Rule Change regarding use of a CD to reset tolerances.

Under the TRID rule, a Loan Estimate is the disclosure primarily used to reset tolerances. Because the final revised Loan Estimate must be received by the consumer no later than four business days before consummation, the Commentary to the TRID rule includes a provision under which a creditor may use a Closing Disclosure to reset tolerances if “there are less than four business days between the time” a revised Loan Estimate would need to be provided and consummation. Because of the four-business-day timing element, in various cases when a creditor learns of a change, the creditor is not able to use a Closing Disclosure to reset tolerances. This situation is what the industry termed the “black hole.” The industry repeatedly asked the CFPB to address the black hole issue.

In the final rule the CFPB removes the four business day timing element, and makes clear that either an initial or a revised Closing Disclosure can be used to reset tolerances.

Consistent with the requirements for the Loan Estimate, when the TRID rule permits a creditor to use a Closing Disclosure to revise expenses, the creditor must provide the Closing Disclosure within three business days of receiving information sufficient to establish that a changed circumstance or other event triggering a change has occurred.

We are happy to answer any questions, just email us at nl@lockelaw.us

Nelson A. Locke, Esq.

Compliance Services USA 

(800) 656-4584

 

Keller Williams Matter

Folks, please advise me via email if you fit into one of these two boxes.

  1. Are you an affiliated business with KW?
  2. If NOT, are you being adversely affected by the current KW project regarding the “disclosure”?
  3. Have you seen the “disclosure”?

My first take on the situation is of concern. Thus I need to hear from you.

Here is the link. nl@lockelaw.us

Thank you in advance.

Nelson A. Locke, Esq.

(800) 656-4584

Compliance Services USA.

Template for Occupancy Fraud Affidavit

Recently I have encountered several situations where borrowers just flat out lied about their intent to occupy the subject property as their principal residence. The brokers were caught without sufficient evidence in their files that they properly verified the intent to the best of their ability. Thus, this affidavit was born. It covers both those who state their intention as owner occupied, and those who state their intention as non-owner occupied. If you put this on your letterhead and have it executed at closing it would be hard for a fraudulent minded borrower to point the finger back at you.

If this has happened to you and you need my help, contact me at nl@lockelaw.us

That’s it for now.

Here is the form. It is designed as a crystal clear WARNING.

“Do you intend to occupy this property as your principal residence?” or “Do you intend for this property to be non-owner occupied?”

These questions, indicated by check boxes on most mortgage loan applications, might seem straightforward. But if you misrepresent your intention, it is a crime known in real estate lingo as “occupancy fraud.”

Occupancy fraud occurs when a borrower says he or she plans to live in a home, all the while knowing the property will be rented out.  The key here is to note “all the while”. People can change their minds, but they will need to show compelling evidence that at the time they applied, closed, and funded the deal they absolutely intended for the property to be either their residence or a non-owner occupied investment property. 

Sometimes people change their mind after the fact.  That’s less serious than someone intentionally deceiving the lender by providing information indicating they are either going to occupy or not when they truly have the opposite  intention.

But it still maybe seen as an unintentional misrepresentation and give rise to a claim for damages by the lender that relied on the borrower’s statement about occupancy or investment use.

Most lenders’ loan documents define owner occupancy as a period of at least one year, but mortgage lenders have flexibility in their guidelines. If you intend to occupy a home, but move out within less than 12 months, you should notify the lender in writing and keep a copy of your letter.

Lenders perceive an owner-occupied transaction to be a safer credit risk than non owner occupied.

ONE LIE on a loan application may trigger a full-blown fraud investigation, and  you’ll be facing HUGE negative consequences if you get caught. IT IS A FELONY. But it gets worse. Lying on a mortgage loan application is so serious it can also be considered Money Laundering. ANOTHER FELONY. And then, there is the usual conspiracy charge. THREE FELONIES.

Technically, the mortgage lender could call your loan due and payable, raise your interest rate and payment, or foreclose on your loan.  Whatever does or doesn’t happen will be solely at the lender’s discretion.

The lender could file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) into the federal government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a centralized database that financial institutions use to report possible instances of fraud to law enforcement authorities. SARs could become a problem if you make a misrepresentation or outright false statement on a loan application and later want to move to another home or refinance your mortgage.

Understood, this _________ day of ________, 2018;

 

____________________________________            ___________________________________

Borrower                                                         Co-Borrower

 

___________________________________

Witness

 

Nelson A. Locke, Esq.

Compliance Services USA

(800) 656-4584

Business Purpose Loans – Update

Yesterday the Governor of Florida signed House Bill 935 and this affects Mortgage Loan Originators, especially those operating without licenses under the theory that the loans they produce are all business purpose loans.

