On the LE, where is the owners title policy supposed to be disclosed?

As long as it is not required under section H - Other.

thanks

I can't seem to wrap my brain around this scenario:

It is not required, they can shop, they select the provider from our list of service providers, and it's an affiliate--still section H-Other, unlimited tolerance?

Yes. Because it's not a required service. If you were talking about lender's title insurance for which the consumer could shop, and the consumer selected the affiliate, it would be subject to a 0% increase tolerance. Because it's a required service.

Thank you!!

Help, just to clarify. If the owners title policy is optional for the borrower to purchase or not to purchase and if they choose the title provider on our list, its not a tolerance issue, even if the title company chosen to provide the owners policy is on our list? We do not require an owners policy, we leave that up to the customer.

That is my understanding - provided you have it marked as optional. We are not including Owners Policy in our list of written providers because it is not a required service.

If the seller is paying for the owners title insurance policy and we know this at the time of application, does the owners title premium need to be on the LE?

No

How did I miss this? This is new under the new TRID rules, yes?
In our state, the seller almost always pays the owner's title, yet we've always had to list it (since 2010). So, with the new TRID changes, we no longer list it?

If you have the purchase money contract in front of you and it says that the seller is going to pay for it (not that it might be customary in your area) then you would not have to list it in Section H as optional.

Thanks so much for clarifying Randy.

We don't require Owners Title Policy on any of our loans.
Do we have to list it on the LE in section H under Other?

Yes. On purchase money transactions.

Randy I love your wisdom, can you help me out and tell where I can find the back up to your response about the owner's title insurance policy being in the purchase agreement then it doesn't need to be on the documents at all. Thank you,

But if you have the purchase contract showing the selling is paying, then you don't need to list it in section H, Randy?
Just making sure that the answers don't conflict.

If you know at the time you issue the LE that the buyer will not pay for OTI, you omit it from the LE.

I'd really like to know as well where I can find support for not disclosing it. I can't find anything from the bureau that specifically addresses this and there doesn't seem to be consistency from industry sources either. I've seen some say it still has to be there but the bureau allows you to remove the parenthetical "optional" if the seller agrees to pay on the REPC and it appears in that case you would just offset with a seller credit.

What Cliff said is what I just got at a conference too so if there's a citation can you please share it, Randy or John?
Thanks.

If you know the seller is paying for it and you have the irrepressible need to include it on the Loan Estimate anyhow, you will either have to have an inaccurate estimate of cash to close (it would be high) or you'd have to include a seller credit amount in the calculating cash to close table.

I realize the Bureau did not want to make piecemeal amendments to this rule, and they have stuck to that plan. But this is not a new question -- it has been kicked around here and in queries to the Bureau for months. I sincerely hope the Bureau can issue some reliable written guidance for the industry soon after "lift-off" on October 3, on this and several other controversial questions.

Thanks John. Our need is certainly not irrepressible, I would much rather not include it on the LE and I think personally it makes more sense not to, especially if you are talking in terms of consumer understanding. Like you've said though, it would just be nice to hear something from the bureau that solidified this for the industry.

Thanks, John. I didn't remember reading anything in the Reg on this. And, like a couple other things, most notably the whole 'signed' rate lock, this is controversial if for no other reason that various experts have opined inconsistently.

Ugh, signed rate lock... we're still going in circles on that one.

OK, here's my question to clarify, if the borrower is not likely to pay for the OTI by virtue that he/she informs the MLO that they will not be buying the product, do you still show it on the LE? If yes, do you show the OTI as per the bureau's formula?