Seems like this is my day for oddball issues.
Mom is purchasing home for daughter to live in.
So far, we're treating it as investment property for Mom.
Title company just asked if we have a problem with them doing a quit claim deed right after closing to add the daughter to title.
The fact the title company (run by an attorney) is asking sends up a red flag right away.
Adding a spouse is one thing. States have lots of laws about spousal rights, etc.
Seems to me that adding the daughter makes the property owner occupied by someone who did not sign off on the mortgage.
Could this be an issue down the road if the loan goes into foreclosure?

Thought I'd start here before I start running up a bill with counsel.

This isn't investment property. It's residential real estate being purchased for a family member to live in. (Besides, the phrase "investment property" is a non-starter for Regulation Z purposes.) It is a consumer purpose transaction. I don't think you will want to have a mortgage loan on your books with an obligor who does not own the real estate (Mom owes the money, daughter owns the collateral). So would you permit an assumption?

Given how the loan is starting out, I'd question whether you would accept daughter as the borrower.

Other thoughts, anyone?

John, the QCD is to add the daughter to title, not take mom off.

Also, it's consumer purpose for Reg Z but in the land of FNMA underwriting, it's an investment because the mom isn't going to live there.

While farfetched, if this were to go into foreclosure, can the daughter duck responsibility for the mortgage because she didn't agree to it by signing off?

I'm wondering if it would be better for the daughter to be on title from the get go and have her sign off on the mortgage.

May be for tax purposes - mom trying to give home to daughter so it won't count in the estate as ownership goes to the remaining owner if JTWROS