Additional fees from non shoppable items

1. What if an appraisal comes in and requires a re- inspection, would that be a valid changed in circumstance to re-disclose the new fee the borrower is not permitted to shop for?

2. You disclose a credit bureau fee which again the consumer can not shop for, but then your investor requires a supplement or update, would that be a valid change to re-disclose the additional fee?

Yes I believe both of those would be and were always examples of a valid changed circumstance and would allow for re-disclosure of the new or increased fee.

I agree with Patsgirl on 1 but on 2 I'd say it depends. If something comes to light that is the borrower's doing then you might be able to pass the fee on. If this is purely something the investor wants than no, you can't pass the fee on. If you suspected they might require an update you should have included it in the original.

Neither one of the examples in the original post are an absolute "yes" or "no". It comes down what you did and did not know at the time the LE was provided. For example if you knew prior to the original LE that there was going to be a need for an inspection prior to closing and you didn't disclose it, it's not a valid changed circumstance later. However, if you didn't know that there would need to be repairs followed by an inspection until after the appraiser performed the review, then you would have a valid changed circumstance. Same concept goes for the original posters example #2.

I would like to present a scenario about the credit supplement fee. The credit report was ordered prior to providing the LE to the applicant however it was not reviewed by an underwriter until later. The underwriter determined that three months of the most recent payment history from a specific creditor was not populating on the report so a supplement was required as a condition to close the loan. We are wondering if the credit supplement fee in this scenario is a valid changed circumstance.

It is going to be a business decision. Not a black and white scenario. It is not like you didn't have the original credit report in your possession for a period of time.

FWIW - we'd eat the fee.

We'd probably eat the credit report fee. If that's something you commonly have to pull, you might be better off disclosing the fee. I've always felt better telling a customer they didn't end up paying that fee than telling them they have another fee to pay.

We have taken the position that we will quote supplement fees on the LE to cover ourselves and then adjust the fee on the CD. Its just easier that way.

That is fine, but if you are quoting fees that you only charge 10% of the time, that could be deemed "not in good faith" if there is a better way to determine if the charge is possible or not.