To cure or not to cure?

Situation: Borrower was charged a $20 credit report fee, which was POC and properly disclosed on teh LE as such.

At closing, they are chargedagain for $20 (prior CRB was too old so they pulled a new one), to which the lender paid via a lender credit.

Since the second fee was not previously disclosed, is the borrower due a refund? The borrower isn't out pocket anythign but that 2nd fee was not previously disclosed, so does the bank have to refund and eat that?

If the bank absorbed the cost there would be no cure. You would show the additional credit report charge on the CD in the paid by others column.

While this makes sense to me, the bank is of the opinion that they are required to refumd the fee since it wasn't previously disclosed.

Is there a citation or Q&A that supports your answer so I can provide it to them?

Read FAQ #3: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/com...tegrated-disclosure-faqs/#lender-credits

To have a cure, you have to have a tolerance violation. If the lender absorbed the second credit report fee, there was no reason to add it to a Loan Estimate due to a changed circumstance to reestablish your baseline for tolerance testing. What are they suggesting your baseline for testing is based on?

They are suggesting the baseline for testing is the initial LE.

The lender paying for the fee IS your "cure". You always have the option (pre-consummation) of showing items that would cause a tolerance violation as "paid by lender" instead of showing a "tolerance cure".

So, you compare the fees paid on the CD by the borrower to the fees quoted on the LE. There will be no resulting "cure" needed for the extra credit report, because the borrower didn't pay it. The lender did.

The determination of whether there is any need for a tolerance "cure" is a comparison between the costs on the loan estimate (adjusted by any timely revised loan estimate or closing disclosure in the case of a changed circumstance) and the actual costs paid by the consumer (borrower).

If the LE shows the cost for one credit bureau pull and the consumer pays only that cost, there is no tolerance violation. The cost of the second credit bureau pull, which was paid for by the bank, has to be shown on the closing disclosure (because all costs related to the transaction must be disclosed, regardless of who pays them). Disclosing them as paid by the lender in the "Paid by Others" column fulfills the requirement to show all costs, and also shows the consumer did not pay for it.

So there is no tolerance "cure" required because there is no tolerance violation. The consumer is not owed a refund.