Counter offer with Denial sent 12/26, CO expires 1/6 with no response from Borrower = Denial.

The predominant action taken date chosen in these forums appears to be the date of the denial, not the expiration date of the CO.

Using the Denial date poses the problem of possibly having to re-submit the LAR once the CO expires in next reporting year, as shown in my example above.

I guess I want to know how others feel about having to resubmit their LARs for this reason. Which is the better practice - to have two ways of determining the action taken date on denials (straight denial vs. CO denial) to avoid having to resubmit or consistently using the denial date even if it results in the need to resubmit?

Thank you.

I'm not following why resubmitting is an issue here, unless you submit your LAR on January 1st every year. The GIR gives the option for denials of either using the date the action was taken or the date the notice was sent to the applicant, and indicates that you should be generally consistent.

IOW, i don't see the expiration date of the counteroffer as one of your choices. For denials (even with counteroffers), i always report the date on the AAN.

Yeah, I agree. Now, if this same thing happened near the end of March, it could be an interesting delima.

Why would March be any different? You aren't submitting March's stuff til next March.

I think we ran in to a problem because we were offering the CO for 90 days so those sent in December were expiring, in some cases, after the LAR was submitted. So once they expired after March 1st, we had to resubmit because the AAN date was December.

IMO, the action taken date should be the date of the AAN and they should shorten the period the CO is good through to ensure that December COs don't run into March.

They are moving toward changing it to using the CO expiration date and I disagree. I'm guessing that others in this forum have a tighter exp. date on their COs.

Thank you for assistance. Your input will be helpful in formulating my rebuttal in a more succinct way.

Shorting the period to accept the counteroffer seems to be the way to go. We usually just give them about a week to accept. A lot can change in 90 days.

I agree. 90 days is way too long even without the issue. Here's to hoping I can persuade them.

Thank you for your assistance.

From the GIR:

3. Application date—reinstated
application. If, within the same calendar
year, an applicant asks an institution to
reinstate a counteroffer that the applicant
previously did not accept (or asks the
institution to reconsider an application
that was denied, withdrawn, or closed for
incompleteness), the institution may treat
that request as the continuation of the
earlier transaction or as a new transaction.
If the institution treats the request
for reinstatement or reconsideration as a
new transaction, it reports the date of the
request as the application date

I think the part i bolded is key. If the counteroffer continues over to a different reporting year and they accept the counteroffer, you have a new entry. So you'd have the AAN you reported on your previous year's LAR, and an originated loan entry on your current year's LAR.

Regardless, you always have the option to consider the AAN and the subsequent acceptance of a counteroffer as separate applications.

Ahhh...that is a very good point to be made that did not even occur to me!!

Thank you for pointing that out. I will definitely be using that to debate my case.

To speak to your 90 day CO period, do you have anything like DU or cbr that will expire prior to 90th day? Or worse yet, appraisal? I'd be backing the CO up from that and including time to process and close the loan. I'm with the 1-2 week max camp on length of time to accept CO.

Nothing that expires prior to 90 days. Originators were complaining about the files being closed out too soon, so I think they chose the 90 days to appease them. IMO, 90 days is just way too long to have a file "hanging out".

Thank you. I will be making the recommendation.

DUH! LOL!