Skip to content
GeoDataVision
Learn More - Click Here!

Thread Options
#51564 - 01/02/03 03:56 PM NYC Rule 67-A (predatory lending)
E.E.G.B Offline
Power Poster
E.E.G.B
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,726
the sandy shore
67-A references a compliance worksheet to help lenders determine whether a loan is high cost. The copy of the ordinance I have doesn't include the worksheet or any link to one - anybody seen an official worksheet? We have our own, but I want to be sure to use the official one if necessary. TIA!
_________________________
I disbelieved what he was saying so hard, I probably created an alternate universe where it wasn't true.

Return to Top
#51565 - 04/16/03 04:08 PM Re: NYC Rule 67-A (predatory lending)
JMB Offline
Member
JMB
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 59
Michigan
Thought I would bring this one back to the top. I'd love to have a copy of one of these worksheets - does anyone have one to share?

Return to Top
#51566 - 04/22/03 04:02 PM Re: NYC Rule 67-A (predatory lending)
Strout Offline
100 Club
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 164
A beach in the USA
I also have been hunting a compliance worksheet. FYI, we subscribe to VMP statelink and they indicate this worksheet is lender specific and they do not currently have a sample. I am probably going to beg one of our investors for a copy or come up w/ something similar to our Section 32 test and then add the other "stuff" (u/w judgment, benefit to borr, etc.) indicated in the ordinance.

We probably won't do 10 loans all year in NYC but you know how it is, 1 of the 10 can get you in trouble.
_________________________
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Return to Top
#51567 - 04/22/03 04:07 PM Re: NYC Rule 67-A (predatory lending)
E.E.G.B Offline
Power Poster
E.E.G.B
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,726
the sandy shore
Well, at least the ordinance is still being contested so is not yet in effect.... here's hoping it gets overturned and we never have to deal with it!
_________________________
I disbelieved what he was saying so hard, I probably created an alternate universe where it wasn't true.

Return to Top