"Consummation" and Timing of Closed-End Disclosures under Securian's Single-Signature Blended Multi-Featured Plan (Whitepaper)

hij abc
“Consummation” and timing
Catherine Klimek
Senior Counsel
Securian Financial Group
of closed-end disclosures
under Securian’s
single-signature blended
multi-featured plan

July 2012

Executive summary
One of the legal implications to consider when developing
a blended, single-signature multi-featured lending plan is
whether the closed-end Fed Box disclosures can be given
timely under Reg Z and applicable state contract law. The
answer is yes, they can. By providing the disclosures at the
time of advance, prior to or with the disbursement of funds,
credit unions satisfy the timing requirements under Reg Z
and state law.

This paper will explain in greater detail the legal definition
of “consummation”, the state law interpreting it, and how it
applies to blended multi-featured plans.

Consummation – July 2012
Securian.com/financialinstitutions

Background
When Reg Z’s open-end rules were changed in 2009, Securian knew that
a blended approach to multi-featured lending would be permissible. All
that was needed was to provide closed-end disclosures for closed-end
advances. For it to work, however, credit unions would need to be able to
deliver the closed-end disclosures in a timely manner to comply with Reg Z.

So, one of the first steps we took when we created our blended plan
We carefully read Reg Z’s
was to complete the legal research necessary to determine when
definitions of “consummation”
consummation occurs under a blended plan. We carefully read Reg Z’s
and “credit” and analyzed the
definitions of “consummation” and “credit” and analyzed the state court
state court cases regarding
cases regarding when a consumer becomes contractually obligated on
when a consumer becomes
a credit transaction. We determined that consummation occurs under
contractually obligated
a blended plan at the time of the advance, not when the plan is first
on a credit transaction.
established, and have structured our plan documents accordingly. Our
We determined that
clients have been able to build the delivery of the closed-end disclosures
consummation occurs under
seamlessly into their lending procedures.
a blended plan at the time
of the advance, not when
the plan is first established,
and have structured our plan
documents accordingly.

Securian.com/financialinstitutions

The Consumer Lending Plan
The Consumer Lending Plan
document reserves the credit Under Securian’s multi-featured blended plan, the member establishes
union’s right to refuse any the plan by signing the Consumer Lending Plan document. The plan
advance, and the member is document reserves the credit union’s right to refuse any advance, and
not obligated on the terms of the member is not obligated on the terms of the plan until he accepts the
the plan unless and until he advance proceeds. When a member requests a closed-end advance, the
takes an advance. credit union will fully underwrite the advance before approving it. If the
credit union approves the request, the credit union will set the terms of
the loan, and the member may accept the loan or refuse the loan. In other
words, neither party is obligated on any particular advance request until
they agree on the terms of that loan, and the credit union issues, and the
member accepts, the loan proceeds. This is set forth in the language of
the plan documents.

The closed-end Fed Box disclosures are given on our Advance Receipt
document, which is not signed by the member. The Advance Receipt
does not need to be signed in order to “consummate” the closed-end
transaction under a blended plan. We instruct our credit union clients to
provide the closed-end Fed Box disclosures at the time of the advance,
prior to or at the time the funds are disbursed, because that is the point at
which the member becomes obligated on the advance. For example, the
Fed Box can be handed to a member with the proceeds check, or mailed
with the proceeds check, or provided electronically.

Securian.com/financialinstitutions 4

The law
To determine when consummation occurs, one must look to Reg Z, as
well as state contract law as determined by the pertinent court cases.

