Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Thread Options
#71989 - 04/04/03 05:59 PM bundling fees and the HUD-1
Pale Rider Offline
10K Club
Pale Rider
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 34,318
under the Lone Star
Has anyone gone ahead and started to bundle the fees charged to a residential loan customer ? My lenders want to start this procedure of charging one fee that would cover all fees currently done individually. They would show the fee on the HUD-1 and then not disclose any of the individual charges the bank paid, such as the credit report, courier fees, flood cert, appraisal, doc prep, etc, etc. They tell me many mortgage bankers are doing this already, such as ABN Amro's "One Fee" program.
_________________________
Societies that do not find work in and of itself "pleasing to God and requisite to Man," tend to be highly corrupt.


Return to Top
Lending Compliance
#71990 - 04/08/03 01:19 AM Re: bundling fees and the HUD-1
rlcarey Offline
10K Club
rlcarey
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 83,371
Galveston, TX
Although this was proposed in the RESPA regulations, I wouldn't get in a hurry until they are finalized. Without proper itemizations, it may be hard to beat a section 8 claim. Many organizations have a "one-fee", but they still disclose all the other fees as POC.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com

Return to Top
#71991 - 04/08/03 05:57 AM Re: bundling fees and the HUD-1
Princess Romeo Offline

Power Poster
Princess Romeo
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,272
Where the heart is
The trouble I see brewing here is if you combine pre-paid finance charges with "other" charges in the same lump-sum, how is the consumer to know which charges are the "finance" charges if they are not itemized? I know that with certain "lump sum" disclosures, you may have an incidental fee classified as an "other" charge that would otherwise be a finance charge if disclosed separately.

However, if too many lenders abuse the practice of just disclosing a one-lump sum fee of say, $600, then we may wind up with a regulation that says the entire $600 must be considered a finance charge. It would make disclosures a lot easier, and frankly, be more truthful to the consumer about what they are really paying (4c7 never really made sense to me except to think of it as a lobbying victory by the real estate industry....), but it might bring more loans closer to the dreaded HOEPA or other state/local predatory lending triggers.
_________________________
CRCM,CAMS
Regulations are a poor substitute for ethics.
Just sayin'

Return to Top

Moderator:  Andy_Z