A vacation home and a weekend rental are two different things. I never said not to report vacation homes.

If a home is BOTH a vacation home (for the owner) and a weekend rental (when the owner isn't there), then yes, it's reportable. My point was that if a home is ONLY used as a weekend rental, then it meets the definition of transitory housing and wouldn't be reportable.

I don't think you can make a hard/fast statement like that. You would really have to know more details, like does the owner use it enough to consider it a second home [code 2 - not owner occupied as a PR.

My first post was meant to say "weekend beach home rentals". See my post above.....

Sorry..i left out a key word....my apologies.

Sorry, we were all posting at once.

From the commentary:
For example, if a person purchases a property, occupies the property for a portion of the year, and rents the property for the remainder of the year, the property is a second residence for purposes of § 1003.4(a)(6).

I understand that......please read my post to say "weekend beach home rentals", which is what i meant to say, but failed to type.

Yes, we were all posting at once and I was a bit slow on grabbing my quote. ;-)

FWIW

I love these type of thread here on BOL. It makes me see both sides and really think through how my bank will handle these situations.

I'm not changing my stance either. So EVERYBODY is not saying raitchjay is wrong. Adam even said he's not fully drink the Cool Aide on this. I don't think there's evidence that our stance is wrong. I think there are differing opinions. HMDA has many areas for "pick a stance and be consistent". In my neck of th woods, examiners are not interpreting it the way you are.

JPC: I'm not sure who you are. I enjoy dialoging with others and will always admit when I'm wrong. I may be reading your posts incorrectly (I can't hear your tone or see you), but you appear to me to be very antagonistic. BOL is a community of professionals that helps each other be better. We don't attack others, shout (i.e. typing "EVERYBODY" in all caps), belittle each other, etc. Your posts seem to be doing just that. If that's not your intentions, please consider what you've said and how you're saying it before hitting "submit".

@David - I was kind of making a joke out of the above post that you directed towards me, which I felt met the definition of several things that you were just accusing my posts of being . . .

Big thumbs up!

Makes sense now. I'm humbled as I see I did the same thing that I called you out on. Please forgive me. I'm glad you responded and clarified. I hate that we only get a small percentage of communication with typed messages. We often jump to conclusions of tone and, as you just pointed out, that's exactly what I did.

I appreciate the follow-up. I have pretty thick skin when it comes to things like this, so it was no hard feelings on my part. I just thought it was funny you called me out on it, when I felt that your post did try to yell in caps, belittle, etc. Especially, when I ended up being right in the end . . . I know, I know . . . don't everybody jump on me at once.

JPC: I apologized and appreciate your follow up. Now back to the topic:

My issue is your insistence that you are right and the rest of us are wrong. You said it again in your last post. I see the emoticon, so maybe you're just being funny. Other than Adam saying he sees your point, I don't see anyone else agreeing with you - other than possibly a CFPB representative. The problem I have with your CFPB source is I have had similar conversations with them and receive confirmation about the "forward look". I think a lot hinges on how things are presented.

Yeah, I'm just being funny. Obviously, I do think my interpretation is right, or else I would not be so firm with my stance. I agree that presentation can always sway conversations in various ways, but I did have a long conversation with the fellow and I presented the evidence and position of both "camps" on this thread. I do find solace though in that Adam and I contacted two separate representatives and they both had the same answer without any collusion between them. Also, in Adam's case, his representative asked several other CFPB staff and they all had the same conclusion.

I'm going to try to leave this thread after this post, but IMO the biggest problem with any CFPB rep saying what JPC reports is again, the definitions in the regulation do not support such an idea. IMO, they can't just issue things like that without updating their OWN definitions. Your regulation can't say a dwelling is "a residential structure" which by definition means "someone lives in it as their home" and then issue guidance saying "but a building that looks like a dwelling that no one lives in" is a dwelling too. That's like having a regulation that says "UP is in the direction of the sky" and then issuing guidance or opinions elsewhere where you say "UP is in the direction of the ground".

Also....IMO, my experience is that people who work at govt. agencies like the old HMDA Help or the current CFPB don't put nearly the thought into the intricacies of regulations like HMDA that people who deal with them on a daily basis (compliance professionals and consultants) do. I mean...i think we all have had plenty of experiences with HMDA Help giving answers that were simply wrong, and any compliance professional could tell you immediately that they were wrong. So, personally, what someone sitting at a non-bank desk in a CFPB office doesn't sway me a lot.

[quote][/quote]This was a great thread. I found another more recent thread that discussed the main topic we had going here, i.e. purchasing a home, even potentially a "jacked" up one, and tearing it down and building a new home and then selling. https://www.bankersonline.com/forum...78/help-acquisition-and-new-construction

Guess the CFPB ended up "putting in writing" much of what they said to me personally in the discussion with Mr. Ponty.


https://www.consumerfinance.gov/com...ments/home-mortgage-disclosure-act-faqs/

So, i guess according to the CFPB now, loans to purchase land that has dilapidated "dwellings" on them for the purpose of razing the "dwelling" and holding the bare ground for resale are now reportable. Good to know.

I say let the CFPB go to one corner and their regulation and its definitions go to another corner and ring the bell and let them duke it out.

LOL . . . I haven't heard of any nuances yet for the condition of the home being razed, but the general standard seems to be to report as a "Purchase." Nothing I've seen yet in HMDA speaks of the "condition" of the dwelling as any deciding factor for anything.

I just threw "dilapidated" in there for description.....i've never argued that condition is the factor. Use and intended use...absolutely.

The FAQ i read from your link mentioned a home being razed and a spec home being built in its place....so i'm confused by what you mean that you haven't heard .....???

So NABW....someone comes in wanting a loan to buy a piece of property that has a dilapidated house on it....the loan proceeds will buy the land, raze the house, and construct a barbershop.....you're reporting that loan on your LAR?

ETA: and please note, there's no "conversion" going on in this scenario...we aren't converting a home to a barbershop.