They ended up in Section B because the borrower selected their listed title company.

No, the borrower did not shop for these items. The initial quote came from the title/escrow company on our provider list. They selected that company. The final title bill had several different parties listed to be paid to for services originally disclosed just our provider. Our provider was the one who selected the other companies, not our borrower. Since they did not shop it all went under that section.

I think that because different parties were listed as payable in the did not shop section, he feels that they should have been listed on the provider list. Maybe they wouldn't of issued a finding, if we placed those items in the Shop area.

The company has not responded to my request for further detail at this time so I am only assuming at this point.

If they selected the title company from your written list, then all of these fees would be moved to Section B on the CD from Section C on the LE and be included in the 10% aggregate tolerance test, regardless of who the ultimate payees might have been. The consumer received these specific charges since they choose to use your service provider from your written list.

Right. That is what we did, Still waiting on a reply from the auditor. Thanks.

I'd like to tag on to this thread. Our Service Provider List (SPL) lists the title company as well as all the services they provide such as: closing fee, courier fee, document retrieval, electronic document delivery fee, lender's title insurance, wire fee...
In Section C of the LE, the lender listed Title - Electronic Document Delivery Fee, Endorsement Fee and Lender's Title Insurance. Are we wrong to list all the services for that title co on the SPL? Should we only have listed the 3 from the LE on the SPL?

I'm reviewing 1026.19(e)(1)(vi) but I'm still confused if we're really "overstating" the SPL. Should I be researching this elsewhere or maybe I didn't far enough?

I need to correct my post above to be more specific. The required services the lender listed in Section C on the LE were all on the SPL. The SPL just had more detail than what was on the LE.

They have to match.

If the creditor permits the consumer to shop for a settlement service it requires, § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) requires the creditor to provide the consumer with a written list identifying at least one available provider of that service and stating that the consumer may choose a different provider for that service. The settlement service providers identified on the written list required by § 1026.19(e)(1)(vi)(C) must correspond to the required settlement services for which the consumer may shop, disclosed under § 1026.37(f)(3).

Please bare with me on this. The LE can tie back to the SPL but since the SPL has more itemized services on it, does this mean we didn't provide the SPL in good faith? We provided at least one service provider and the applicant can match the LE required service to the SPL.

Let's say the only items on the SPL are the 3 we listed on the LE. During the loan process, we have a valid change in circumstance and now we'll need to add another title service to the revised LE. Since we'll allow them to shop for that added requirement, we would provide another SPL with just that added service on it?

You can provide them with the new written service provider list for just the additional service or list all 4.

You can't just have a static WSPL with every conceivable service that you require. It has to directly correspond to the charges on the LE in Section C

BA13,
I found this article to be very helpful in explaining and providing citations.
As I read it, you do not have to itemize every title cost that may be charged and I think that's the question you're asking.
From the preamble (and the article)


I count on Randy to correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm with Randy that they should match and that the SPL should be application specific - and if there is a change in your required services during the course of the application, you can provide an updated SPL.

As Truffle pointed out in the referenced article, TRID 2.0 made it clear that you don't have to list every settlement service charged to the customer, as long as as a particular service isn't actually required by the creditor. All required services should be listed on the SPL, but ancillary or administrative services that are charged to provide the actual settlement service required by the creditor do not need to be disclosed, but could be disclosed at your discretion. In other words, you only have to list the required services and have the option of listing other services the consumer will be charged for but that aren't technically required by the creditor.

In your case, BA13, you are overdisclosing, and I don't recall reading anything addressing that as the referenced quote talks about providing less rather than more.

I'm interested in the valid CC and the related title charge. Could you elaborate please, BA13?

For the loan in question, the only required service they can shop for is Title. We listed title services but just expanded the various sub-services that title co offers. I agree with Adam, we over disclosed but provided the required. I'd like to prove that isn't a violation but I can't find anything.

Truffle - I have 2 examples for a valid CIC.
#1 - We were told the property was a modular home but received new information it was a manufactured home so now we need an title endorsement. That additional fee just tipped it over the 10% bucket.
#2 - The borrower wanted to keep his refi loan in house instead of a secondary market loan. The appraisal came in higher so now he wants the secondary market loan option, increase the loan amount and payoff some credit cards. The investor requires a title company to close the loan so now we have a $350 Title - Closing/Escrow fee. The lenders title fee will also increase.

You only have to list the services that are required by the lender in Section C - your WSPL should match Section C.

You originally stated that "The SPL just had more detail than what was on the LE."

I do not believe that is what Adam is saying is OK, but he can correct me if I am wrong.

I'm pretty sure you won't find anything to support that overdisclosing is a violation. All TRID speaks to is disclosing the services the bank requires. I think your support is implied in the section that speaks to the SSPL having to be loan specific. You don't list a survey on every loan if it's not a standard requirement. Much the same, you don't put loan specific title fees on every loan either.

I have a scenario that falls into the category of not re-issuing a SSPL when fees are added to the LE for a changed circumstance. Applicant originally applied for a second lien home equity, on which we only require a title search and close in-house. We provided a SSPL with only the title search service listed. Applicant then decides to refinance their first lien into the home equity loan so we redisclosed the LE with a much longer list of required title fees yet did not provide an updated SSPL with all the additional title services. I believe this now falls into Section B of the CloD as not letting them shop for the services. The issue I am struggling with is do I calculate my tolerance from the initial LE amount or the redisclosed LE amounts since we did update the loan costs, just did not provide a SSPL to match. I originally calculated the cure from the initial disclosure but now questioning my thought process. I discovered this in a Reg Z-TRID compliance review so we will have to issue a corrected post-consummation CloD and issue a refund for the cure.