Yeah, I can understand when the lender has to refund, then you can "act" like it took place at closing, but it would seem more difficult to convey that when you need to request more money.
If you receive an estimated or proposed amount for property taxes from the county for that year and then the actual statement comes in later with an increased amount, is this the same thing as the "out" mentioned in the Official Interpretation to 12 CFR 1026.19(f)(2)(iii)? Seems like it may fit, but also sounds more like the lender has a firm amount in existence and then raised the taxes. Whereas, in my example it is just that the taxes were "proposed" and the actual amount was higher.
[Assume consummation occurs on a Monday and the security instrument is recorded on Tuesday, the day after consummation. Assume further that ten days after consummation the municipality in which the property is located raises property tax rates effective after the date on which settlement concludes. Section 1026.19(f)(2)(iii) does not require the creditor to provide the consumer with corrected disclosures because the increase in property tax rates is not in connection with the settlement of the transaction.]