I sent an email to the HMDA help to ask how to report an application our bank recently took. The situation is this:
Mother and son currently are in title together on dwelling and have a mortgage with another bank, the new mortgage they are taking out with our bank will replace the existing mortgage, but the son only will take title and be on mortgage. It is my understanding that if an existing obligation is replaced by a new one, the borrowers need to be the same to be reportable as a refinance. The borrowers will not be the same and so this would not be reportable as a refinance (am I correct?).
HMDA help is telling me that this is reportable as a refinance? Can anyone provide clarification as to why they would be considering this as a refinance?

Perhaps because one of the borrowers is the same? I feel like there have been other threads discussing this exact scenario. Have you tried searching the threads?

ETA: Previous Thread: http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1218694

So the thought is that if at least one of the borrowers is the same, it would be reported as a refinance? The guidance doesn't make this clear if that is the case.

I have checked other posts, but will check again to see if there are any similar situations.

Mother is going off title, not just off the mortgage, correct?
I'd treat this the same way I do a divorce...as a refinance.
Others call it a purchase.
Search 'divorce' in this forum for multiple discussions.

Yes, that is correct. I have found other posts that may help me in making my final decision, I guess I am stuck on the fact that the new mortgage will not be to the exact same borrower.

I have another application, where our bank holds a mortgage as husband and wife, wife took sole title, now is taking out new mortgage to be on mortgage as individual without husband. It is not a divorce situation, the new lien will replace the old lien, but again the borrowers are not exactly the same, so I thought refinance would be out, wife is already in title so my thought was purchase would be out and it is not for home improvement purposes either. My opinion was not reportable, but maybe I'm needing to reconsider this one as a refinance as well?

Yes, your second scenario is a refinance too.
Try looking at it my way...you have one same borrower just not the exact same borrowerS. If we took your second scenario above and the husband died, would you not call it a refi? imho, a divorce or going solo on the mortgage is still a refinance situation as long as she was on the old and is on the new.

Thank you for your help, I believe we will be reporting both as refinances, since one of the borrowers was on the original obligation, I was just having a problem with the "same borrower" language meaning in my mind (exact borrowers not just one)Thanks again.

Here we treat the type of scenarios you mention as refinance loans, EXCEPT in a divorce situation when one spouse is clearly purchasing the other spouse's interest in the property - those we treat as a Purchase. This has always been acceptable to our field examiners. As mentioned in previous discussions and threads on this, there is no industry-wide consensus and the important thing is to support your decision and be consistent in your approach for all applications.

I am stuck on the fact that the new mortgage will not be to the exact same borrower.

The mortgage has nothing to do with determining if the new loan is to same borrower. You have to look to who will be on the obligation (note). If anyone from the old obligation is signing the new obligation then you have a refinancing.

If you have a transfer of title then you need to make a determination if it qualifies as a purchase.

Thank you for that clarification. We will be reporting as refinances.

Our FDIC Examiner just told us this week that a divorced situation is a Refinance not a purchase. We are so confused. We have been told in numerous training seminars that in a divorce situation the new loan should be reported as a purchase. Because the reg states "by the same borrow". Maybe it should state one of the same borrowers. They said there is interpretation but they can't show it to me.

They said there is interpretation but they can't show it to me.

They can't or won't. There is a difference, because it does not officially exist. It is a half dozen of one or six of another. You are dealing solely with an examiner's opinion and I would be pressing them for written confirmation.

This is what we were told by an FDIC examiner during the course of the last exam (2010):
If you have an owelty lien transaction, which includes refinancing an existing lien, then it should be recorded on the LAR as a refinance. If there is not an existing lien and you are only advancing new money for the owelty lien, then you will report as a purchase on the LAR.

How's that for crazy???