Reg Z

Under Reg Z, creditors must make the required disclosures “before
consummation of the transaction.” 1 “Consummation” under Reg Z means
Under Reg Z, creditors must “the time that a consumer becomes contractually obligated on a credit
make the required disclosures transaction.”2 The term, “credit” under Reg Z is defined as “the right to
“before consummation of the defer payment of a debt or to incur debt and defer its payment.”3 So, in
transaction.” “Consummation” the case of a multi-featured lending plan, consummation occurs at the
under Reg Z means “the time time the consumer has the right to incur debt and to defer its payment,
that a consumer becomes and becomes legally obligated on that debt (i.e., when the consumer
contractually obligated on a becomes obligated on a loan).
‘credit’ transaction.”
When that obligation occurs is not determined by Reg Z; rather, it’s
determined based on state contract law.4 Reg Z’s Official Commentary states:

1. State law governs. When a contractual obligation on the consumer’s
part is created is a matter to be determined under applicable law;
Regulation Z does not make this determination. A contractual
commitment agreement, for example, that under applicable law
binds the consumer to the credit terms would be consummation.
Consummation, however, does not occur merely because the
consumer has made some financial investment in the transaction
(for example, by paying a nonrefundable fee) unless, of course,
applicable law holds otherwise. 5

1
12 CFR 1026.17(b)
2
12 CFR 1026.2(a)(13)
3
12 CFR 1026.2(a)(14)
4
12 CFR 1026.2(a)(13), Comment 1.
5
Comment 1026.2(a)(13) -1


Reg Z does provide some general guidance and contemplates a two-step
approach similar to that used by Securian’s Consumer Lending Plan:

2. Credit v. sale. Consummation does not occur when the consumer
becomes contractually committed to a sale transaction, unless the
consumer also becomes legally obligated to accept a particular credit
arrangement. For example, when a consumer pays a nonrefundable
deposit to purchase an automobile, a purchase contract may be
created, but consummation for purposes of the regulation does not
occur unless the consumer also contracts for financing at that time.6

This Comment 2 addresses a structure similar to the two-step approach
of the Consumer Lending Plan. First is when the member commits to the
contractual arrangement; the second is when he commits to the terms of
the financing. It is the second step at which the Reg Z disclosures must
be given.

Court cases

We must look to court cases to determine when a credit transaction
has been consummated and, therefore, when the closed-end Fed Box
disclosures must be given. There are many cases across the country which
support the fact that our Consumer Lending Plan does conform to the
Reg Z timing requirements. The essential question is: at what point did
the consumer become obligated on the credit transaction? That is, at
what point did the parties agree to the essential terms of the particular
loan at issue, and when did they commit to providing, or accepting, that
loan? Most court cases address confusion or debate that comes when the
transaction is completed in more than one step.

Vehicle financing cases

For example, vehicle purchases often have a two-part contractual
arrangement: a purchase agreement or delivery sheet outlining the basic
parameters of the sale is signed (e.g., purchase price, description of the
vehicle, etc.), and then the dealer searches for a particular financing
arrangement with set loan terms (e.g., $25,000 at 4.99 percent). If the
consumer is approved for, and accepts, that financing on those terms,

Comment 1026.2(a)(13) -2
6


then the closing takes place. Courts have held in such cases that the credit
transaction did not occur until closing (even though the first agreement
may be a legally binding contract to purchase the vehicle) because the
consumer did not accept, or agree to, the particular terms of credit until
later, when the particular financing arrangement was approved. As such,
the Reg Z disclosure requirements are not triggered until that second
step, when the set terms are agreed upon.

Example:

Liabo v. Wayzata Nissan, LLC, 707 N.W.2d 715 (Minn. Ct. App.
2006) held that a delivery sheet alone did not trigger the disclosure
requirements of TILA because no particular financing had been
agreed upon at that time. In that case, Ms. Liabo went to the
dealership and wanted to buy a vehicle at the dealer’s advertised
promotional rate of 2.9 percent. Once Ms. Liabo picked the vehicle she
wanted, a Delivery Sheet was prepared. The Delivery Sheet set forth
the basic parameters of the purchase, including a $1200 deposit, but
did not set forth the terms of the financing. The Delivery Sheet stated
that it was a binding contract. However, both parties understood
that the financing (rather than the purchase) was contingent on Ms.
Liabo qualifying for the 2.9 percent interest rate. After the Delivery
Sheet was signed, and the deposit paid, Ms. Liabo completed a loan
application. It took the dealer some time to find a lender willing to
provide the loan at 2.9 percent. In the meantime, Ms. Liabo decided
she wanted a more expensive car (which would not qualify for the 2.9
percent rate) and tried to cancel the purchase. The dealer refused to
refund the $1200 deposit, and the lawsuit ensued. Ms. Liabo, among
other things, alleged that the dealer violated Reg Z because the
disclosures were not given at the time the Delivery Sheet was signed.

