If we give a lender credit on a refinance transaction and the credit exceeds the cost on the refinance, where do the excess funds (credit) go? Can the lender just reduce the credit, or does it have to be applied to a principal reduction?
Should a loan officer be the one signing loan docs or can it be anyone that is an officer of the bank do this?
We have a refinance loan by the same lender and the consumer is getting a small amount back. Is there a percentage of the loan amount that triggers a rescission?
This question pertains to lender credits on California loans. We have an SB2 charge from title on all refi's which is always estimated at the max fee of $225.00. This doesn't get updated until after closing when majority of the time it is lowered to $75.00. If the lender discloses a credit for this fee upfront at $225, can the lender credit be reduced if/when the fee is reduced at closing (after funding)?
When Title Fees are disclosed on the Loan Estimate in Section C (Services you CAN shop for) but the borrower chooses the vender on our provider list, we know that TRID rules now clarify that these fees must be moved to Section B (services you did not shop for) on the Closing Disclosure. However, TRID also says that we if offer the option to shop and the borrower chooses our providers, there is a 10% tolerance allowance, but in section B, the tolerance is $0. How can we correctly apply the 10% tolerance when the borrower can shop but chooses our provider?
I have a customer that is going to purchase a primary residence for himself but he is wanting to put the loan in his LLC's name. Because of this, I am stuck trying to determine if this loan would be Consumer (based on purpose to purchase primary residence) or Commercial (if it is allowable for a Consumer purpose loan to be put in an LLC name). If it can be processed as a Commercial loan, are there additional disclosures they need to sign?
A lender submitted a loan for purchase and I need help with a TRID violation that I found on the loan. The lender forgot to include two fees in the finance charges and the final closing disclosure signed by the borrower is understated by $535. Typically, we've always asked for a refund cure from the lender for the amount understated and a revised closing disclosure. The lender reviewed the situation and responded to me with this:
"After reviewing this loan I concur that neither the Purchase Review Fee ($500) nor the Wire Transfer Fee ($35) were included in the finance charge.
These fees are setup to be included in the finance charge. Support has looked into the issue and it appears that a user mistakenly or accidentally removed the check boxes. We are in the process of modifying our security settings to ensure that only limited users will have the security to change the prepaid finance status of any fees.
I have generated new calculations and the Finance Charge is now $93,017.70;
Amount Financed is $97,496.59;
and APR is 5.076%.
The APR did not increase beyond tolerance.
The change does not impact the amount of closing costs nor does it change the cash to close required from our member; therefore this does not constitute a post-consummation event (1026.19(f)(ii)) nor does it fall under the clerical error carve out (1026.19(f)(2(iv)) so there is not a way to cure but rather it is a technical violation that we will report to stakeholders."
The lender is stating that yes, the finance charge was understated, but this is not something that can be cured as it is was not a good faith estimate of itemized charges 1026.19(f)(2)(v), and it was not a clerical error. At this point we have two options:
• non-purchase for non-compliance with TRID
• allow even though there may be harm to borrower.
Would issuing a refund (cure) for an understated Finance Charge (assuming the Finance charge was understated by more than $100) bring the loan into compliance with TRID similar to issuing a tolerance cure for a specific closing cost fee increase?
We see quite often where lenders agree to pay for or credit back items such as the lenders title policy. This is often done when a lender wants to capture the business of a builder so they offer this as a "perk" to the referrals coming from that builder. I was wondering how other lenders manage to do it without violating any regulations. We wouldn't plan to do this across the board.
I have a question about modifications on our construction perm loans to reduce the rate to sell on the secondary market. We have our construction perms, that after completion and when the loan is closed out, that upon completion of the construction, a “float-down” of the interest rate may be allowed if it meets the guidelines to sell on the secondary market. Does this trigger anything for Reg B or Adverse Action?
What or is there a regulation that requires a paid loan to be processed within a certain period of time?