Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Our bank prefers the check be made payable to the bank, but if the check is made payable to cash or themselves we make them sign the back of the check being used.
I completely agree, this was my thought from the beginning, but I was asked to get views from others outside the bank. Thank you both, this helps a lot.
If we have the second applicant initial for joint intent, when they sign their application, even though it is a few days later than the first applicant we should be compliant?
So, if only one borrower is present for the initial application and they tell the lender someone else is applying with them, the lender can mark on the application that the second borrower intents to apply jointly with the first borrower, based on the information given by the first borrower?
Is this what you are looking for?
Final 2019 Lending Thresholds Released
this entry has 0 Comments/ in HMDA, Regulation Z / by rcooper
December 31, 2018
On December 31, 2018, with the last few hours of 2018 quickly approaching, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has published the final lending threshold updates just in time for 2019. The updates include:
• The HMDA asset-size exemption threshold, increased from $45 million to $46 million. The final rule is available here.
• The Truth in Lending asset-size exemption for certain creditors to qualify for an exemption to the requirement to establish an escrow account for a higher-priced mortgage loan based on the annual percentage change in the average of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the 12- month period ending in November. The exemption threshold is adjusted to increase from $2.112 billion to $2.167 billion. The final rule is available here.We issue separate buyer/seller CDs. If there is no change to the CD and we leave the date issued as the date it was given to the borrower, 12/03/2018, the sellers CD also has a date issued of 12/03/2018, but they did not receive the disclosure until 12/07/2018. Is this a software issue or is this the way it should work? Could this be considered deceptive?
Also, we document the original date the CD is given to the borrower and how it was given (mail, in person, etc.) in the loan file.The reason I question this is because the fees listed in Sample G–18(A) in Appendix G only shows prepaid fees. This example does not show third party fees.
Another question, per 1026.37(g)(2)(1)(i) if the borrower pays their homeowner’s insurance monthly (not escrowing). How would this example be shown on the LE and CD? Since two premiums will be due, within the next 60 days after consummation of the transaction, will two premiums be listed in section F-prepaids or does the “within 60 days after consummation of the transaction” only apply to property taxes? If the rule applies to homeowner’s insurance too, how should it be listed in the prepaid section? “Paid before closing” or “Collect at closing” are the only two options, but neither apply in this situation.
In this situation the borrower gets draws, from the construction loan, in phases (usually 3-4 phases). When the borrower requests a draw, an inspection of the property is performed. The percentage complete is compared to the amounts previously drawn. If the amounts are within the proper range additional funds are disbursed. We collect the inspection fees upfront.
We are in the Chicago region too. I agree with your thoughts but make sure using 4 days vs 7 days doesn’t cause a discrimination violation. I would make sure it is clear in your procedures when to use a 4 day hold and when you can extent to a 7 day hold, because if it is open to the employees determination you could unknowingly have a discrimination violation. Just my thoughts!
Just food for thought! During our last exam the examiner asked front line personnel questions about holds and compared their answers to our Reg CC policy. Our practice was shorter than our policy and it was to the customers benefit but the examiner listed the issue in the report as our practice not matching our policy. Also, we had a fraudulent check returned on the 8th day, within the last six months.
During our last exam the examiner listed, under recommendations, the Funds Availability Policy needed to match our practice. Our practice was same day and our policy was next day, so we changed our policy and notice to match our practice. This was to the customers benefit but it was still listed as a recommendation. We normally see returns by the 3rd or 4th day, but we have received fraudulent money orders on the 8th day. I would suggest making your policy and practice/procedures match which ever you choose.
We recently updated our Regulation CC policy and notice to say same day availability instead of next day availability. During our last exam the examiner remarked that our policy need to match our procedure. For our bank, if you make a deposit today and we do not put a hold on the deposit the funds are available with a debit card that day. I’m not sure if this is what you are asking, but I hope it helps. Also, don’t forget the notice requirements for any Regulation CC changes.
229.18 (e) Changes in policy. A bank shall send a notice to holders of consumer accounts at least 30 days before implementing a change to the bank’s availability policy regarding such accounts, except that a change that expedites the availability of funds may be disclosed not later than 30 days after implementation.