The Court held that the Reg Z disclosures were not required at the time
the Delivery Sheet was signed. Rather, had the sale continued, the Reg
Z disclosures should have (and would have) been disclosed on the retail
installment contract that the borrower would have received. Relying
on the Reg Z Commentary, the court noted that consummation did not
occur merely because Ms. Liabo became obligated on the purchase


transaction, because at that time she had not become contractually
obligated to accept a particular credit arrangement.7

Securian’s Consumer Lending Plan, and others like it, is directly comparable
to the Liabo situation. When consumers sign the plan document, they
are not becoming contractually obligated to accept a particular credit
arrangement. As such, Reg Z disclosures are not required at that time.
It’s not until later, when a particular advance is requested, approved, and
accepted, that a credit transaction occurs and the disclosures must be given.

Unfunded financing arrangements

Unfunded financing arrangements are contracts in which a consumer is
obligated to accept future funds. Blended plans are not unfunded financing
arrangements. But these cases are instructive because they can be
legally contrasted.

Example:

The case of Gibson v. LTD, Inc., 434 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2006)8
is instructive as well. In that case, the consumer signed retail
financing agreements in order to purchase two trucks. The purchase
agreements, however, conditioned the loan on the dealer’s ability to
secure third-party financing for the loans. The court held that, even
though this condition precedent was set forth in the documents, the
court would not impose such a requirement on the consumer because
that condition was solely within the dealer’s control. The court held
that the consumer, when he signed the documents, could no longer
alter the terms of credit, and therefore he became contractually
obligated on the credit transaction when he signed the documents.
Since the disclosures were not provided prior to that time, the dealer
violated Reg Z.

In so holding, the Court stated, “consummation occurs when a
consumer has done all he can to be committed to the terms of a credit
transaction”. 434 F.3d at 281 (quoting Nigh v. Koons Buick Pontiac
GMC, Inc., 319 F.3d 119 (4th Cir.2003) (reversed in part on other
grounds). The court went on to state:
707 N.W.2d at 723.
7

The Fourth Circuit covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.
8


Applying Nigh, we conclude that when the purchaser of a motor vehicle
signs a retail installment sales contract after which he no longer can alter
the terms of credit and after which the dealer retains the exclusive right
to decide when the financing arrangement takes effect, the transaction is
“consummated” for TILA purposes.

Following this reasoning, under Securian’s Consumer Lending Plan,
consummation occurs at the time of the advance, rather than at the time
the Plan document is signed. Under the terms of the Plan, the consumer
“has done all he can to be committed to the terms of the credit transaction”
and can “no longer alter the terms” at the point in time he accepts the
closed-end advance proceeds. When the member signs the Plan document,
he has not committed to any particular terms of financing or even agreed
to take any particular loan yet. Therefore, disclosures are timely given at the
time of the advance.

A very similar case is Bragg v. Bill Heard Chevrolet, 374 F.3d 1060 (11th
Cir. 2004).9 In that case, the purchase agreement and retail installment
contracts were signed and the vehicle was delivered to the consumer.
However, because of the dealer’s process, financing was not secured
and title did not pass until a later date. The dispute arose as to whether
consummation occurred at the time the documents were signed, or
later at the time the title passed. The court held that it occurred at the
time the documents were signed, because that was the point at which
the consumer became obligated on the transaction. This was because
the conditions of consummating the loan were in the sole control of the
lender. The Court stated:

“We hold that in a financing agreement containing a condition
precedent where the condition of obtaining financing is within the
exclusive control of the seller and third-party lender, consummation
occurs when the consumer signs the contract. 374 F.3d at 1067.”

