Not refi but maybe a purchase? But maybe a refi?

Loan is to the borrowers for the purpose of purchasing a home. The borrowers have been renting the home and are now purchasing it from the current owners. The loan is paying off a dwelling secured note but the borrowers are different. This seems easy, its a purchase, right? The borrower that was renting and now purchasing the home is already on the title. (not sure if that matters). While there doesn't appear to be a formal land contract per say, this sounds like one of those kinds of deals and we normally report those as refinances.
Would love some opinions as to how they would approach purpose on this loan.

Thank you

Are they on title as joint owners? If so, I wouldn't report this one.

On the title, the parents and the daughter are all three listed on the title.
The proceeds paid off a note in which only the parents were the borrowers. (not a refinance then because different borrowers)
The mortgage that is being paid off lists the daughter, but she did not sign the note.

So this might not be a purchase either because there was no transfer of title? Or is there another reason this would not be a purchase?

That's the way I would look at it.

Hmmm. I do see your point. So does anyone else think that this is a situation similar to a land contract and report it as a refinance (I know that there are schools of thought that these are purchases)? Or would you agree with HMDAgal's assessments. I am leaning toward you HMDAgal. I could see how this might not be reportable! Here I thought I was choosing between refi and purchase, never thought about it not being reportable at all, however I am still hung up by the rent to own situation there.

I don't think you can consider it any kind of a land contract if there isn't a written agreement between the parties.

You are correct, there isn't a written agreement between the parties. For that reason, and the fact that there is no transfer of title, this would not be HMDA reportable? It is looking more and more like it shouldn't be.

That's the way I look at it.