No. In the August 12 2016 CFPB webinar, they clarified this:
Ayoubi: And a follow-up question on assumption: [Bullet 2] Would a successor-in-interest be
considered a “subsequent purchaser” for the purpose of the assumption disclosure?
Arculin: This question relates directly to the Bureau’s July 11, 2014 Interpretative Rule, which clarified
that when a successor-in-interest who previously acquired title to a dwelling agreed to be added as an
obligor or substituted for an existing obligor on a credit transaction secured by that dwelling, the creditor’s
written acknowledgement of the successor as obligor is not subject to the ability to repay rule – that
section is § 43 of Regulation Z – because such a transaction does not constitute an assumption as
defined in § 20(b).
A few things. That interpretative rule was about the applicability of the ability to repay rule, not directly
related to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures. However, it did provide an interpretation of § 20(b)
where assumption is defined in Reg Z, which is not unique to the ability to repay rule. In fact, § 20
explains when post-consummation events, both a refinancing under § 20(a) and an assumption under §
20(b), constitute new transactions under Regulation Z and thus require new disclosures to be provided to
consumers. The Integrated Disclosure Rules and the requirements to provide new disclosures to
consumers will, like existing disclosure rules under TILA that are used today, tie to these definitions.
Accordingly, because the Interpretative Rule provides guidance on whether or not a creditor’s substitution
of the successor-in-interest as obligor constitutes an assumption according to § 20(b) [and] clarifies that
in the factual scenario described in that Interpretative Rule [that] it does not, that guidance also would be
applicable to the issue of whether new disclosures are required to be provided under § 1026.19(e) and (f).
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com