Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
dmurry,
There is not a requirement that I’m aware of where you could have to give multiple TILs. If you do, be sure that there is some kind of clear distinction as to which one is the final (aka accurate one). After all we don’t want to be Deceptive. 😀
I would just disclose to them the final TIL and document the file what occurred and denote that you covered this with the borrower(s). If we were talking about HUD’s then yes, you would have to give one showing the violation (tolerance), and then another HUD showing in tolerance.
As far as reimbursements go; I would recommend using the OCC’s APRWIN program.
Since the loan closed without the TIL document you are going to have a violation no matter what you do. All you can do now is to try to make this as right as you can.
1) Does the new $500,000 limit on family units of more than 5 also apply to condominium?
Potentially it could. If the Bank was financing say just one unit, then I would say that it doesn’t apply. If 5 or more units were being financed then it may. I would love to get Jack’s opinion on this question.2) Should the new deductable limits be in place
The new deductible limits are in place now. They were effective July 6, 2012.
3) Is this effective as of now?
Both issues are in effect now. You should review your loans that are in a special flood hazard loan area to see if any adjustments in flood insurance coverage need to take place.Maybe this will help explain it a bit. (I had to look that one up too.)
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) of 1980
(P.L. 96-221, 94 STAT. 132)Summary:
This was an attempt to alleviate problems in the thrift industry by lifting interest rate ceilings, authorizing thrifts to offer checking and NOW accounts, and granting powers to thrifts formerly reserved to commercial banks, including allowing savings and loans to enter into consumer loans and credit card businesses and mutual savings banks to make business loans and accept demand deposits. The Act also preempted state usury laws concerning several kinds of loans, including through the addition of 12 USC §1821d, the “most favored lender” doctrine for state banks, and increased deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000.
Key Points:
After heavy regulation of banks in the 1960s and 1970s, this act was the beginning of a pullback of federal regulation of banking restrictions.
The act equalized treatment among all financial institutions, allowing all the same discount and borrowing privileges from the Federal reserve.
In response to an ongoing decline in bank capital ratios, capital was defined by establishing 2 classes of capital. This system was later replaced by the 1988 Basel Accord, which established tier 1 and tier 2 capital.
Phased out interest rate ceilings on deposit accounts.
Allowed the “NOW” accounts, basically checking accounts, to be offered by all types of financial institutions, including credit unions.
Eliminated state mortgage usury ceilings unless a state took overt action to “opt out.”
Why is it still relevant?
Impact of no interest rate ceilings on deposits made banks more competitive with other financial providers (investment firms) but also made banking more difficult, because the spread between the cost of money and what they have to offer as interest rates on deposits has decreased. Banking in the 60s and 70s was considered to be easy street, but today it is much more difficult to make a profit, and on top of that they are still highly regulated.
This was the beginning of deregulation and although some thought this would move quickly, the pace was very slow. Consider that only recently did the barriers of Glass Steagall come down.
Last modified at 7/23/2010 9:14 AM by Rosemarie ShaheenI don’t think you can go wrong with giving an AAN on these types of issues. I personally would be pushing for one to be safe. Without I think you may have some serious Fair Lending issues on your hands, especially if the callers fall into one of the protected classes of borrowers.
I would say that it doesn’t. It should be signed and dated the same as closing. The reason you are to make the HUD available early is for the borrowers to review the document to get any corrections done before closing and for them to make sure all is as they expect and ask question. This should not be the binding settlement.
All of that is said as it relates to RESPA, but I’m not sure of there are any Texas specific items that would require you to do anything differently. I would ask the attorney why and ask them to give you a citation to point you in the right direction.
Marcella,
From what you posted it sounds like the customer is the one that decided to stop sending the escrow portion of the payment. I would most certainly call the customer and see why this has happened. I would decide my plan of action after speaking to the customer once you find out why.
I’m not sure how many payments they have failed to send you the escrow portion, but this could create a deficiency when you do your annual analysis.
This may be a question for the insurance company that your Financial Institution uses for force-placed flood insurance.
I’m not sure about TN law, but from a TIL stand point, I think you might have an issue. Is you go with the wording you have in quotation marks, that could include DDA, SAV, CD, IRA’s, etc. I don’t think that that is the intent from what you’ve stated. A more accurate description should probably be used, such as: We are taking a security interest in CD # xxxxxxx.
I hope this helps.
The increased Flood CMP’s come from the Biggert-Waters Act. Here is a link to an article that Jack posted on his blog:
https://jholzknecht.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/increased-civil-monetary-penalties/
Also, if you are a member of Jack’s Compliance Masters Group, he did a very informative session on these changes and others created by Bigger-Waters Act.
compliancegirl,
I’m not 100% sure what you mean by “delivery fees in the rate lock” but it does sound like it is something that would be included in the origination fee; which is disclosed in line 801. I don’t believe the FAQ’s, the regulation, or the RESPA Roundups address a fee with this specific title.
To provide for my transparency, you could breakdown what is included in the origination fee using the extra lines in the 800 series and not listing amounts for those fees outside of the columns.
wp27,
Generally most Banks do list the homeowner’s insurance amount (even if POC) on the Comparison Chart section. Remember that this is typically a Non-tolerance item and the amount can change an unlimited amount (keep in mind the amount on the GFE should be reasonably).
In instructions on how to complete the HUD addresses the listing of the provider of insurance and is backup by the RESPA FAQ’s.
Frisbie,
Your disclosures should be matching or agreeing with each other. Sounds like you need to do a bit of digging to find out what the Bank is actually doing and then make sure that your disclosures reflect the Bank’s practices accordingly.
lshelly,
I don’t think there is anything specifically in the Regulation that would exempt them, however I would think the risk would be extremely low.