The bill revises ch. 494, F.S., governing non-depository loan originators, mortgage brokers, and mortgage lender businesses subject to regulation by the Office of Financial Regulation to provide greater consumer protections. The bill provides that it is unlawful for any person to misrepresent a residential mortgage loan as a business purpose loan, and defines the term, “business purpose loan.” Further, the bill provides a definition of the term “hold himself or herself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business,” as that term currently exists under two licensing exemption provisions. These current exemptions permit an individual investor to make or acquire a mortgage loan with his or her own funds, or to sell such mortgage loan, without being licensed as a mortgage lender, so long as the individual does not “hold himself or herself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business.”
The bill was in response to alleged unlicensed mortgage lending activity in South Florida. According to these reports, some lending entities were providing residential loans with usurious interest rates and high fees made under the guise of business purpose loans in order to avoid licensure and disclosure requirements under ch. 494, F.S., as a mortgage lender.

These groups also claim that some of these unscrupulous lenders would not make the “residential loan” unless the borrower formed a limited liability company.
These provisions take effect July 1, 2019.

 

Nelson A. Locke, Esq.

Compliance Services USA

(800) 656-4584

http://www.lockelaw.us

 

Private Lending and Licensing – Round Two.

The Florida legislature kicked off its legislative session by introducing Florida Senate Bill 894 and House Bill 935, legislation that could cover private mortgage lenders. The bills, introduced by Sen. Rene Garcia (R-Miami) and Rep. Jeanette Nunes (R-Miami), would eliminate a longstanding business purpose exemption for loans secured by a Dwelling.

 

On January 18, the bill passed the House Insurance and Banking Subcommittee with a 13-1 vote in favor. On January 24, the House Commerce Committee passed the bill on a unanimous vote. The Senate similarly passed the bill on a unanimous vote in the Senate Banking and Insurance committee on January 23. The bills are expected to move through the Florida legislature and have strong bipartisan support.

 

An almost identical bill previously passed through the legislature in May 2017, but was ultimately vetoed by Governor Scott in June. 

 

Florida has been one of the more interesting states from a mortgage licensing perspective. For example, a mortgage lender license is already necessary to make a business purpose loan secured by commercial real estate and 5-or-more unit multifamily residential property if the borrower or guarantor is an individual, or if the lender is considered a non-institutional investor.

 

If the bills become law, they would empower the state Office of Financial Regulation to regulate mortgage loans made for business purposes, require brokers of these loans to be licensed, and allow examination of firms offering or making private loans.

If this is signed into law, it means more audit activity and means that if you are a private lender making business purpose loans, you better call us and let us get you into shape before the regulators start enforcement activity. We will keep you posted. 

Nelson A. Locke, Esq.

Compliance Services USA and Locke Law US

http://www.lockelaw.us

(800) 656-4584

 

What you need to know about the Dodd-Frank rewrite that is currently underway.

Not much. The rewrite does some good things for the Banking Industry but……not too much for you and I.

The bill doesn’t go nearly as far as some Republicans would like to go in gutting the 2010 law. For example, it doesn’t make big changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. When it refers to smaller lenders, it looks like it is making reference to FDIC participants.

The CFPB has also made it clear it is engaging the state regulators more now than ever.

Don’t drop your guard or relax your focus on compliance. We have come so far. Let’s not go backwards.

Nelson A. Locke, Esq.

(800) 656-4584

http://www.expertlenderservices.com

Warning about UDAAP

Today, the CFPB again advised State Attorneys General (which means State Agencies as well) that the CFPB is monitoring how the states decide to undertake or not undertake enforcement action. Read this narrative taken from their site.

“Mr. Mulvaney stated that a significant, although not determinative, factor in the CFPB’s decision to initiate an enforcement action in a particular case will be whether state AGs or regulators are also considering whether to take enforcement action. He stated that if state AGs “are not bringing an action we are looking at, I’m going to want to know why.” More specifically, he would want to know whether the state’s reason is lack of resources or other factors unrelated to the merits of an action or whether it is that the state AG or regulator thinks the conduct in question is not illegal.”

In addition to various federal consumer protection statutes that give direct enforcement authority to state AGs or regulators, Section 1042 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act authorizes state AGs and regulators to bring civil actions to enforce the provisions of the CFPA, most notably its prohibition of unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices.

That’s the part that deserves your attention. The UDAAP provisions are broad by design and can be used to commence enforcement action for almost any reason.

Deceptive Acts or Practices
A representation, omission, actor practice is deceptive when
(1) The representation, omission, act, or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer;
(2) The consumer’s interpretation of the representation, omission, act, or practice is reasonable under the circumstances; and
(3) The misleading representation, omission, act, or practice is material.

And some real or imagined consumer harm occurs as the result of the deceptive act or practice.

If a regulator sees or hears something that triggers their radar, they will examine your website and social media. Then your customer complaint log. Then the complete nature of your record keeping. Then they will interview you and measure your response.

Just be aware, folks – knowledge and training can reduce this risk greatly.

Nelson A. Locke, Esq. (800) 656-4584