Cases such as this and Nigh involve “unfunded financing arrangements”,
in which the consumer, when signing the document, gives up the right to
refuse future advances under the contract. Therefore, “consummation”
occurs at the time the document is signed.

The 11th Circuit covers Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
9


Blended plans are not unfunded financing arrangements. Under the terms
of the blended plan contract, the condition consummating the loan is not
“within the exclusive control” of the lender, because the member has not
given up his right to refuse future advances. Therefore a member under
Securian’s Plan does not consummate the closed-end advance until he
accepts the advance proceeds. Up until that point, he has the power to
determine whether he is obligated on that advance.

Mortgage cases

Mortgage cases involving rescission are also instructive because the
cases must determine when consummation occurred for the purpose of
determining whether the rescission notice was timely given.

Example:

Jackson v. Grant, 890 F.2d 118 (C.A. 9 (Cal) 1989)10 was a case in which
the borrower sought to rescind a real estate loan transaction. The
issue became one of consummation in order to determine whether
the rescission notice was timely given. Loan documents were signed
in February giving many of the truth-in-lending disclosures as well as
the contractual terms governing the loan. However, those documents
were executed with a broker, Union Home Loans, and no lender had
been selected yet. The documents clearly stated that Ms. Jackson was
not guaranteed a loan, and the name of the lender was left blank on
the promissory note and the deed of trust. Finally, in April, when no
lender could be found, the broker informed Ms. Jackson that it would
be the lender. The promissory note and deed were then completed
with the broker’s name, and the loan closed in April. A dispute ensued
and Ms. Jackson alleged that the rescission notice should have been
given in February when she signed the documents, rather than April,
when the loan was funded.

The court found that, if an essential element of the contract is
reserved for the future agreement of both parties, there is no legal
obligation created until such an agreement is entered into. The court
stated, “While it is not necessary to decide what, if any, binding
agreement was created by and between Jackson and Union on

The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
10


February 18, one conclusion is inescapable. No one, including Union,
had agreed to extend credit to Jackson as of that date and no loan
transaction was consummated.” In a footnote, the court also noted
that the regulations at 1026.2(a)(14) define “credit’ as “the right to
defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment,” and
that Jackson received no such right in February. The court determined
that the broker made an offer in February, which was not accepted
until April. As such, consummation did not occur until April.

The same can be said of the Consumer Lending Plan. At the time the
plan is signed, an offer to make a loan (or series of loans) is extended by
the credit union. That offer is not accepted, however, until later, when
the consumer requests, and accepts, an advance. Consummation, then,
occurs at that later point.

Other cases follow the same tenant. For example, in re: Vickers, 275 B.R.
401 (Bkrtcy.M.D. Fla., 2001), was a similar rescission case resting on the
issue of when consummation occurred. On February 21, the debtors
signed the note, mortgage, and related closing documents. One of
those documents stated that the documents did not constitute a loan
commitment and that the requested loan was “conditioned” on review
and investigation of all facts and representations including the consumer’s
credit history. The lender then conducted the credit review, approved the
loan, and distributed the funds on March 3. Because the lender had no
obligation to lend money on February 21, the court held, the loan was not
consummated until funds were disbursed on March 3. Like Jackson, the
court determined that the February 21 transaction was an offer to accept
a loan by the debtor, which offer was only accepted by lender when
lender funded the loan on March 3.

This is consistent with Reg Z’s Official Commentary, as well as Securian’s
Consumer Lending Plan. The signing of the Plan initially is not enough to
trigger the disclosure requirements, because no particular credit terms
were agreed upon at that time. As such, while a contract may be signed at
that time, no credit transaction has occurred. It is not until the time of the
advance that a credit transaction occurs and the disclosure requirements


are triggered - because that is when the credit union and the member agree
to make, and accept, a loan on specific and essential agreed-upon terms.

