Here's a simple question but I can't find the answer. In the rate lock section, if you say no, you still have to complete this sentence "All other estimated closing costs expire on ______ at _____PM."

Is this still 10 business days? Can someone give me the cite because I read .13 but I don't see where it says it has to be 10 business days like it did back in RESPA.

Thanks (and again, I apologize for all my questions - just started to study this rule).

Yes, it is still 10 business days. More accurately, it's "at least 10 business days," since the lender has the option of honoring the LE for longer than 10 business days.

The regulation mentions "ten business days" exactly three times in section 1026.19 and its commentary. All those mentions are in connection with 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(E), which lists the expiration of the loan estimate as one of the changed circumstances that would allow a creditor to issue a new -- completely new -- Loan Estimate.

It's put this way -- if the "consumer indicates an intent to proceed with the transaction more than ten business days after the disclosures required under ... are provided ...."

So, at minimum, the date you put in that space on the first LE must be ten (general definition) business days after the date the LE is provided.

Thank you. My eyes are crossing with all of this and I must have just skimmed over all those references to 10 business days. Thank you for your time.

As you said earlier, you only recently got the assignment of diving in to this, and I am sure you've been doing a lot of reading. Sometimes the eyes to glaze over .... Zzzzz.

Good luck with your efforts to absorb all of this.

Thank you.

Our Real Estate Manager said that they were no longer going to do a revised LE because of a rate lock. After reading this thread more than a couple of times I "think" I agree with that because our rate lock is with the secondary market investor and not the customer. However, if we send the investors rate lock document to the borrower via the e-sign method, haven't we now executed a written rate lock agreement with the borrower? The bank provides all RE documents via e-sign.

To paraphrase another Island Girl -- Meghan Trainor from Nantucket -- it's all about that definition.

There are two sorts of rate locks. The one your bank makes with an investor has absolutely nothing to do with the rate lock agreement with which Regulation Z concerns itself. That is, of course, unless the bank passes through the cost to the borrower of obtaining your investor rate lock.

The rate lock agreement that is discussed in Reg Z as one of the changed circumstances requiring a revised Loan Estimate is a rate lock agreement signed by the consumer in which the bank and the consumer agree upon the rate of interest to be charged on the loan in process. It typically has an expiration date. There's no reason to send the investor rate lock to the borrower, but if you do send it, you are not creating an agreement with the borrower.

So your real estate manager is correct. The signing of a rate lock agreement with the investor is not a trigger for a new loan estimate.

John, since you emphasized that the agreement needs to be signed by the consumer, I just wanted to throw out there that our attorney has opined that we can have a "written agreement" without the consumer's signature. She said it would be a unilateral agreement that would be binding on the bank but not on the consumer (which is, essentially, the way we operate now by honoring oral rate lock agreements).

Thanks John.

I'll leave it to others to argue whether the consumer's signature is required. Just don't misconstrue what the attorney has told you as meaning that your oral rate lock will cut it here. An oral agreement is not binding on the bank when it comes to real estate, because it would not be enforceable by the consumer if the bank failed to honor it.

Understood, John. We will be using a written rate lock agreement going forward.

Geeez. An employee of another local bank called the Bureau about the written rate lock agreement and was told that the reg itself doesn't require a written rate lock agreement and that the preamble stuff doesn't carry weight. He said no signature was necessary but the bank may want to document the verbal rate lock with a note to the file. Of course the employee relayed this info to the Loan Manager and the finally dead subject has now been revived. Ugh I wish the Bureau would clear up a few things in writiing.

Amen. That, to me, is an irresponsible statement by the Bureau spokesman, if it is indeed what was said. If that is the official Bureau stance, it ought to have been made clear very early in this 20 month rollup.

ahou, that employee must have talked to the same CFPB lawyer I did because that's almost verbatim his response!
Now maybe y'all will understand why I've been saying what I have in this thread.

It is frustrating that they can't (won't) clarify some of these things. No telling how many people have asked them the same question.

Does both borrower and co-borrower need to sign the rate lock agreement? (Regarding TRID)

What constitutes a legal obligation is a state law issue.