What line are lenders putting the flood determination fee on? We have always put it in the 1300 series (and haven't been criticized) but I am hearing that some banks put in in the 800 series.

Items payable in connection with the loan should be in the 800 series. We put our flood cert charge on line 809.

We also use the 800 series.

We use the 800 series as well but I don't think the instructions specifically mention the flood determination fee so I think you are fine putting it in the 1300 series.

Fees paid to the bank are to be disclosed in the 800 series. Unless the FZD fee is being paid directly to the vendor at closing, it is being paid to the bank. In most cases these fees are paid to the bank then they pay the vendor based on a monthly invoice for all FZDs performed during the previous month.

Is that just a rule of thumb? I do not see anything to that effect in appendix A to reg X. I'm not disagreeing, just trying to identify some concrete footing if I'm going to tell mgmt they need to change their practice.

From Appendix A:

Lines 808-811 are used to list additional items payable in connection with the loan including a CLO Access fee, a mortgage broker fee, fees for real estate property taxes or other real property charges.

Click here and open Attachment A and go to queston 16.

Question 16. What HUD-1 line number should be used for Tax Service and Flood Determination fees?

Answer: Since such services are generally required by the lender, tax service and flood determination fees should be listed on any of the blank lines in the 800 series of the HUD-1 or HUD-1A.

No arguing with that is there. Thanks for the help.

You have received the correct answer here. I just want to add:

As long as you get it on the Settlement Statement, most examiners (let alone a borrower) could care less that it isn't on the correct line. I often see fees in the 1300 series that could go somewhere else, but I don't think I have ever seen an examiner cite this. The 1300 series often serves as an "overflow" for other areas.

David, I have been cited - the examiner referenced the above. We had an overflow problem and instead of attaching an addendum to the statement - we were putting the overflows in the 1300 series. We have since switched software and no longer have that problem. (Our previous software only gave us 3 blank 800 lines.)

Did I agree with the citation, no, was I able to argue (discuss) my way out of it, no.

Thanks for telling us about that Dan. It seems very technical (although you can't argue with it). Everything else at your bank must have been perfect.

I also have a related question regarding the HUD. I am doing an audit and have noticed that on one of the settlement's completed by the closing attorney, the flood determination fee reads "flood insurance to XYZ Flood Vendor--$20." I have a big problem with this as the borrower is not paying for flood insurance--simply the determination. It appears to be an isolated case, but I fee that some clarification should be provided to the borrower in this situation. How big a deal would anyone else out there make out of this? The loan is not in a SFHA.

If it is an isolated incident (for this closing agent) I'd let it go, but I would also make sure the closing agent got a friendly reminder that it should be noted as flood determination. They may simply have had a employee make a typing error or a new one that didn't know any better.