We listed Owner's Title Insurance on the Written List of Providers page under Service for the Provider, but that isn't something that is re-done on a refi. It is not on the LE or the CD but it is on the WLP. Is that ok that this additional service is on the WLP or should we only put the actual services that we will need for the loan on that list?

The list should only show providers of services required for the particular loan. But in the case of title work, wouldn't you have only one title company listed for both lenders and owners?

TR - The "services" listed on the WLP has to match the "services" listed on the LE.

You can't just list a title company and call it good. You have to list the specific services and a provider.

Back when the TRID rule was still gestational -- Before October 3, 2015 -- there was a lot of talk about creating a standard SPL and using it for all loans. I think that time has shown us that, unless your shop only does "vanilla" loans, you have to start each SPL with an empty list.

I don't show OTI on anything as it's optional, but as to the required services, they are itemized on the list and on the LE/CD.

Would it be wrong then to have the OTI listed on the WLP if it's not required and isn't on the LE/CD?

Why would the OTI be listed separately? Wouldn't your listed title company be underwriting the OTI?

Our list consists of:

Local Lending Area Title Company & their contact information.
State Wide Title Company & their contact information.

They are the only 2 providers on our list. If the specific transaction requires a survey we will add a provider for the survey. On the very rare outside chance we have to require an inspection we will list a provider for the particular type of inspection we are requiring.

Dan - I also assume you also provide them the actual itemized list of services these service providers will perform with their name and contact information on the written provider list.

And I was typing without thinking it all the way through. The reason mine shows itemized fees is because I show the fees. If I wasn't showing the fees, it would just say the service and the contact for a provider...sorry...info overload!!

Randy, we require nothing outside of title services so what would I need to be itemizing?

(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.

I didn't see anything in the Commentary requiring the title services to be itemized on the WPL. What am I missing or misunderstanding?


As I said if the specific transaction requires services outside of our normal title services then we will list that required service and a provider for that service.

Dan, I'm with you but I think this is where Randy got what he's talking about.

Is there more of a citation to support doing it this way or are we supposed to just follow the CFPB's lead here?

(to the OP, sorry to take your thread off on this tangent)

the creditor shall provide the consumer with a written list identifying available providers of that settlement service

Of "that settlement service" is the key to that passage. If you refer to model H27(B), there are four columns. The only column that is optional is the column entitled "Estimate", as there is no requirement to repeat the estimated fee given on Page 2 for the specific settlement service. You will also notice in the Model, it shows how to disclose if one settlement service provider can provide multiple services. Just because your services maybe be prefaced with "Title-", doesn't allow you to not itemize the title services on the list and just list a title company.

It is going to be very important in the future that your list meets the specific requirements because in the proposal, the CFPB changed the penalty from 10% - 0% tolerance:

If the creditor permits the consumer to shop consistent with § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(A) but fails to provide the list required by § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) or the list does not comply with the requirements of § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(B) and (C), good faith is determined under § 1026.19(e)(3)(i) instead of § 1026.19(e)(3)(iii) regardless of the provider selected by the consumer.

If an examiner deems your list not in compliance with § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C), you may be looking at some substantial cures.

Banks are going to have to pay a lot more attention to the geographic locations of their service providers also in relationship to the location of the borrower or the property being purchased .

Identifying Services and Available Providers

I'm not sure why we would need to itemize when title services are part of a package deal. FWIW, we just went through our CRA and Compliance Exam and the FDIC did not have an issue with the way we completed our SSPL (we do not itemize title services).

Comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-2 notes that the content and format of disclosure of services for which the consumer may shop can be found at § 1026.37(f)(3). Proposed revised comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-2 would also clarify that, if the charge for a particular service for which the consumer is permitted to shop is payable by the consumer, the creditor must specifically identify that service unless, based on the best information reasonably available, the creditor knows that the service is provided as part of a package (or combination of settlement services) offered by a single service provider. Proposed revised comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-2 would also further clarify that specific identification of each service in such a package is not required provided that all such services are services for which the consumer is permitted to shop.

That is correct, but you would also have to disclose the cost of the "package" as one fee in the LE. Some settlement agents charge a settlement fee and that may include services such as, the loan closing, courier fees, e-filing fee, and other miscellaneous fees. This allows you to disclose the settlement fee without breaking out all the components.

Proposed revised comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-2 would also clarify that, if the charge for a particular service for which the consumer is permitted to shop is payable by the consumer, the creditor must specifically identify that service unless, based on the best information reasonably available, the creditor knows that the service is provided as part of a package (or combination of settlement services) offered by a single service provider. Proposed revised comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-2 would also further clarify that specific identification of each service in such a package is not required provided that all such services are services for which the consumer is permitted to shop.

