CFPB Request for Information on Amendments to TRID, Rescission, and Reverse Mortgages: How Should Industry Respond?
The CFPB is publishing a new Request for Information (RFI) in response to the President’s Executive Order 14393, titled Promoting Access to Mortgage Credit (which I wrote about here). The RFI is almost entirely focused on potential changes to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rule. As you know, I led the TRID final rule, and the consumer testing and design of the disclosures, when I was a senior counsel and special advisor at the CFPB. The RFI indicates a keen willingness to amend the TRID rule’s timing and tolerance requirements, as well as potentially engage in an integrated disclosure rule for reverse mortgages. The RFI will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, July 9, 2026, but is availabletoday on the Federal Register website.
The March 2026 Executive Order required the CFPB to consider changes to the TRID rule, as well as other rules, such as the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage rule. The CFPB’s RFI states that it is issuing the RFI “consistent with E.O. 14393 and the CFPB’s express objective to ensure ‘outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens’.”
The RFI summarizes the TRID rule’s various requirements. The RFI also points out areas where, in response to the CFPB’s November 2019 Request for Information in connection with the CFPB’s five-year assessment of the TRID rule (which I wrote about here), commenters stated that certain aspects of the rule were difficult or burdensome. Specifically, the CFPB noted that commenters to that Request for Information expressed the following criticisms of the rule: (1) “transfer taxes and third-party appraisal fees are particularly difficult for creditors to estimate within three business days of application and that the CFPB should not include these fees in the zero tolerance category”; (2) “tracking such [changes to estimated charges] and issuing revised estimates to the consumer within three business days is unduly burdensome”; (3) the CFPB should provide additional guidance or otherwise streamline consumers’ ability to waive the Closing Disclosure three-business-day waiting period”; and (4) “for refinancing transactions for which there is a three-business-day rescission period after consummation under TILA, several commenters stated that requiring a three-business-day waiting period before consummation is redundant and an undue burden.”
The RFI also discusses the TILA right of rescission, and mentions that in response to a 2018 Request for Information issued by former Acting Director Mulvaney (during the time of his “Call for Evidence,” which I wrote about here), commenters stated that the CFPB should “eliminate the right of rescission because the TRID Rule’s three-day pre-consummation review period gives consumers sufficient time to review the material disclosures, and the post-consummation waiting period harms consumers refinancing into a lower interest rate loan.”
The RFI also summarizes the current disclosures required for open and closed-end reverse mortgages and mentions that a commenter to the 2018 Request for Information “requested that the CFPB adopt a reverse-mortgage specific disclosure regime similar to the TILA-RESPA integrated disclosures created for forward mortgages.”
The RFI asks the following twenty-two specific questions about TRID, rescission, and reverse mortgages:
TRID Rule and Right of Rescission
1. Do the timing requirements materially affect consumers’ ability to obtain mortgage credit? If so, in what ways and to what extent is credit availability affected?
2. Do the timing requirements increase costs for mortgage brokers, creditors, or consumers? If so, do these costs outweigh any benefits to consumers provided by such timing requirements? If so, how do these costs compare to the costs of implementing changes to the timing requirements?
3. Are there certain transaction types or specific scenarios that are inhibited or complicated by the timing requirements?
4. Are there opportunities to provide initial Loan Estimates earlier in the mortgage origination process to meet the statutorily required waiting periods while allowing consumers time to shop and reducing closing delays?
5. Are there ways to reduce the incidence of revised disclosures being issued while providing consumers with timely updates to settlement costs and avoiding closing delays?
6. Are there opportunities to provide Closing Disclosures earlier in the mortgage origination process to meet the statutorily required waiting periods while allowing consumers time to understand loan costs, prepare for loan consummation, and avoid closing delays?
7. What additional guidance or model forms could the CFPB issue to better facilitate consumers’ decision to waive the statutorily required waiting periods for a bona fide personal financial emergency?
8. Are there any materiality-based standards that could replace or supplement timing rules, recognizing TILA’s timing requirements for delivery of disclosures after application and before consummation—including issuance of a revised disclosure upon a change in APR above the prescribed tolerance? If so, how should CFPB consider defining and structuring these standards (e.g., as an optional supplement to TILA’s timing requirements or a complete substitution for them)? Would these materiality-based standards result in improved administrative efficiencies while preserving or improving consumer clarity and reducing closing delays?
9. Does the three-business-day post-consummation rescission waiting period, coupled with the three-business-day pre-consummation TRID waiting period, unduly delay loan funding for refinance transactions? If so, how could the CFPB adjust the right of rescission or TRID waiting periods?
