We were asked if the items on the List of Providers must be alphabetically listed or if that is just on the LE and CloD? I haven't found it specifically stated for the List but since the Model Form lists items in that manner, it seems implied and seems like consistency would be best but haven't found anything to support my answer. Any guidance would be appreciated! Thanks!

I agree that sorting it in the order in which the Section C services are listed makes the most sense -- and that would mean it would be alpha-sorted, on the service, not the provider. But there is no requirement for the order of the list that I am aware of.

Speaking of Settlement Services Provider List: We are providing two different ones. One is from the Pre-Trid documents, not model form H27(A), and it has two of the providers which we use and were always listed Pre-Trid and of which are subject to the 10% tolerance if the borrower chooses one of them. No fees for the specific service are listed on this version.

AND, we provide CFPB's form "Additional Details for Services You Can Shop For" Form H-27(A). But this form only has one of the Service Providers listed and includes the fees for the service.

I think we should do away with one of these forms but am having trouble convincing our mortgage department because they were told by our vendor that they can only put one provider on the CFPB form. Is it ok to use the old form?

I would push back to the vendor as to why it claims only one provider can be listed.

On a somewhat related topic, we're having discussions about whether or not it is required to include the fee for each service/provider. I can't find a regulatory cite but the H27 model does include the estimate. What good is the form as a shopping list if you don't know the anticipated costs. Or I guess they can call and write the quotes into the blanks - but we have an estimate in our system because it's displayed on the LE so I was hoping our vendor would be able to populate on the service provider list (along with the borrower name and loan ID which are present and specific to the loan). But that would be logical.

I've got a call into the vendor, but curious if anyone had any regulatory support to push for this as 'required' vs. 'recommended'.

Our providers are in alphabetical order though.

trout22: From the commentary to 1026.19(e)(1)(vi):
4. Identification of available providers. Section 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) provides that the creditor must identify settlement service providers that are available to the consumer. A creditor does not comply with the identification requirement in § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) unless it provides sufficient information to allow the consumer to contact the provider, such as the name under which the provider does business and the provider's address and telephone number. Similarly, a creditor does not comply with the availability requirement in § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) if it provides a written list consisting of only settlement service providers that are no longer in business or that do not provide services where the consumer or property is located.

You are only required to identify a provider and provide contact information.

Thanks for the citation. I read the commentary but hadn't seen the Estimate referenced other than it's appearance on the model.

I had just located a prior thread where KB posted language from the preamble which specifically indicated that CFPB intended for this to be OPTIONAL. So case closed. Thanks to all my BOL friends!

Re the estimated fee on the service providers list...from page 295 of the preamble of the final rule (the typed, not Federal Register version):

"With respect to questions about the creditors obligation to disclose the fees of the settlement service providers the creditor lists on the written list of providers, the Bureau notes ß 1026.19(e)(1)(iv) does not require creditors to list the estimated fees of the service providers, although form H-27(A) of appendix H to
Regulation Z adopted in this final rule does provide creditors the space to do so."

It is an option, not required.