[mdunker]

During application we did not know that property taxes were not paid. When we received the title work back we discovered they were unpaid. Does this constitute a re-disclosure?

[kmeade]

Follow

[rcooper]

The revised loan estimate rules only discuss providing for zero tolerance and 10% tolerance items for resetting tolerance. If it is an unlimited tolerance item you would not need to redisclose the LE since those items can change. Assuming it was originally disclosed (or lack of disclosure) in good faith, the later addition of that fee would not be a issue. If you did not disclose in good faith (you should have known, fee standard for transaction/area, but didn’t disclose or underdisclosed) it would become a zero tolerance item. I think you could provide an informational disclosures to the consumer (19(e)(3)(iv)-4).

Again, was it disclosed (or not disclosed) in good faith (should you have known/did you know)? (See below – I bolded info that might be helpful.)

1026.19(e)(3)(iii)-3. Good faith requirement for property taxes or non-required services chosen by the consumer. Differences between the amounts of estimated charges for property taxes or services not required by the creditor disclosed under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i) and the amounts of such charges paid by or imposed on the consumer do not constitute a lack of good faith, so long as the original estimated charge, or lack of an estimated charge for a particular service, was based on the best information reasonably available to the creditor at the time the disclosure was provided. For example, if the consumer informs the creditor that the consumer will obtain a type of inspection not required by the creditor, the creditor must include the charge for that item in the disclosures provided under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i), but the actual amount of the inspection fee need not be compared to the original estimate for the inspection fee to perform the good faith analysis required by § 1026.19(e)(3)(iii). The original estimated charge, or lack of an estimated charge for a particular service, complies with § 1026.19(e)(3)(iii) if it is made based on the best information reasonably available to the creditor at the time that the estimate was provided. But, for example, if the subject property is located in a jurisdiction where consumers are customarily represented at closing by their own attorney, even though it is not a requirement, and the creditor fails to include a fee for the consumer’s attorney, or includes an unreasonably low estimate for such fee, on the original estimates provided under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i), then the creditor’s failure to disclose, or unreasonably low estimation, does not comply with § 1026.19(e)(3)(iii). Similarly, the amount disclosed for property taxes must be based on the best information reasonably available to the creditor at the time the disclosure was provided. For example, if the creditor fails to include a charge for property taxes, or includes an unreasonably low estimate for that charge, on the original estimates provided under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i), then the creditor’s failure to disclose, or unreasonably low estimation, does not comply with § 1026.19(e)(3)(iii) and the charge for property tax would be subject to the good faith determination under § 1026.19(e)(3)(i).

[Author]

Posts