Pub. 6 2018 Issue 1

W hile we were eagerly awaiting a final rule from the CFPB on the so-called “black hole” tolerance issue, a new bill was swiftly passed by the House of Representatives last month: the TRID (TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclo- sure) Improvement Act of 2017. On October 5, 2017, Congressman French Hill introduced H.R. 3978, which even- tually had four other bills tacked onto it, making it a five-in-one set of changes for the financial services industry. One of these bills, the TRID Improvement Act, specifically amends and clarifies how title insurance premiums and discounts are dis- closed on the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure. On February 14th, the House of Representative passed the bipartisan bill by a healthy 271 to 145 vote. Now you may be asking yourself, “What exactly is the problem with how title insurance is disclosed?” Well, to put it simply, it isn’t disclosed the way it is actually charged, and some argue that this is counter to the general spirit and intent of the TRID rule. As Con- gressman Hill pointedly put it, “This legislation seeks to correct this error by ensuring that consumers know the exact cost of their title insurance – not the number reported as one price on a lending estimate and another price on a closing document.” In many states, when a borrower pur- chases a lender’s title insurance policy (as is often required by the bank), the borrower will receive a discount on the lender’s title policy if an owner’s title policy is also purchased. This mark- down is often called a “simultaneous issue discount,” and although it effec- tively reduces the rate of the owner’s Is the ‘TRID Improvement Act’ an Improvement? By Victoria E. Stephen, Associate General Counsel, CRCM COMPLIANCE CORNER