A lot of this is generally correct, but he basically treats the mortgage agreement as unrelated to the application. Assuming that the docs were properly prepared (an open question) this isn't reasonable - the docs should reflect the terms of the mortgage that was obtained

Thanks!

One thing he misses is that the occupancy clause being there doesn't tell us enough, because a second home transaction would have the same language but also have a rider that modified the standard form

I think where his separation of the two makes most sense is if the docs weren't prepared properly and there isn't a rider even though she applied for a second mortgage. In that case it could be argued she technically defaulted, but default isn't fraud