Other cases

There are other court cases that can be contrasted.

Example:

In Murphy v. Empire of America, 746 F.2d 931 (2nd Cir. (NY) 1984)11,
the Murphys applied for a second mortgage with Empire. On
November 15, 1982, Empire, after reviewing the application, issued
to them a commitment letter for a $27,000 loan at a 15½ percent
interest rate, to be secured by a second mortgage on the premises.
The letter provided that upon the Murphy’s execution and return of
the letter before November 24, 1982, together with their payment
of a $715 commitment fee, the commitment letter would constitute
a contract, to be interpreted according to New York law, for a loan
to be closed on or before December 31, 1982. In the event that the
loan is not closed, the Murphys would be liable for any damages
suffered by Empire. The Murphys executed the commitment letter
and returned it with their $715 commitment fee to Empire on or about
November 18, 1982. Eight days later, Empire sent the Notice of Right
to Rescind required by Reg Z. Within the three day rescission period,
the Murphys signed and returned the notice electing NOT to rescind.
However, in December, prior to the funding of the loan, the Murphys
had a change of heart and tried cancelling the loan. The Court
held that the loan commitment constituted consummation of the
transaction, stating:

Under New York law the consumer’s acceptance of a lender’s
commitment offer constitutes a binding contract. For such
a commitment contract to exist it is only necessary that the
borrower and lender concur as to the essential terms of the future
mortgage transaction.

Thus, consummation can occur before the loan is funded if the first set of
documents sets forth terms specific enough to constitute a commitment

11
The Second Circuit covers Connecticut, New York and Vermont.


letter. This is not the case with Securian’s Consumer Lending Plan,
because no loan terms are determined or guaranteed at the time the plan
document is signed, nor does the plan document contain the terms of the
particular advance.

This same rule would apply if a purchase agreement sets forth a promise
to make the loan from a particular lender at set terms and the borrower
signed that document, agreeing to those terms.

Example:

In Graves v. Tru-Link Fence Company, 905 F. Supp 515 (N.D. Illinois
1995), Ms. Graves entered into an agreement to purchase, and finance,
a fence to be constructed around her home. The Proposal signed
by both parties contained the agreement to build the fence and the
financing terms of the agreement. It did not state that the contract
or financing terms were “subject to” the fence company’s approval.
As such, the credit transaction was consummated at the time the
proposal was signed, and Reg Z disclosures should have been given at
that time, rather than when the fence company later attempted to sell
the contract to a finance company.

Clark v. Troy & Nichols, Inc., 864 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1989)12 is also
instructive. In that case, the consumer was attempting to purchase a
home and signed a “Rate & Discount Agreement” prior to the lender
approving the loan. The consumer contended that by signing this
agreement, the lender was obligated to lend, and the consumer was
obligated to borrow, the funds. Therefore, the consumer alleged, the
disclosures should have been given at that time, rather than at closing.
The court disagreed. It noted that the Rate & Discount Agreement
stated that if the loan does not occur by a stated date, the loan is
open and can be re-negotiated, “unless the loan is approved on or
before the 25th day of the agreement.” The loan was not approved by
the 25th day, and the court stated that because of this, the consumer
was not obligated on the transaction when he signed the Rate &
Discount Agreement. Therefore, consummation did not occur at that

12
The Fifth Circuit covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.


time, and the disclosures did not need to be given at that time. Rather,
the disclosures were given timely at closing.

This is consistent with Securian’s blended plan. The member is not
obligated on any given transaction until he accepts the proceeds of that
transaction. Therefore, disclosures are required at the time of the advance,
not at the time the plan document was signed.

