I have a service provider who happens to be owned by a director that wants to place non-borrower spouses on the HUD Settlement Statement.

I'm aware that there is no signature requirement for the HUD. I'm curious as to whether or not including the non-borrower spouse is "bad". I fully believe it isn't required - only borrowers and sellers should be on the HUD, but I don't want to fight a battle that's not worth fighting, so is there any harm if Jane Doe's spouse's name appears on her settlement statement?

The only place you can put the spouse's name on the HUD is in the box marked BORROWER
The non-borrowing spouse is NOT a BORROWER.
Therefor, they do not belong on the HUD.

State specific requirements must be followed but normally, the only items the non-borrowing spouse belongs on are the mortgage, TIL and ROR.

Why does the service provider want the non-borrowing spouse on the HUD anyway?

FWIW, I agree with Truffle.

Thanks, I think we all agree that it isn't supposed to be there.

The attorney's opinion is that the spouse is signing the mortgage and in some cases the TIL and ROR documents and as a result should have the right to an itemization of the proceeds.

I think I can easily enough "win" this one, but in the real world we all know that wins don't come without cost - thus my attempt at gathering a consensus.

TIA

The itemization of the amount financed is not included in the definition of the material disclosures.


48 The term "material disclosures" means the required disclosures of the annual percentage rate, the finance charge, the amount financed, the total of payments, the payment schedule, and the disclosures and limitations referred to in Sec. Sec. 226.32(c) and (d) and 226.35(b)(2).