- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 days, 9 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What is the correct TRID purpose for placing a manufactured (double-wide) home on land that is owned free and clear? The loan was closed with the purpose of combining the value of a new factory built manufactured home and the value of the land on which it was located immediately after closing. In order to assure the manufactured home dealer would deliver and set up the home on the land timely, the dealer was paid in three disbursements from the borrower’s proceeds which were held until a final inspection was completed. The loan was not closed as temporary financing, but to purchase the home and place it on land. We used “Home Equity” on the Closing Disclosure, but we are being questioned as to why we did not use “Construction” since we made three disbursements from the proceeds. They were not true “advances” from the principal of the loan, but rather three disbursements from the borrower’s proceeds. We close two separate loans for true construction loans for homes built from the ground up; one being 12 months interest only and the other being a refinance of the construction loan for permanent financing. We have offered combination manufactured home and land loans for many years and have not been cited for our handling of the TRID purpose until now. I think the auditor was triggered by the use of the terms “advance” and “undisbursed loan funds” on the Closing Disclosure to show the amount paid to the dealer at closing and the amount we were holding. We have since changed our terminology to use “payment” and “funds held.”
If the land was used to get the funds for the manufactured home, even free and clear it would IMO be a Home Equity. They could however be looking at it from section 1016.37(a)(6) in this section it speaks to a lot being owed already. Constructing the home in this case is the construction phase and the permanent phase is then referred to as a refinance. How, I’m understanding what you stated is they already own the land and are getting a loan to purchase the home. Nothing is being “constructed” but transported after it was built elsewhere.
I agree that the descriptions used for disbursement may have been confusing to the auditor. But “manufactured/mobile/modular” home definitions in the Regs (HMDA, Flood, RESPA and HUD) define this dwelling as being constructed elsewhere and moved to a permanent place. With that being said, IMO it is not a site build so it is not a construction loan. Construction definitions in the same regulations already listed define construction as being built on the land (site build). Also, IMO if the borrower understood the original CD as you had it described and you were doing it that way for everyone, it was a consistent process. The fact you changed the terminology for an auditor, just make sure the process is still clear to the consumer.
NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee, and may contain confidential and privileged information either as protected work product or confidential client information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, retain, or disseminate this message or any attachment, and please contact the sender by reply e-mail or at 888.760.5646 and destroy all copies of the original message and attachments. Neither the transmission of this message or any attachment, nor any error in transmission or misdelivery shall constitute waiver of any applicable legal privilege.
THIS EMAIL AND ITS ATTACHMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.