If you use an interpretor for mortgage loans, in which section of the GFE would you show the fee? And would you consider it an APR item on the TIL?

Would the answers differ according to who is requiring or choosing the service - lender, title company, or at borrowers request??

Thanks!

From the bottom up:
Yes, I think it would make a difference.
But I don't see it as a normal cost of doing a loan.
This is such a specialized item that I'm thinking it doesn't belong on the GFE at all.
I cannot even fathom how it could be construed as a finance charge that would affect the APR.

Thanks for the quick response, TR! I appreciate it.

We have a loan officer working with a group of refugees whose sponsoring organization was providing an interpretor as part of their services. That individual has moved on. Going forward, an interpretor will need to be hired for loans to applicants in this particular group as the local title companies who typically do our closings don't have anyone on staff that speaks the refugees language. Would you still see this as not a normal cost of doing those loans?

Just when you think you have a handle on this stuff, something new comes up...

Did the organization charge for the interpretor or just have one there as a service?
Aren't future refugees going to be sponsored by the same orginazation?
If this is all covered by the refugees sponsor org, then you don't have to worry about hiring or charging or putting it on the GFE at all.

If it's a required service for those loans, I would think it would apply since the 'free gratis' interpretor is no longer available and no one else seems to be available or interested in volunteering their time and skill.

I don't really see it as an APR fee, but I'd probably be discussing with my regulator since it's not anything discussed in FC or non-FC in Z.

I don't really see it as an APR fee,

If the financial institution is requiring the use of an interpretor then it is a direct cost of obtaining the loan and would be a pre-paid finance charge IMO.

If the application is from a class that the bank would normally require an interpretor then I would also have to opine it's a settlement charge that would need to be disclosed on the GFE. Since the service is being required by the FI I would also opine it would fall within the FI origination charge category and wouild have to be included in Block 1.

I agree looking at it from your perspective, Dan. I don't think the FI is requiring it, however...it appears the title company is, but if it's not related to 'title services and title insurance', it may not be exempted under that category.

Again, I'm thinking I would discuss this most unusual scenario with my regulator.

The sponsoring organization is no longer providing an interpretor (it used to be part of their free gratis services and now one needs to be hired).

Ahhh - Ask questions, get more details: The title company requires the use of the interpretor at closing and the lender requires the use of the interpretor during the application and loan processing phases. (These applicants speak NO English and we don't have anyone on staff that speaks their language.)

There is only one provider of this service in town. They generate one bill for the whole process - it isn't broken down between bank (application) use and title company (closing) use.

Should we split it 50/50 between origination charges and title services??

The way it is billed triggered the questions (from an observant loan processor) in my original post as the provider is sending a bill directly to the lender.

Thanks all for your input - I do appreciate it.

Is it a flat fee that will be the same on every loan?
I think you could make an argument for either putting the entire bill in Block 1 or splitting 50/50.

My stance would be that you are hiring the interpretor to facilitate the loan process from beginning to end.
Therefore, the entire fee could be put in Block 1.

Again, an email (get their response in writing!) to your EC might be your best path especially if you're going to be doing a number of these loans.

Just for giggles (and making trouble), are these 'refugees' U. S. Residents?

Yes, it is a flat fee.

My gut reaction was to include it in title services until I learned we are requiring for the application process also - then I felt it should go in Block 1 as a FC.

And yes, they are considered US Residents, now.

Thanks all - good discussion!

Darn...if they weren't..they wouldn't be subject to Z. But come to think of it...I don't think (without looking) that that would exempt from RESPA, too...

Based on the final discussion, I would vote for Block 1 and a FC.