Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If they are acquiring the property upon paying off the contract for deed (with the loan you’re making) then it would be a purchase.
1026.37(a)(9)”(i) Purchase. If the credit is to finance the acquisition of the property identified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section, the creditor shall disclose that the loan is for a “Purchase.””If they have previously acquired the property (through the contract for deed/land contract) then it would be a refinance.
Let us know if you have other questions.
Yes, I think these the county clerk and chancery court would be considered state/local government and the rule would apply if the conditions below are met.
(iv) A check drawn by a state or a unit of general local government and deposited–
(A) In an account held by a payee of the check;
(B) In a depositary bank located in the state that issued the check, or the same state as the unit of general local government that issued the check;
(C) In person to an employee of the depositary bank; and
(D) With a special deposit slip or deposit envelope, if such slip or envelope is required by the depositary bank under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
I’ll throw out some question that will hopefully help you make a determination… Are all of the statements you’re making true? Are you legally permitted to take the actions against the consumer that you’ve indiated?( Have you consulted with an attorney to ensure all statements reflect actual actions you can take.)
Similar to doing a marketing review, I would put any collection communication through a UDAAP review. The CFPB or your regulator’s exam procedures would be a good place to start.
Finally, we have a list of lending enforcement actions on the resources page of our website under “Enforcement/Lending Compliance Enforcement Actions Chart” https://mycomplianceresource.com/ultimate-compliance-resource/#toggleInfoSection. There are cased in those where UDAAP is cited for collection practices. There should be links to the enforcement action so you can dig in to find what some of their specific issues were. Generally speaking, many of them including harrasing behaviour, threatening actions that were permitted/legal, taking possession of personal items that belong to the consumer, disclosing the debt to third parties, etc, but reviewing these would give you an idea of what has caused others problems.
See the 2009 Q&A, number 74: https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/federal-register/2009/74fr35914.pdf and the proposed Q&As from 2020, number “Notice -2”: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2020/pr20077a.pdf.
With all of this information, I think it would be in your bank’s best interest to know where the collateral will be placed and comply prior to closing in order to protect its collateral and avoid compliance issues with out of the norm situations.
Yes, I believe it would be considered personally identifiable information. Reg P, 1016.3(q)(2) states examples of non-public personal information as:
(2) Examples. (i) Information included. Personally identifiable financial information includes:
(A) Information a consumer provides to you on an application to obtain a loan, a credit card, a credit union membership, or other financial product or service;
(B) Account balance information, payment history, overdraft history, and credit or debit card purchase information;
(C) The fact that an individual is or has been one of your customers or has obtained a financial product or service from you;
(D) Any information about your consumer if it is disclosed in a manner that indicates that the individual is or has been your consumer;
(E) Any information that a consumer provides to you or that you or your agent otherwise obtain in connection with collecting on, or servicing, a loan or a credit account;
(F) Any information you collect through an internet “cookie” (an information collecting device from a Web server); and
(G) Information from a consumer report.
Also consider FFIEC information security requirements. Here’s a link to electronic transmission of information.
https://ithandbook.ffiec.gov/it-booklets/information-security/ii-information-security-program-management/iic-risk-mitigation/iic13-control-of-information/iic13(b)-electronic-transmission-of-information.aspxI would not advertise this account as free if there is a fee to get monthly paper statements; since what you’ve described sounds like you would be adding a monthly fee for statements that didn’t exist before it would likely be an issue. Using “free” always comes with risk, more now than ever, and I’m not sure it is worth the risk – Reg DD and UDAP (IMO). If you could grandfather the existing accountholder where there were no fees (including no paper statement fee) and create criteria going forward (that has clearly disclose criteria, timeframes for completion, and action/costs that result if criteria aren’t met (e.g. converting to new account with new account disclosures given XX (30, 60, 90 days) prior to change) it reduces the risk.
While you’re making these decisions take a look at this enforcement action from the CFPB: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-mt-bank-for-deceptively-advertising-free-checking/. Keep in mind this has been on the regualtors’ radar for years and is a very easy to identify issues.
It sounds like this loan will consolidate the two priors into the new loan – they will be paid off at consummation of this new loan, meaning the new loan will be the only outstanding loan secured by the property. If that assumption is correct, then I think you would not need to include the loans that are being paid off because essentially they are being rolled into the new loan and will be extinguished when the new loan is made, and that new amount is what you would use to calculate required coverage. However, if these loans will be remaining, meaning there will be three loans on the property for some period of time then I do think you need to consider if there is sufficient coverage to cover all three loans.
From current Flood FAQs:
37. If a borrower requesting a loan secured by a junior lien provides evidence that flood insurance
coverage is in place, does the lender have to make a new determination? Does the lender have to adjust
the insurance coverage?
