We have just recieved the appraisal...report indicates property is listed for sale.

We have already locked the loan with an investor who will not accept the loan unless they have been off the market for at least 6 months.

There is another investor who will accept this loan if it is off the market for a much shorter period of time, but the pricing is different (higher). Would this scenario be considered a changed circumstance?

In my opinion Nope...

I think an argument can be made for yes... but to me your job on the GFE is to present a "worst case" scenario for the fees (especially secondary market stuff)...

What box are these fees in? If they are box 1 or 2 then definitely no... unless the amount of the note changed... and the fees are tied to the note balance... then they might be able to change, but I don't think I would change them at my bank based on the information above.

Cheers.

A change in investor is not a changed circumstance.
See RESPA FAQ - P.20 XV)

Thanks TR, I did know that, but I guess I thought this would fall under Q #1 page 17 and particularly #2 in the answer (information particular to the borrower or transaction that was relied on in providing the GFE and that changed). Because we did not have knowledge that the property was listed until we recieved the appraisal which was after the rate was locked with this particular investor...would this not qualify. Had we known this fact, we would not have chosen that investor program. Sorry to persist, but I truly am struggling with this.

I'm not an LO so I don't take applications but it would seem to me that the question of whether the property is currently on the market would be one asked in the course of taking one. But maybe that's just me.

You might be able to construe it as information not known at application but it's a direct conflict with the FAQ I noted above so I think you'd have a really hard time selling it to an examiner.

I understand. Thanks so much for everyone's help.

I agree with TR. I don't see a changed circumstance.

Apparently you knew which investor you intended to run this through at the time of application therefore it is your responsibility to know their requirements and have procedures in place to gather all the information required, including if the home is on or has been on the market within a certain time frame.

If this requirement was changed and you were unaware of the change in the investor's requirements then you would have a basis for a changed circumstance but in this instance I don't see a legitimate changed circumstance.

Dan...can I please feed off your last stmt



We are doing a HARP (DU REFI PLUS) loan and was going with a certain Investor. After submitting this loan to the Investor, they have stated they will not accept a DU Refi Plus with Previous MI, apparently this is part of their internal procedures as we see no stated written guidelines.

Would this be considered a Change of Circmstance. I mean, we locked with this Investor and now this lock is no longer valid as they will not do the loan? I asked the LO if they denied the file, and the answer was the Investor just stated they would not accept the loan.

Thank so much!

bump to anybody?

Not sure what your question is.
Have you gotten another investor lined up with higher fees and you're asking if that's a valid cc?
I'd say no in your situation.

Hey Truff...thanks for your response. My initial thought was because we changed investors then this is not a changed circumstance. However, after reading Dan's post that I highlighted above made me think it "could" be possible.

The Investor that we locked the customer with did not disclose that they would not transfer Mortgage Insurance on a HARP loan, so they would not accept the loan when we submitted it to them...therefore we had to find a new Investor. To start with we were not charging an Origination fee, but in order to get the same rate with this new Investor, we would now have to charge an Origination fee.

Doesn't sound like it's a change in the investor requirements. Sounds like it's an investor quirk that they didn't bother to share but that still doesn't qualify as a cc.

Is it an origination fee or is it the fee to lock w/the new investor and get this rate? Meaning would you be checking one of the boxes in Block 2?

KT, you would only have a basis for a CC if this investor invoked this rule after you issued the GFE, or just a few weeks before. If this "rule" has been in place for some time with the investor concerning HARPS then it would not be a changed circumstance because you should have known their rules for HARPS. IOWs if you were not aware of their HARP requirements you should have inquired about them. In the case of GFEs ignorance of the rules is not bliss.

Changing investors and "locking" the rate with the new investor would also not IMO be a CC. Adding the "lock fee" would be a circumvention of the rules to revise a charge that should not be there due to the investor the loan was originally placed with.

I didn't see that KT had locked the loan with the original investor, Dan, but rather that he was 'going to go with' them. If indeed the rate was locked than Dan is absolutely correct it's not a CC.

That was my initial response as well! Thanks so much Truff & Dan for your responses and confirmation! Appreciate yall more than you know!