Question:
We were written up for the initial CD being sent via e-disclosure to a borrower that did not have E-SIGN consent. I am saying that sending via email was not an option for the borrower.  Is this correct? I did just look at the file and both borrowers did end up wet signing, but at the time of my review it only showed that it was sent via e-disclosure
​
Answer:
Assuming the transaction is not rescindable, the CD can be provided to any consumer primarily liable on the obligation. As far as E-SIGN consent goes, the CD can be provided electronically as long as the bank has obtained E-SIGN consent from the consumer. From what you describe, it appears that E-SIGN consent was not obtained from the borrower prior to providing the CD electronically to the borrower, which would not have satisfied the disclosure provision requirements under TRID. However, the versions provided in person may have met these requirements as long as the bank can show these were actually received at least three  business days before closing.  
 
If there is more than one consumer, the disclosures may be made to any consumer who is primarily liable on the obligation. If the transaction is rescindable under § 1026.23, however, the disclosures shall be made to each consumer who has the right to rescind. 
12 CFR § 1026.17(d): https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/regulations/1026/17/#d 
In a transaction subject to paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section, the creditor shall provide the consumer with the disclosures required under § 1026.38 reflecting the actual terms of the transaction. 
 
12 CFR § 1026.19(f)(1)(i): https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/regulations/1026/19/#f-1-i 
The disclosures required by this section may be provided to the consumer in electronic form, subject to compliance with the consumer consent and other applicable provisions of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.). 
12 CFR § 1026.38(t)(3)(iii): https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/regulations/1026/38/#t-3-iii 

Question:
So I am aware of the two walls and a roof requirement in the flood regulations, but what if the building is on a dirt floor but secured to the ground with concreted post? Because there is no floor, does that negate the requirement for flood coverage? 
 
Answer:
Unfortunately, a floor is not a requirement for it to be considered a building requiring flood coverage. Assuming the other conditions of the definition have otherwise been met, flood insurance would still be required in this case.  
 
Building. 
A structure with 2 or more outside rigid walls and a fully secured roof, that is affixed to a permanent site;... 
​
https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/definitions

Question:
For HMDA reporting, the purpose is to construct 45 additional apartment units but collateral is existing 68 unit apartment complex and land where borrower will build the additional units. The payment terms are 24 payments of interest only thru 3/15/21 then payments of P & I starting 4/15/21 amortized over 25 years. Would it be considered a construction loan and not reportable or construction to perm all in one and reportable? 
 
Answer:
If you are doing the construction to perm, then it would be reportable unless otherwise excluded. If you are doing construction-only, which is planned to be taken out by another loan, it is temporary financing and not HMDA reportable. 
 
Section 1003.3(c)(3) provides that closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit obtained for temporary financing are excluded transactions. A loan or line of credit is considered temporary financing and excluded under § 1003.3(c)(3) if the loan or line of credit is designed to be replaced by separate permanent financing extended by any financial institution to the same borrower at a later time. 
Comment 1 to §1003.3(c)(3): https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/regulations/1003/3/#3-c-3-Interp-1 

Question:
What are the risks/concerns to the Bank if we allow a customer to view multiple accounts under the same log in in our Online Banking? The customer would have “View Only” access to these accounts. The accounts are a mix of Business accounts (LLCs, Partnerships, Sole Proprietorships, etc.) and personal accounts. Would this be a risk based decision, or is there regulations against it?
 
Answer:
This is a risk-based decision. It is generally not considered best practice, except for sole proprietorships. Some banks do allow "view only" so that the customers can at least see everything in one place but do not allow the customer to transfer funds. Allowing transferring of funds would run the risk of commingling funds, possible tax fraud, etc. When there are multiple owners, it could cause issues if one owner is transferring money out to their personal account. Although that is ultimately the responsibility of the owners and not the bank, the bank may still be involved if a dispute were to come up.