Answer: It depends. Assuming the requirements in Section 528 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 4104b) are met
and the same lender made the first mortgage, then a new determination may not be necessary, when
the existing determination is not more than seven years old, there have been no map changes, and the
determination was recorded on an SFHDF. If, however, a lender other than the one that made the first
mortgage loan is making the junior lien loan, a new determination would be required because this
lender would be deemed to be “making” a new loan. In either situation, the lender will need to
determine whether the amount of insurance in force is sufficient to cover the lesser of the combined
outstanding principal balance of all loans (including the junior lien loan), the insurable value, or the
maximum amount of coverage available on the improved real estate. This will hold true whether the
subordinate lien loan is a home equity loan or some other type of junior lien loan.I agree that the banner would qualify as outdoor media and would be expemt from many of the additional advertising requirements under 1030.8 and the additional requirements for overdrafts under 1030.11. You still need to review those sections to make sure you’re complying with the items that continue to be required. Also, remember to include your Member FDIC logo.
I lean toward leaving it blank too, but the regulation doesn’t clearly state what is expected in this situation, which is why banks continue to have to hash this out and is also the reason that it isn’t likely to be cited as a violation as Brent mentioned. The CFPB could easily clear this up but hasn’t. Hearing from peers like Pattie that her regulator expects the bank to be listed as the settlement agent when an outside party isn’t used is very helpful. If you know other banks regulated by your regulator reach out to see if they’ve heard a stance from their examiners.
Since it is the CFPB’s regulation, I’ve sent the question over to them. I’ll pass along any feedback they provide.
BTW – I like Jack’s advice.
This does seem strange to be included in the application as it seems it is directly taken from the risk-based pricing disclosure requirements. And it is strange that it is an application for credit yet it says “…we have approved your credit…” I’d be curious to find out when and why it was added. Do you get your applications from a forms vendor and did they add it or did the bank manually add it in. If you are providng the RBP exception notices that should meet your requirements for those rules.
Pcorder – sorry for the delay. I would probably use the general form H-8 as it seems to be a new transaction in that is not an existing loan on your books (the loan was sold and your bank doesn’t currently hold the mortgage). I think giving the customer the right to rescind the full transaction with form h-8 is a safer approach when there is any question as to which form should be used.
If I misunderstood anything about the transactions let me know.
There isn’t anything that I’m aware of that speaks to this specifically or that leads me to think that redisclosure is required… it doesn’t sound like the fees will increase so you aren’t looking to reset tolerance, and the escrow fees aren’t a problem either way because they’re unlimited and they aren’t being charged, you haven’t mentioned a rate lock, it isn’t a change requested by the customer. So, I don’t think a revised LE would be required, but you can certainly provide an revised estimate for informational purposes. In this case I think it would be a good idea since you had informed the borrow they would have an escrow and now they will not… Make sure you document your communication about that every chance you get… you want to make sure they understand they won’t be paying in for taxes and insurance.
I think this would qualify as a changed circumstance (comment 1026.19(e)(4)(i)-3 discusses appraisal value different than expected). It sounds like you may have already provided the CD. If that is the case you can not provided a revised LE; your changes would be reflected on the CD.
Comment 1026.19(e)(4)(ii)-1:
Section 1026.19(e)(4)(ii) also requires that the consumer must receive any revised version of the disclosures required under § 1026.19(e)(1)(i) no later than four business days prior to consummation, and provides that if the revised version of the disclosures are not provided to the consumer in person, the consumer is considered to have received the revised version of the disclosures three business days after the creditor delivers or places in the mail the revised version of the disclosures. See also comments 19(e)(1)(iv)-1 and – 2. However, if a creditor uses a revised estimate pursuant to § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv) for the purpose of determining good faith under § 1026.19(e)(3)(i) and (ii), § 1026.19(e)(4)(i) permits the creditor to provide the revised estimate in the disclosures required under § 1026.19(f)(1)(i) (including any corrected disclosures provided under § 1026.19(f)(2)(i) or (ii)).And here is a specific example from the commentary that may be helpful:
ii. Consummation is scheduled for Thursday, June 4. The creditor hand delivers the disclosures required by § 1026.19(f)(1)(i) on Monday, June 1, and, on Tuesday, June 2, the consumer requests a change to the loan that would result in revised disclosures pursuant to § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(C) but would not require a new waiting period pursuant to § 1026.19(f)(2)(ii). Under § 1026.19(f)(2)(i), the creditor is required to provide corrected disclosures reflecting any changed terms to the consumer so that the consumer receives the corrected disclosures at or before consummation. The creditor complies with the requirements of § 1026.19(e)(4) by hand delivering the disclosures required by § 1026.19(f)(2)(i) reflecting the consumer-requested changes on Thursday, June 4.If you’re redisclosing a CC on the CD, but the rule of ensuring receipt 3 business day before consummatoiin for revised CD aren’t met (APR becomes inaccurate/product changed/prepayment penalty added), then you’d comply by providing corrected disclosures at or before consummation.
Let me know if I’ve misunderstood anything.