Merely establishing the plan does not create a credit transaction;
therefore, Reg Z disclosure requirements are not triggered at that time

As we’ve explained already, the plan document signed by the consumer
sets forth no set loan terms such as loan amount, APR, collateral,
or payment schedule. Moreover, it specifically states that the credit
union can refuse any advance request, and that by accepting, using, or
accessing the advance proceeds, the consumer is agreeing to the terms of
the disclosures and the credit contract. As such, the Plan document is not
a loan commitment and does not have sufficient details to obligate either
party to any particular credit transaction at the time the Plan document is
signed. Thus, the Reg Z disclosures do not need to be given at that time.
Rather, it is not until the time of the advance, when the parties accept the
particular (and essential) terms of a particular loan, that the disclosures
must be given.

Not only is this position justified under the law, but it is readily apparent
by using common sense and logic. When the consumer signs the plan
document, no loan is being agreed upon.13 If there is no loan, there can be
no disclosure requirement. Even if the consumer signs a plan document,
there are no obligations unless and until an advance is requested, approved,
and accepted by the consumer. Therefore, the proper time to provide
disclosures is at the time of the advance, prior to or with disbursement of
the funds.

Blank note cases

It’s been suggested that the Consumer Lending Plan can be likened to the
“blank note cases.” Blank note cases are those cases in which a consumer

Often the first advance under the plan is requested at the same time the plan is established. In such a case, the
13

Advance Receipt with Fed Box is given at the same time the consumer signs the plan document. However, that
occurs because the advance was granted, not because the plan was established.


signs a blank promissory note containing the Fed Box, and the lender fills
in the disclosures later, long after the consumer has accepted the loan
proceeds and began using the collateral. Or, an unscrupulous lender never
fills them in at all.

Example:

In Lacey v. William Chrysler Plymouth, 2004 WL 415972 (N.D. Ill. 2004),
Ms. Lacey went to the dealership on June 8 and was interested in
buying a certain vehicle. The dealership ran her credit report and told
her she did not qualify for that vehicle, but said she could purchase a
less expensive vehicle if she put $750 down. Ms. Lacey did not have the
down payment with her and went home to gather the down payment.
She came back to the dealer that day with a partial down payment.
The dealer at that point had Ms. Lacey sign a blank retail installment
contract and told her they would try to get a monthly payment about
the same as her current payment on her current car. Ms. Lacey left her
current vehicle at the lot as a trade-in and drove the new vehicle home.
About two weeks later, the dealer finally sent Ms. Lacey a completed
retail installment contract, which did not reflect the trade-in. When Ms.
Lacey asked why the trade-in wasn’t a part of the disclosure, a dispute
ensued. Ms. Lacey never made any payments and the dealer eventually
repossessed the vehicle. Ms. Lacy sued for, among other things,
violation of Reg Z for making her sign a blank note and not receiving
the disclosures until after the loan was made.

The court noted that Ms. Lacey clearly did not understand the terms of
the financing agreement because those terms had not been determined,
nor disclosed, at the time of the transaction (in this case, when the
dealer accepted her cash and trade-in, and allowed her to drive the
vehicle home). The Court held that the dealership violated Reg Z.

Such a situation is clearly distinguishable from that of the Consumer
Lending Plan. There is no “blank note” or blank disclosures being signed.
The contract document is signed at the time the plan is established. It
does not contain, and is not meant to contain, any particular terms of
a particular credit transaction. Instead, the contract is signed with the
intention of the parties that if, and when, the consumer requests a loan


advance, the credit union will determine if the consumer qualifies for the
Consummation occurs when
loan. If the consumer qualifies, the terms of the advance (e.g., amount,
the consumer becomes legally
APR, etc.) are agreed upon, the disclosures and advance receipt is
obligated on a loan. A loan
provided, and then the funds are disbursed. The credit union is not filling
occurs when debt is incurred
in or providing the disclosures after disbursement. Nor is the consumer
with the right to defer it.
obligated on the loan unless and until he accepts the proceeds. Such a
situation is clearly distinguishable from a blank note case.

