptured additional policies of Trans-Western Life from North America Life Insurance Company (“North America Life”). On December 10, 2013, pursuant to the Coinsurance Agreement, North America Life paid $2,500,000, less a ceding commission of $34,000 to Security National Life. On February 13, 2014, in accordance with the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life, through Trans Western Life, recaptured the remaining policies of Trans-Western Life from North America Life. Pursuant to the Coinsurance Agreement, North America Life paid $4,684,000 less a ceding commission of $57,000 to Security National Life, and the Reinsurance Agreement between Trans Western Life and North America Life was terminated. Mortgage Loan Loss Settlements Future loan losses are extremely difficult to estimate, especially in the current market. However, management believes that the Company’s reserve methodology allow it to estimate its losses on loans sold. The amounts accrued for loan losses for the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 were $571,000 and $644,000, respectively, and for the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, were $943,000 and $1,181,000 respectively. The estimated liability for indemnification losses is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses and, as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the balances were $6,209,000 and $5,507,000, respectively. Settlement with Wells Fargo On April 7, 2011, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into a settlement agreement with Wells Fargo Funding, Inc. (“Wells Fargo Funding”). The settlement agreement provides that it is intended to be a pragmatic commercial accommodation between SecurityNational Mortgage and Wells Fargo Funding 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 Funding in the amount of $4,300,000. 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, including Wells Fargo Funding, and pay such amounts to Wells Fargo Funding. SecurityNational Mortgage is additionally 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 26 real estate properties with a total book value as of June 30, 2014 of $4,232,000. In consideration for SecurityNational Mortgage making the initial settlement payment to Wells Fargo Funding, Wells Fargo Funding 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 Funding purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage prior to December 31, 2009. Similarly, SecurityNational Mortgage released Wells Fargo Funding and its related parties from any claims, demands, damages, obligations, liabilities, or causes of actions relating to residential mortgage loans that Wells Fargo Funding purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage prior to December 31, 2009. Mortgage Loan Loss Demands Third Party Investors There have been assertions in third party investor correspondence that SecurityNational Mortgage sold mortgage loans that allegedly contained borrower 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. The total amount of potential claims by third party investors is difficult to determine. The Company has reserved and accrued $6,201,000 as of June 30, 2014 to settle all such investor related claims. The Company believes that the reserve for mortgage loan loss, which includes provisions for probable losses and indemnification on mortgage loans sold to investors, is reasonable based on available information. Moreover, the Company has successfully negotiated acceptable settlement terms with other third party investors that asserted claims for mortgage loan losses against SecurityNational Mortgage. SecurityNational Mortgage disagrees with the repurchase demands and notices of potential claims from third party investors and believes it has significant defenses to these demands. If SecurityNational Mortgage is unable to resolve the alleged claims by the third party investors on acceptable terms, legal action may ensue. 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 dated December 21, 2011, from JP Morgan Chase & Co. (“JP Morgan Chase”) on behalf of EMC Mortgage, LLC (“EMC Mortgage”), relating to 21 mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage allegedly purchased as a third party investor from SecurityNational Mortgage. The notice also referenced a guaranty agreement, dated February 23, 2006, by the Company for the benefit of EMC Mortgage. The indemnification notice additionally stated that EMC Mortgage had 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. The lawsuit the Trust brought against EMC Mortgage contends that more than 800 residential mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage sold to the Trust (including the 21 loans allegedly originated by SecurityNational Mortgage) contained breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the mortgage loans, as well as defaults and foreclosures in many of such loans. As a result of the alleged breaches of representations and warranties by EMC Mortgage, the complaint requests that EMC Mortgage be ordered to repurchase from the Trust any loans for which it breached its representations and warranties, in the amount of the mortgage loans’ outstanding principal balance and all accrued but unpaid interest. The indemnification notice from JP Morgan Chase further alleged that the Company and SecurityNational Mortgage are required to indemnify EMC Mortgage for any of its losses arising from the lawsuit that the Trust brought against EMC based upon allegedly untrue statements of material fact related to information that was provided by SecurityNational Mortgage. To the extent the claims in the complaint relate to the 21 mortgage loans that SecurityNational Mortgage allegedly sold to EMC Mortgage, the Company believes it has significant defenses to such claims. 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 issues with 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 55 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 55 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. Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services were not to apply any funds from the reserve account to a particular mortgage loan, however, 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 time the reserve account was established, SecurityNational Mortgage paid a total of $4,281,000 from the reserve account to indemnify Lehman Brothers Bank and Aurora Loan Services for alleged losses from 31 mortgage loans that were among 55 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 $-0-, respectively. Management cannot fully determine the total losses, however, because there could be potential claims for losses that have not yet been determined. As of June 30, 2014, 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 hereinafter referred to 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 claims, 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 subsidiary of Lehman Holdings 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 except for losses previously released and discharged, 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 in excess of $5,000,000. 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 Mortgage. 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. On February 27, 2013, SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment against Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services and the related cross motion were heard by Judge David Nuffer of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. After an extensive hearing, Judge Nuffer requested that the parties prepare findings of fact in accordance with the Court’s earlier promulgated findings as modified at the hearing, and that each party submit proposed conclusions of law related to the motions. The motion and cross motion were taken under advisement. SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion in the Lehman Holdings case was heard on April 22, 2014 before Judge Ted Stewart of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, and is under advisement. On May 6, 2014, Judge Nuffer issued his summary of facts, conclusions of law and order granting SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment and denying the cross motion of Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services. On May 27, 2014, Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services filed a motion to reconsider Judge Nuffer’s summary judgment ruling. On June 2, 2014, a hearing was held before Judge Nuffer to determine the amount owing to SecurityNational Mortgage pursuant to the summary judgment ruling. The motion to reconsider the summary judgment ruling and the issue of what is owing to SecurityNaitonal Mortgage pursuant to the summary judgment ruling are both under advisement by the Court, the Court having indicated that it will issue a ruling on both matters at the same time. On May 7, 2014, Judge Stewart issued an order for the parties to submit supplemental briefs as to the effect of Judge Nuffer’s summary judgment order on SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment in the Lehman Holdings case. The supplemental briefing is due within ten days after Judge Nuffer issues his ruling on the motion to reconsider the summary judgment ruling. Judge Stewart also granted leave for SecurityNational Mortgage to file an additional motion for summary judgment in the Lehman Holdings case on the basis that the claims of Lehman Holdings are barred by the statute of limitations. This motion is also to be filed within ten days after Judge Nuffer rules on the motion to reconsider the summary judgment ruling. The August 11, 2014 trial setting in the Lehman Holdings case was stricken without providing a new trial date. 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 operation. Other Contingencies and Commitments The Company has entered into commitments to fund new residential construction loans. As of June 30, 2014, the Company’s commitments were $36,092,000 for these loans of which $20,414,000 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 June 30, 2014). 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 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 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: 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 + 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