All in Regulation Z

Although TRID rules have been around for a while now, there still seems to be some confusion when it comes to understanding the TRID loan purpose that should be listed on the Loan Estimate (LE).  Much of the reason behind this confusion is that the rules actually contradict the loan purpose rules of Regulation C and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Therefore, it is important for each creditor to fully understand the TRID loan purpose hierarchy and when each TRID loan purpose should be listed on the Loan Estimate.

True or False: Lender credits should never decrease.

Well, the TRID best practice over the years has said that once a lender credit is listed on the LE, it should never decrease.  This philosophy seems to align with that of the CFPB who views a decrease of a lender credit to be the equivalent of an increase of a fee.  In fact, the preamble to the final TRID rule states that “lenders are not permitted to reduce the lender credits they provided to the borrower under current Regulation X.”

So, this means that a lender credit should never be reduced, right?  Well, not exactly.

Among the many changes in TRID 2.0 - which went into effect on October 1, 2018 - the CFPB has provided a few changes in relationship to the written provider list.  The final amendments to the written provider list are significantly better than what the CFPB originally proposed and provide creditors with guidance on how to deal with circumstances where a creditor did not provide the written list of providers or failed to disclose a required service on the list. The changes, however, can be quite confusing upon initial review. Therefore, it is important for each financial institution to fully understand the TRID 2.0 changes that relate to the written list of service providers.

As the October 1, 2018 compliance date of TRID 2.0 is quickly approaching, it is important for each financial institution to ensure that all applicable changes to the integrated disclosure rules have been both understood and effectively implemented.  Released on July 7, 2017, the 2017 final rule (known as TRID 2.0) amends and clarifies certain mortgage disclosure provisions implemented in Regulation Z. These changes are required for any application received on or after October 1, 2018.

On August 27, 2018, the CFPB published a number of annual threshold adjustments to Regulation Z in the Federal Register.  Effective January 1, 2019, the final rule implements the Truth in Lending Act and satisfies the CFPB’s requirement to calculate annually the dollar amounts for several provisions in Regulation Z.   The 2019 threshold adjustments to Regulation Z are as follows:

When reviewing deposit secured loans, one of the most common audit violations relates to the “required deposit” disclosure.  This lower risk finding is often found in audit and exam reports because it is a fairly common finding and is extremely easy to identify - known as “low hanging fruit.”  Financial institutions can ensure they don’t fall victim to this easy to avoid issue by fully understanding the rules for the required deposit disclosure.

There are rarely perfect scenarios in real estate lending.  Sure, occasionally a transaction will go as exactly planned, but there are usually one or two quirks in the process that must be addressed to ensure the loan remains in compliance.  One of these quirks I continue to see lenders struggle with is when an appraisal fee is collected before closing, but the actual cost of the appraisal comes in below what the creditor collected.  

When a financial institution provides unnecessary Loan Estimates to applicants, this practice creates significant confusion regarding the “good faith” rules (i.e. the tolerance calculations).  For example, if a Loan Estimate is provided out of courtesy, the fees on the new LE cannot be used for calculating good faith (tolerances) under Regulation Z. This makes it very difficult for creditors, auditors, and examiners, to know which numbers are supposed to be used for good faith purposes. Therefore, it is important for every loan officer and loan processor to fully understand the changed circumstance rules so they know what exact conditions can reset the tolerances for determining good faith under TRID rules.