Proposed revised comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-4 would also clarify that, if the charge for a particular service for which the consumer is permitted to shop is payable by the consumer, the creditor must specifically identify that service and an available provider of that service on the written list of providers unless, based on the best information reasonably available, the creditor knows that the service is provided as part of a package (or combination of settlement services) offered by a single service provider.

To expand on this further. If I have broken my specific fees down for my calculations in my software, I would have required services and a designated provider for shopping purposes [for example]

Title - Attorneys
Title - Title Exam
Courier Fee

Regardless of whether I show the fee column or not, those fee categories still all show. All that goes away is the estimate.

Ours currently list: Title Services.

In our area all title services are performed by the title company chosen. IOWs in our area one title company would not issue the OTI, another the Lender's Title and another perform the closing.

I have an exam coming up mid November. I will discuss this with the EIC at that time.

Just my humble opinion - this is not an area in which I would take a wait and see attitude. You have to remember that while the bank might know perfectly well what the specific services are included in the description "Title Services" because you deal with it on a daily basis, the consumer, who might never have been involved in a mortgage transaction before, may have no clue what you are telling them.

There is additional support in the preamble to the original regulation that supports the fact that individual services from Section C of the LE must be included on the written list of service providers:

With respect to the request that the Bureau provide creditors with additional flexibility with respect to the listing of title services, the Bureau notes that this final rule permits the creditor to provide a more detailed breakdown of title-related services than what is currently permitted under existing HUD RESPA FAQs. See comments 37(f)(2)-3, -4, and 37(f)(3)-3. The Bureau also notes that form H-27(B) of appendix H to Regulation Z in this final rule contains a sample written list that illustrates the listing of title services on the written list.

Section 1026.37(f)(3), as adopted, requires the creditor to itemize on the Loan Estimate the estimated amount for each of the services for which a consumer can shop. Even if the creditor lists on the written list under § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) more than one service provider for a settlement service that it permits the consumer to shop for, the creditor must itemize on the Loan Estimate only one estimated cost of that service for one of the service providers listed. This estimated cost would be the amount used for purposes of the good faith analysis under § 1026.19(e)(3). However, nothing in the final rule prohibits a creditor from identifying the estimated fee of each service provider listed for a settlement service on the written list under § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi).

As adopted, § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) provides that 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. It additionally provides that the creditor must identify a minimum of one available provider for each settlement service for which the consumer is permitted to shop. Section 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) further provides that the creditor shall provide this written list of settlement service providers separately from the disclosures required by § 1026.19(e)(1)(i) but in accordance with the timing requirements in § 1026.19(e)(1)(iii).

Randy, I had our list modified this morning. I decided to take the "safe" route. As always thanks for your input.

After I speak with our FDIC EIC I will post an update.

I need clarification on when we add the label Title to a fee. Currently on our in-house loans where we do no use a third party for closing, but in some instances we need to courier the DOT to the court house in another county. We have been showing this as a Title - Courier Fee in Section B. We do not let the borrower shop for this service. Should this fee be listed with or without the label "Title" because it is fee relating to the settlement of the loan?

Six of one - half dozen of the other. "Title -" is probably more correct.

One of those items that got away from me. Did TRID 2.0 finally solidify the "packaging" of services?

https://www.federalregister.gov/document...ulation-z#p-159

Yeah - they nixed it

For the reasons set forth below, the Bureau has decided not to finalize the proposed revisions to comments 19(e)(1)(vi)-2 and -4. Instead the Bureau is revising comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-2 to clarify that § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(B) provides that the creditor who permits a consumer to shop for settlement services must identify the settlement services required by the creditor for which the consumer is permitted to shop in the disclosures provided pursuant to § 1026.19(e)(1)(i). The Bureau is also revising comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-4 to clarify that § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) provides that the creditor must identify settlement service providers, that are available to the consumer, for the settlement services required by the creditor for which a consumer is permitted to shop. The Bureau is also revising comment 19(e)(1)(vi)-1 to conform with final comments 19(e)(3)(ii)-6 and 19(e)(3)(iii)-2.

Thanks for that Randy. Quite the sleuth in finding this stuff.

So, back to the original argument... Even if the title company is disclosing this as "Title Services- Bundled", we need to require them to break that out and disclose it as such on our CD?

I would suggest it. Otherwise, without knowing what fees are included, how are you going to allocate it for finance charge consideration?

We typically have 3-4 potential charges from a settlement agent.

Professional services, which is just for their time/expertise and probably includes a ton of little stuff.

Title Search

Document Prep = typically to prepare a warranty deed

Courier Fee - if they might be handling a payoff for the customer to ensure the payoff collected is received timely.


Surely they don't expect that Professional fee to be broken down into all of it's potential minutia.....do they?