Are there any regulatory requirements that a bank must pay interest on escrowed funds? This would be borrowers funds held for construction not tax and insurances.
We are not examined by the CFPB. Should we be worried about Section 8 violations?
Our secondary mortgage department underwrote a loan for a property and ordered a flood determination/SFHD on the property from our vendor. The SFHD issued noted that the property was located in flood zone X. Based on this, the loan closed without flood coverage in place. Subsequent to closing it was determined that the loan would need to be retained in-house. The bank's credit department ordered another SFHD from a different vendor. This SFHD came back noting that the property was located in zone AE, requiring flood insurance coverage. When contacted the first vendor they reissued a SFHD and updated the flood zone to AE. Obviously, the property must now be insured and any recourse against the first vendor would depend on the terms of the contract with the vendor. The question from management is whether the bank can (with proper notice) now require the borrower to obtain flood insurance or will the bank have the responsibility to provide coverage? I believe that the responsibility lies with the borrower - it would be no different in the particular set of circumstances than if there was a map change placing the property in zone AE where it was previously in zone X. Whether management elects to provide none, all or part of the cost is a business decision. I would agree that the Bank (or original vendor) should pay for the insurance (force place) for the gap period.
We have an online loan application that our members complete. It does not have a signature on it. We use that to pull credit, make the loan and the members come in and sign loan documents. My question is do I need them to complete a loan application in person with a signature or is the on-line application sufficient?
Are all transactions that are HMDA reportable counted toward the thresholds?