On the Loan estimate with out a seller and the appraisal has not been completed, should the Loan estimate show the value as "estimated property value" or show the value as "property value"?

1026.37(a)(7)(ii) says that for transactions without a seller, the Loan Estimate should disclose "the estimated value of the property identified in paragraph (a)(6), labeled 'Prop. Value'”; however, the model form in Appendix H-24(D) labels this amount as "Est. Prop. Value."

Our software follows the model form and reads "Est. Prop. Value."

estimated

If and until you have an actual bona fide appraisal, you will not use Property Value, even on the CloD.

This is an interesting one. As Jen J noted, it seems most LOS populate "Est. Prop. Value" and this is also noted in the model form, though to me the technical language of the Reg. would seem to be the true determinant. My take is the CFPB would recognize both as valid.

37(o)(2) Headings and labels.

1. Estimated amounts. Section 1026.37(o)(2) incorporates the “estimated” designations reflected on form H-24 of appendix H to this part into the disclosure requirements of § 1026.37, even if the relevant provision of § 1026.37 does not expressly require or permit disclosure of the word “estimate.” Where form H-24 uses the abbreviation “est.” in place of the word “estimated,” § 1026.37(o)(2) also incorporates that designation into its requirement. For example, § 1026.37(c)(2)(iv) requires disclosure of the total periodic payment labeled “Total Monthly Payment,” but the label on form H-24 contains the designation “Estimated” and thus, the label required by § 1026.37(c)(2)(iv) must contain the designation “Estimated.” Although many of the disclosures required by § 1026.38 cross-reference their counterparts in § 1026.37, § 1026.38(t) incorporates the “estimated” designations reflected on form H-25, not form H-24.

So basically this indicates that if the word estimated or Est. appears in the model forms, it is acceptable and actually required if the figure in that category is an estimate regardless of what the actual regulation might say. So that explains why you would see an Est. Prop. Value on the LE, because it is on the H-24 model page 1 variation 2 form in the appendix.

Aha! Thanks, Randy! I keep forgetting about the quirks of Section o . . .

Did this change with the May 2018 TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Guide? We have Est. Prop Value on non-purchase LEs and are being cited in an audit for not using Prop Value per pg 16 of the guide. Thank you.

No - nothing has changed. Page 16 of what guide?

Who is citing you - regulators, consultants or internal audit?

Auditors hired by the bank, they are quoting the CFPB TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure - Guide to Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure Forms. The below is their comment.

"LE, page 1: 1. LE reflects EST PROP VALUE and it should reflect ""Prop Value"" using that term. Reference TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure: Guide to the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure Forms, page 16.

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f...te-and-closing-disclosure-forms_v2.0.pdf

First - refer them to Page 9:

This Guide summarizes the instructions for completing the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure, but it is not a substitute for the TILA-RESPA Rule. Only the rule and its Official Interpretations (also known as commentary) can provide complete and definitive information regarding its requirements.

Second, print this thread and tell them to actually read the Regulation and commentary cited.

Third, then ask them why this is in the Model forms in Appendix H. See the second variation of the first page of the Loan Estimate.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rul...565efc496f950590b72a6a87851fc8486960b70a

Fourth - start looking for new auditors, if they are auditing based on the compliance guides and not the actual regulations and commentary and cannot give you actual regulatory citations to support their findings. It just shows they know not what they are doing.

Randy beat me by 2 minutes! Thanks for keeping us on the right track, Randy.

I will do that. THANK YOU! I was afraid I had missed something.

I added a fourth suggestion