I haven't kept up on this, but remember reading at the time that they took some of the teeth out of it. After some backlash, I'm pretty sure a regulation or something issued explaining that the law doesn't require you to exclude HHI. It's a little more nuanced than that. The lender has to make a decision regarding ability to repay obligations. If the lender asks for HHI, the lender cannot base its decision as to the applicant's ability to repay solely on the HHI. If they don't ask for HHI, then this isn't triggered. I don't think there is anything that says you can't list HHI. But search around some more to be sure.
Starting Score: ~500 (12/01/2008)
@laz98 wrote:what about 2 people who are for all purposes married, but not legally, on paper, married? seems like they get screwed by this rule too.
Again they'd be stuck with the joint application or co-owner account option. When applying for a new account together, 1 with the "credit power" as the primary, the other as a legally obligated AU in a sense (though it will not report as an AU on the secondary's CR, it should simply report as owned). The primary applicant taking the INQ hit and the secondary getting the same perks (or de-perks) as the primary with no HP. Or asking the issuer their policy of adding a joint owner after the fact to an already up and running account.
One issuer is legally able to partially bypass this new rule due to their uniqueness. That's AMEX, they don't have AU's, a primary can add a card member to an established or new account and it works nearly the same on a report as though the additional card member owned the account. AMEX members have always been "members" so they're grandfathered in with that uniqueness (other cards have tried but since they didn't start out that way, they can't switch). It's also why the backdating feature of AMEX is unique to AMEX.
@quest208 wrote:i guess she doesnt want to be an AU on your cards?
sorry that i dont have an answer to your OP question.
No problem with the AU. I am going to add her to my Amex. The problem with AU is that there is no signup fee 
I have to add in Simon's case, some issuers are now including more than one income source line or at least more sources of income. If the applicant puts 0 they can still claim spousal or HHI in another line which infers financial responsibility of the applicant. I just checked for the Chase Sapphire and the drop down for "source of income" allows "home maker" and "other" in that case I'd expect to call in and explain HHI\spouse.