States in which the exact issue of Reg Z timing requirements
have not been addressed

It is commonplace in the law to find that not all fifty states have addressed
a particular issue. When this occurs, state courts will first look to other
states in its district, and then other states outside its district. So, in the
states in which this particular issue has not been addressed, the courts
have plenty of law to follow from the other states.

The state courts will also look to the basic tenants of contract law in
its state to confirm when the consumer becomes obligated on the
transaction. While different states will use different terminology, all states
require the three basic elements of a contract: acceptance, offer, and
consideration. A consumer is not obligated on a transaction until those
three elements are present. Under a blended plan, this occurs at the time
of the advance, not when the plan is first established - at the time of the
advance is when the credit union will offer a particular loan on particular
terms, the member accepts that loan, and consideration (i.e., the loan
proceeds) is paid. Therefore, it is valid to conclude that any court in the
country would find consummation to occur at the time of the advance. If
the Fed Box disclosures are provided at that time, then the credit union
complies with Reg Z and state law.

Legal conclusion

Many different cases across all fifty states can be examined, compared,
contrasted, etc. Such is the nature of state contract law. But the general
contract rules are consistent in the above cases: if, under the terms of the
documents and the circumstances of the case, neither the credit union nor
the consumer has agreed to the essential terms of the advance, and the
member has not accepted the loan proceeds, then the credit transaction


has not been “consummated” and the Reg Z disclosures do not need to be
given. As such, the establishment of the plan by the signing of the contract
does not trigger the Reg Z disclosures. It is a two step-process, and the
disclosure requirement is not triggered until the two parties agree on the
essential terms of a particular advance, and the funds are disbursed by the
credit union and accepted by the consumer. Thus, if a consumer opens a
plan but never takes an advance, there is no loan, no obligation, and no Reg
Z requirements. And if a consumer does take an advance, that is when the
obligation is incurred, and that’s when the disclosures must be given.

Conclusion
Consummation occurs when the consumer becomes legally obligated on a
loan. A loan occurs when debt is incurred with the right to defer it. Under
the various states’ court cases, this occurs when the credit union and the
member agree on the essential terms of the advance and the member
accepts the loan proceeds. This is because it is not until that time that the
member becomes obligated on the advance.

A single-signature multi-featured blended plan is not a closed-end note, not
a loan commitment, and not an unfunded financing arrangement. In those
cases, the member is obligated to accept all funds under the terms of the
contract. By contrast, under a blended plan, the consumer is not obligated to
accept any advance proceeds when he signs the plan document. Rather, he
becomes obligated on a particular advance when he accepts the proceeds of
that advance. Therefore, consummation occurs at the time of advance, and
delivering the closed-end disclosures at that time complies with Reg Z.


About Securian Financial Group, Inc.
Since 1880, Securian Financial Group and its affiliates have provided financial security for individuals and businesses in the form of insurance,
investments and retirement plans. Now one of the nation’s largest financial services providers, it is the holding company parent of a group of
companies that include Minnesota Life Insurance Company.

Securian Financial Group, Inc.
www.securian.com

400 Robert Street North, St. Paul, MN 55101-2098
©2012 Securian Financial Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

F76814-6 9-2012 DOFU 9-2012
A03220-0812

"Consummation" and Timing of Closed-End Disclosures under Securian's Single-Signature Blended Multi-Featured Plan (Whitepaper)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (18)

Destaque

Destaque (19)

Semelhante a "Consummation" and Timing of Closed-End Disclosures under Securian's Single-Signature Blended Multi-Featured Plan (Whitepaper)

Semelhante a "Consummation" and Timing of Closed-End Disclosures under Securian's Single-Signature Blended Multi-Featured Plan (Whitepaper) (20)

Mais de NAFCU Services Corporation

Mais de NAFCU Services Corporation (20)

Último

Último (20)

"Consummation" and Timing of Closed-End Disclosures under Securian's Single-Signature Blended Multi-Featured Plan (Whitepaper)