Is there ever a situation where the right of rescission would apply to someone who does not yet occupy the property used as collateral on the loan?

I understand that a dwelling is considered the primary residence if the borrower intends to live in it within one year. But this doesn't make it covered by rescission unless the loan to buy or construct that new dwelling is also secured by the borrower's current primary residence.

Thanks

Not sure what type of transaction you have but the following is from the OSC to 226.23:

3. Principal dwelling. A consumer can only have one principal dwelling at a time. (But see comment 23(a)(1)-4.) A vacation or other second home would not be a principal dwelling. A transaction secured by a second home (such as a vacation home) that is not currently being used as the consumer's principal dwelling is not rescindable, even if the consumer intends to reside there in the future.
. . .

We don't have a specific loan. The reference appeared in a loan policy that I'm reviewing. It didn't make sense to me, but before I recommend that we take it out of the policy I want to make sure I'm not missing something.

The only thing I can think of is a bridge loan. If I'm buying/building a new home and secure the loan by my current principal dwelling, RofR applies.

That's all I could think of too. While the purpose of the loan involves a property that the borrower intends to occupy in the future, it is also secured by the borrower's current primary residence.

Based on the feedback from both of you it looks like I'll recommend taking the reference out of the policy.

Thanks.