Personally, I don't like the idea of using national providers because it really doesn't tell the borrower where they can go in their area. Try googling First American Title and you'll see what I mean. While FAT is the underwriter, the name of one of the title companies that writes for them in IL is Woodford County Title. Will the borrower, or your processor for that matter, know that choosing Woodford means they're choosing from your list?

Just wondering ....if the model form has a column designated for "estimates", but we choose not to provide them (since the preamble indicates they are not required), do we just leave them blank?? Silly.

If the space for estimated costs does not go away when not used, yes, just leave them blank.

The applicant can choose off the list if they want to.

Can you document if any borrowers have gone off list?

I'm sorry but providing a list of 50 service providers and requiring the consumer to initial which one they choose from the list sounds more like they are being steered to the providers listed. Any reasonable person would assume their choices are limited to the numerous providers being presented on the list. If you can't document you have borrowers going off list, and I don't mean just 1 or 2 in the past 100 loans, then I would start a CYA documentation campaign for potential UDAAP allegations from your examiners.

I cannot fathom the upside to listing 50 attorneys.

The other issue is what if the borrower is going to a branch in county A, they see the list and that they can save a few dollars by going to County B Title Company and they choose to go that route. If the Abstract and various other title services are done in a neighboring county, you face some serious additional costs, which your List is not going to account for and you will be bound by the tolerance limits and the fees listed on the LE.

Truffle, while I somewhat agree I would ask from the perspective of accomplishing this how others are doing this? A number of LOS platforms will only let you create these on the back end or admin side (e.g., must be hardcoded and saved to the system). It is easy to build this list on the back end when you know your typical market area and could list providers for each area to suffice. The rub comes when you make loans outside of this area and your list of providers in your market area wouldn't suffice. There is no way to have a list hardcoded into your LOS platform that would address all areas you could ever possibly lend.

I would love to get some thoughts on how this could practically be accomplished. The national service provider was the only solution that came to mind.

Why do you have to use a hardcoded list? Couldn't you just complete different lists for different areas through an excel table or word doc and use them when necessary?

eta: How are you handling provider listS for outside your market area now?

Trying to address when we do a one off loan in an area we don't have a list for. You are correct that we could just complete the list at this time on the model form, but trying to keep this as automated as possible. It sounds as if that may not be a possibility in these instances.

We currently don't allow the borrower to shop (i.e., nothing in block 6). This seems almost impossible to continue with the 0% tolerance for "Required services that we select" under the TRID Rule.

My head is spinning so please forgive me. I am looking at our existing – been around forever – provider list and I questioned the “powers that be” why the list would include appraisers and appraisal companies. I was told that the guy who set the list up years ago was a genius and if he had them on there then it must be correct. Am I missing something? I thought the customers were not allowed to choose their appraiser.

They are not.

Does anyone see a problem with only having one settlement service provider on the list?

No. In fact, I distinctly remember that TRID speaks to having only one. (sorry. no time to find the reference now.)

It would sure make it easier to stay within tolerance!

It is permissible to have only one provider on the list, but if you service multiple markets the one provider on that list must service the market area they are being disclosed for.

Perfect timing, Dan! I'm logging this in our Q&A's and the sums it up quite nicely. Thank you!

Does anyone forsee problems with having one provider per market, but putting all of them on one list under market area headings? We have 5 branches, and our list now is set up that way. We list the county name and then one provider for each service in that county, leave a blank space, then list the next county name and so on.

I have not played with the new required form yet, though, so I have no idea if this is even possible anymore.

Thank you, Dan.

So are you saying same company (provider) but 5 different branches?

No, I mean it looks sort of like:

County Name A
Settlement Agent/Title Services
1. John E Law, PC

Surveyor
1. Max Doubt


County Name B
Settlement Agent/Title Services
1. Dewey, Cheatum & Howe

Surveyor
1. Ima X. Ample


etc.

It lists one provider per service for each county that we serve.

See the CFPB TRID Compliance Guide; Section 7.4; page 38

Becca, if you don't have a problem with borrower being in County A, but choosing provider from County B, you would probably be okay. (would not be non-tolerance issue because they ARE on your list).

For this reason, I'm going to one/market because lately I've had them go to just what I've described and I see it being a potential issue.

We have the capability to set up a list per market through our platform (at least in theory), but I have very little faith in our staff's ability to choose the correct list per loan. Plus, our counties are so close together that it is not terribly unusual for a borrower in County A to be buying property in County B and use an attorney in County C.

I think one per market is best so that the customer sees what applies to their loan, and the bank has less chance of them "not shopping" by picking from your list.

I've been discussing this with some of you; i feel a bit silly asking this, but i sure would like some clarity: Would we need to provide a provider list for Homeowner's Insurance? I understand that homeowner's insurance is going to be an unlimited tolerance item, but i don't see how to not give the list based on this from 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C):

(C) Written list of providers. If the consumer is permitted to shop for a settlement service, the creditor shall provide the consumer with a written list identifying available providers of that settlement service and stating that the consumer may choose a different provider for that service. The creditor must identify at least one available provider for each settlement service for which the consumer is permitted to shop. The creditor shall provide this written list of settlement service providers separately from the disclosures required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section but in accordance with the timing requirements in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section.

Homeowner's insurance is a required service, and we ARE (of course) letting them shop for it....so would we get dinged for not having a provider list for it?