WFG’s Don O’Neill on FinCEN, rate scrutiny and title compliance

The regulatory and compliance landscape for the title insurance industry grew more complex in 2025, driven by federal anti-money laundering rules, expanding reporting obligations and renewed scrutiny from state regulators.

From delayed but still-looming FinCEN requirements to rate reductions, licensing pressures and growing attention on attorney opinion letters, compliance teams have been forced to prepare for sweeping operational changes.

In this HousingWire Q&A, Don O’Neill, deputy general counsel and chief compliance officer at WFG National Title, breaks down which regulatory actions mattered most this year.

Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Jonathan Delozier: Looking at this year, with FinCEN delays and so much happening at the federal level, which regulatory actions had the most significant impact on title in 2025 and why did they stand out?

Don O’Neill: “The GTOs (FinCEN’s geographic targeting orders) came in 2017. They started off kind of slow — five boroughs in New York and a few counties in Florida. Fast forward to the current GTO, it affects transactions in 11 states, plus Washington, D.C., and about 58 or 59 counties or boroughs.”

The FinCEN reporting that is now going to be required is all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, about 3,600 recording jurisdictions. That gives you the magnitude of how much this will impact the industry.

JD: Who exactly is responsible for that reporting and how has the scope changed?

DO: The FinCEN reporting is required for settlement agents — anybody that’s closing a real estate transaction. That means title companies, private escrow companies, some law firms, anybody doing the settlement.

They started off those GTOs on high dollar amounts — $3 million, $5 million. Under the current GTO, the threshold is $300,000. With the new rule, it drops to zero. You have to report on the first dollar.

It still amazes me. I can be in parts of the country that haven’t had FinCEN reporting, and they don’t have a clue what we’re talking about. This is brand new to some people who haven’t been part of those geographic targeting orders as they’ve evolved over this last seven, eight or nine years.

JD: There’s been confusion around the effective date. Where do things stand right now?

DO: The rule became effective Dec. 1. People get fuzzy about that. What’s critical is it’s effective Dec. 1, but the reporting isn’t required until March 1, 2026.

Some people think the whole rule has been pushed off. It hasn’t. It’s already effective. Reporting has just been pushed to March 1. Some people get that confused and think, ‘Well, the whole rule has been pushed off.’ It’s a very significant distinction to say it’s already effective. It’s just the reporting has now been pushed off.

O’Neill also cited a recent court ruling that struck a blow to any hopes for another rule delay. In a suit filed against FinCEN by Fidelity National Financial, a magistrate judge recommended that the court grant FinCEN’s cross-motion for summary judgment — meaning that the new Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers Rule would be upheld.

DO: They found that FinCEN had broad authority under the Bank Secrecy Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act. They’re trying to find bad actors putting cash into real estate transactions. (The magistrate judge) rejected the First and Fourth Amendment arguments. As of (Dec. 9), anyone opposed has 14 days to object to his recommendation.

There was a dilemma all through 2025: How much energy do you put into preparing your organization for this incredible new reporting requirement while keeping your fingers crossed it’ll all go away? How much money do you invest in software updates, training your employees, process improvements — yet at same time kind of keeping your fingers crossed and try to wish it away? Well, it’s not. It’s here.

JD: What’s been the biggest operational challenge in preparing?

DO: The tricky part is entity buyers paying cash. If you’re buying in an LLC, corporation or trust, you’re obligated to tell the settlement agent the ownership composition. We’re required to report anybody with a 25% interest or greater. People are not happy to share that. There’s always the question, ‘Why should I tell you?’ And we have to explain it’s a Treasury requirement — FinCEN. It’s federal law.

JD: Beyond FinCEN, what other legislation shaped title operations this year?

DO: Texas Insurance Commissioner Cassie Brown issued a ruling mid-year there there was going to be a 10% reduction in title premiums. This was after several years of study. It was not a arbitrary decision that was based on some evaluation.

There was then a reduction in that percentage in October. It went down to 6.2%. With whatever was happening within the state, within the government, and maybe with the political pressure, it went from 10% to 6.2%. That’ll become effective in March of this next year. People who wanted reductions want more. Others think it’s too much.

California is looking for much more justification on rate filings — business conditions, risk, claims. They’re looking for business rationale on rates. When we make a rate filing for one particular rate, they may look at the entire spectrum of rates.

JD: Any other regulatory developments flying under the radar?

DO: Attorney opinion letters. We’re starting to see departments of insurance write bulletins on them, and we’re going to see more of those.

Tennessee has a bulletin out. It’s pretty benign. It says if the advertising by an AOL provider says that it’s the alternative to title insurance, you can’t do that. In other words, if they’re misleading in what the product is and calling it an alternative to title insurance, then obviously the Department of Insurance says you cannot do that.

Title insurance covers the gap between signing and recording. If an attorney opinion letter claims to cover that gap, it’s equivalent to title insurance. That’s where regulators are stepping in.