The factsheet is available here.

The factsheet confirms the three main elements in Reg Z (12 CFR §1026.20(b)) that define an ‘assumption’ that would trigger a requirement for new TRID disclosures.  First, the lender must expressly accept the new consumer as the ‘primary obligor’ on the loan, and not just a guarantor or additional borrower.  However, if the lender does not specify the role of the new consumer and accepts payments after the assumption, Reg Z guidance is that the ‘primary obligor’ requirement has been met.   Second, the lender and new consumer must sign a written agreement where the new consumer assumes the existing loan obligation. Third, the loan must be a ‘residential mortgage transaction’ under Reg Z, meaning that the loan either takes a security interest in the new consumer’s principal dwelling or finances the acquisition or initial construction of the new consumer’s principal dwelling (whether or not the property is the principal dwelling of any current borrower).  As examples, the factsheet notes that a transaction would not be an assumption subject to TRID if the property is the new consumer’s second home, or if the new consumer already had some interest in the property (such as from an inheritance) before the assumption took place.

The factsheet notes that TRID disclosures (if required) should be based on the remaining principal balance of the existing loan plus arrearages or other accrued charges due.  The finance charge and APR disclosed should include charges to the new consumer imposed as part of the assumption, but should exclude any prepaid finance charges paid by an original borrower.  Finally, even if TRID disclosures are not required, other federal disclosures (TIL, GFE and HUD-1) to the new consumer would still be required, unless it is a transaction entirely exempt from TILA and RESPA, such as a business purpose loan.

In this blog post concerning legal and regulatory matters of interest to the mortgage industry, Sandler Law Group (SLG) provides general information and industry observations that are not motivated by or concerned with a particular past occurrence or event, or a specific existing legal problem of which SLG is aware. Nothing published herein is intended to constitute legal advice and the use of the blog post by a reader shall not give rise to an attorney-client relationship with SLG. SLG expressly disclaims any representation of accuracy or reliability as to the content of this blog post, as well as any obligation to maintain such content over time or to ensure it is free from errors. Brad Cope is the attorney responsible for the SLG content of this blog post. The attorneys of SLG are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.