Our loan origination system doesn't provide the Service Provider List so I've had to create one. My form is similar to the CFPB version. I have columns for Service, Estimate, Provider We Identified, and Contact Information. In my Service column, I have general title fees such as Examination Fee, Lender's Coverage Premium, Settlement Fee, Closing Protection Letter. I do no have a monetary amount in the Estimate column as this is optional so I just have it as [--]. I then list the title attorney and contact information.

Now that I'm a couple of months into TRID, and based on some potential issues I am seeing, I was thinking about revising my form to exclude the Service and Estimate column and simply list the title company and contact information as this appears to be all that is necessary according to 1026.19(e)(1)(iv)(C).

Does anyone else only have the title company and contact information listed? If a standard form from your loan origination system generates the four columns, what is being listed in the Service column for say title attorney's?

Thanks.

The requirements for the provider list didn't change.
The lists we use only show one provider per service with their contact information.

You will need the service, a provider and contact info for each provider. Each service included in the Loan Estimate Section C will have to be included.

Thank you. To clarify, based on each Service I list in Section C, each one of the title fees I mentioned above should be itemized separately on my Provider List? So, since I list in Section C the following:

-Title - Closing Protection Letter
-Title - Examination Fee
-Title - Lenders Coverage Premium
-Title - Settlement Fee

Then these fees should be listed on my Provider List under Services?

You would list one title company. You are not required to list the individual fees.

I think I may be getting too hung up on the Services column.

If I just list "Title Services" in this column, then the title company and contact info, that should be sufficient, correct?

You have to list a provider to cover every one of the services listed in Section C. But as Randy noted, you don't have to itemize the services covered by that provider.

Thanks to all that have responded. I appreciate the input. I think it is an understatement to state, at times, I overthink things when it comes to TRID and end up confusing the heck out of things.

What is the minimum # of service providers we must list? It sounds like only 1 from prior post here, we are considering reducing from 3, but want to continue to allow shopping. But wondering how few we can list and still say borrowers can shop?

You can list 1 and not only say they can shop, but actually let them shop. The requirement is at least 1; listing more than 1 is simply not advantageous to the bank as you limit the number of providers that can show up in the unlimited tolerance bucket for you. The provider list is simply telling the applicant: 'We will allow you to shop for this service--it's you and not us that will decide who provides this service for you that we are requiring. Here is one such provider, but you are not bound to use this provider; you may use one that you find yourself as well."

Thank you, and could you possibly direct me to where the regulation or commentary states we only have to list when we allow shopping?

(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.

That's 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C)

If a bank does not allow shopping for title service providers, I see that it changes the tolerance category to zero tolerance. But then we would be able to select a more TRID ready title service provider.

What about if we get a contract where the title service is named, and it is not one that we normally use. Would we be able to use the contract specified provider and still be under the "we do not allow shopping" rule, or would that be permissible to allow using the one named in the real estate contract?

If you don't allow shopping, you don't give a list.
If you don't give a list but allow the borrower to chose a different provider based on their contract, then the assumption is that all providers are on your list giving zero tolerance for a provider you don't work with.

Honestly, I think you're looking at this backwards. You do want to allow shopping and you do want to list the title company you prefer working with on your provider list. Most borrowers will just defer to your choice anyway and that gives you 10% tolerance.
If the borrower choses any other company then you don't have to worry about tolerance at all so why wouldn't you want to allow shopping?

As for your comment about 'TRID ready' title companies, they'd best all be TRID ready by now or they'll be out of business.

The only problem with this approach is that when you allow shopping (and don't get me wrong -- I am in favor of allowing borrowers to shop when it makes sense) you may have to deal with providers you have never worked with and won't know if they have every worked with a TRID loan before. Until TRID has been around for a while, you'd spend time trying to "reform" each new provider you came across, or checking out their qualifications. I'm concerned most, I think, about title services, since there are often a number of different services involved, and you have to struggle not only with getting the "new guys'" pricing, but also translating their services labels into your lexicon on service labels.

I understand what you're saying, John, but I think this is a case of picking the lesser of two evils.
Either every once in a while you deal with a provider that makes life 'interesting' for you OR your borrower walks because you refuse to deal with the company they agreed to use via their sales contract.
My experience is that the times you actually have to deal with a company you'd rather not are few and far between or I wouldn't advocate for this at all.

I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't do what works well for you. Just trying to point out the downside risk of the choice. I do realize that it won't happen often that you'll be struggling, especially once everyone involved has some TRID experience under their belts.

So for the question, If we do not allow shopping for title service providers, can we use a title company listed on a real estate contract if that company is not a title service provider on our approved list? the answer is no, right?

No, the answer is not no. You can allow the borrower to use the other title company. I'd be certain to document the file as to this being a special case and why, tho, in case an examiner holds your feet to the fire. As I pointed out above, you run the risk of the borrower taking their business elsewhere if you won't accommodate the contract they signed with the seller. I'm willing to bet they want the house more than they care about dealing with your bank specifically.

Well, the answer might be no if bank policy says only "approved title companies" can be used!

My bank does not permit borrowers to shop for settlement services, therefore no provider (shopping) list is provided. On occasion, after issuing a Loan Estimate, the borrower will insist on using their own attorney and the cost will be more that the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate. If the bank makes a concession to the borrower and permits the use of the borrower’s attorney, can the bank issue a revised Loan Estimate to reflect the updated fee(s) or are we bound by the amount(s) disclosed on the original Loan Estimate?

If a revised Loan Estimate can be issued, should the affected fees remain in Section B. – Services You Cannot Shop For or should they be moved to Section C – Services You Can Shop For? My understanding is that the use of Section C requires the borrower to have received a shopping list, but I may be mistaken. Thank you.

the borrower will insist on using their own attorney

For what? Representing the bank or the borrower. You can't require the borrower to use your chosen attorney to represent the borrower under 1024.15.

Randy, I am referring to the attorney representing the Bank to handle the settlement. In our experience, we find attorneys often don't want to work cooperatively and split fees for title exams, etc. As a result, we would instead add the attorney that the customer prefers to use to our approved attorney list (following our due diligence process) and let the attorney handle the settlement.

It goes without saying that we would only consider doing this for a significant deal that we otherwise don't want to lose.

Sounds like a fair lending issue to me. Is suddenly allowing someone to shop after the initial LE is issued a changed circusmstance? You might want to ask the CFPB.