Other TRID Requirements
10. Are there adjustments to the tolerance thresholds that could improve loan execution and result in improved credit access and lower consumer costs? For example, are there instances where the CFPB should consider adjusting tolerances for transfer taxes because transfer taxes cannot be determined within three business days of application?
11. Is there additional guidance that CFPB should provide around changed circumstances, which result in the issuance of revised estimates? For example, should the CFPB consider providing additional guidance around changed circumstances in cases where a purchaser continues to negotiate with the seller for payment of charges customarily paid by the borrower?
12. Should the TRID disclosure forms be modified in a way that would improve clarity for consumers and loan execution for mortgage brokers or creditors?
13. Is there additional guidance that CFPB should provide regarding the acceptability of electronic or digital forms and signatures that would promote their use and lower costs for consumers?
14. Are there changes or clarifications to requirements specific to construction loans that would provide consumer clarity, reduce costs, or otherwise promote access to credit for the construction of residential housing? For example, should the CFPB waive certain requirements as the CFPB did when it issued a “Trial Disclosure Program Waiver Template” to the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) covering the ICBA’s alterative versions of the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure tailored to construction loans?
15. Are there other changes to the TRID Rule that CFPB should consider to facilitate compliance with the disclosure requirements of TILA and RESPA and to aid the consumer in understanding the transaction?
16. For any potential changes recommended regarding TRID requirements, are there any considerations for pricing or secondary market participants that CFPB should consider, such as concerns around acceptance of materiality-based standards in lieu of timing standards? For example, how would potential changes impact the pricing, liquidity, or demand for mortgages, mortgage backed securities, mortgage servicing rights, or other mortgage backed capital markets instruments?
Tailored Requirements for Small Banks and Credit Unions
17. Are there unique aspects of the loan origination process performed by small banks and credit unions for which the CFPB should consider changes to the TRID Rule specifically tailored for small banks and credit unions? If so, how should CFPB consider structuring these tailored changes (e.g., exemptions or alternative requirements)?
18. Would changes exclusive to small banks and credit unions lower costs for originators, creditors, or consumers?
Reverse Mortgages
19. The CFPB is aware that the reverse mortgage industry faces significant difficulties applying the disclosure requirements of TILA and RESPA to reverse mortgages, in light of those transactions’ unusual terms and features. Would integrated and tailored reverse mortgage disclosures enable consumers to make more informed decisions?
20. Would a different set of scenario assumptions in the calculation of total annual loan cost rates in the TALC table give consumers more reasonable and accurate likely cost estimates of reverse mortgages?
21. Would a table that demonstrates how the reverse mortgage balance grows over time, using dollar amounts rather than annualized loan cost rates in the current TALC table, help consumers to better understand and evaluate the costs and the benefits of the reverse mortgage? If so, what are the important features of such a chart?
22. Would consumers benefit from a tailored disclosure informing consumers about how reverse mortgages work and about terms and risks that are important to consumers when selecting a reverse mortgage, instead of the generic brochures and booklets? If so, please provide any research or analysis of material that would be beneficial.
The RFI provides a 30-day comment period. The industry, including the secondary market, should submit comments responding to this RFI. This an excellent opportunity to bring to the CFPB’s attention issues concerning TRID, rescission, and reverse mortgages. Areas of TRID (and to be fair, in some cases, Regulation Z generally) that have long been criticized, such as the narrowness of the “bona fide personal financial emergency” exception, are up for comment. The CFPB even has a general question about “other changes” to the TRID rule, which opens the door for the industry to raise TRID issues outside of the specific questions. This administration has at least two years or more to work on such a rulemaking, which may be enough time to propose and finalize a rule amending TRID or rescission. But note that changes to the TRID forms themselves could take longer if the CFPB consumer tests the changes. The original TRID forms were developed through arduous qualitative and quantitative consumer testing over many years both before and after the proposed rule (which I led), and I believe any changes to the forms should be similarly consumer tested to ensure the forms will be usable by consumers, because if the forms are not usable, they’re useless. Also, for this reason, the development of reverse mortgage integrated disclosures could take longer, because the CFPB may conduct consumer testing as it did before the final TRID Rule was issued. But regardless of the potentially lengthy rulemaking timelines and a potential for a change in administration, comments could definitely support the CFPB’s future rulemaking in these areas. Case in point, note how the CFPB referred back to comments it received to its 2018 and 2019 Requests for Information as a basis for questions in this RIF.
Please email me at rich@garrishorn.com if you would like to discuss any of the issues in this blog post or would like assistance with submitting a comment to the RIF.
