FHA MMI Fund Shows Gains in Fiscal 2016

On November 15, HUD released its 2016 Annual Report to Congress Regarding the Financial Status of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance (MMI) Fund (the MMI Report). The MMI Report reflected the Fund’s improved financial condition for the fourth year in a row amid rising home prices, fewer defaults and a surge of new borrowers. The capital cushion of the Fund grew to 2.32 percent in fiscal 2016, up from 2.07 percent. It was only the second year since 2008 that the capital ratio, a proxy for the fund’s health, exceeded the 2 percent minimum required by law. The net worth of the Fund, which stands behind $1 trillion in U.S. home loans and serves as a sort of savings account to pay lender claims if borrowers default, grew by $3.8 billion to $27.6 billion.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
COMMENTS: Comments Off
TAGS: ,
POSTED IN: Insurance, Miscellany, Mortgages

Proposed Rule Issued to Stimulate Robust Marketplace for Private Flood Insurance

On October 20, the FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve, Farm Credit Administration, and National Credit Union Administration issued a proposed rule intended to develop further the private flood insurance marketplace by implementing certain provisions of the 2012 Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act (Biggert-Waters Act). Notably, the proposed rule would “require regulated lending institutions to accept policies that meet the statutory definition of private flood insurance in the Biggert-Waters Act and permit regulated lending institutions to accept flood insurance provided by private insurers that does not meet the statutory definition of ‘private flood insurance’ on a discretionary basis, subject to certain restrictions.” Comments on the proposal are due 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Special Alert: D.C. Circuit Panel Rejects CFPB’s RESPA Interpretation and Alters its Structure in PHH Corp. v. CFPB

On October 11, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion vacating a $109 million penalty imposed on PHH Corporation under the anti-kickback provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), concluding that the CFPB misinterpreted the statute and violated due process by reversing the interpretation of the prior regulator and applying its own interpretation retroactively. Furthermore, the panel rejected the CFPB’s contention that no statute of limitations applied to its administrative actions and concluded that RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations applied to any actions brought under RESPA.

In addition, a majority of the panel held that the CFPB’s status as an independent agency headed by a single Director violates the separation of powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. However, rather than shutting down the CFPB and voiding all of its regulations and prior actions, the majority chose to remedy the defect by making the CFPB’s Director subject to removal at will by the President. In effect, this makes the CFPB an executive agency (like the Department of the Treasury) rather than, as envisioned by the Dodd-Frank Act, an independent agency (like the Federal Trade Commission). (One member of the panel, Judge Henderson, dissented from this portion of the opinion on the grounds that it was not necessary to reach the constitutional issue because the panel was already reversing the CFPB’s interpretation of RESPA.)

The panel remanded the case to the CFPB to determine whether, within the three-year statute of limitations, the payments to PHH’s affiliate exceeded the fair market value of the services provided in violation of RESPA. The CFPB is expected to petition for en banc reconsideration by the full D.C. Circuit or to seek direct review by the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, final resolution of this matter may be delayed by a year or more.

Click here to read the full Special Alert.

* * *

Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

FinCEN Expands Reach of Real Estate Geographical Targeting Orders

On July 27, FinCEN issued temporary Geographical Targeting Orders (GTO) requiring certain U.S. title insurance companies to identify and report the natural persons behind shell companies used to conduct “all-cash” purchases of high-end real estate in six major metropolitan areas. The GTOs cover the following areas: (i) all boroughs of New York City; (ii) Miami-Date, Broward and Palm Beach Counties in South Florida; (iii) Los Angeles County; (iv) San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; (v) San Diego Country; and (vi) Bexar County, Texas, which includes San Antonio. FinCEN simultaneously released a table outlining the monetary thresholds that trigger the identification and reporting requirements in each jurisdiction. Upon taking effect, the GTOs will remain effective for 180 days absent an extension. As previously covered in InfoBytes, FinCEN remains concerned that all-cash purchases conducted through LLCs or other “opaque structures,” may be conducted by natural persons trying to hide their assets and identity. According to FinCEN’s Acting Director Jamal El-Hindi, “[b]y expanding the GTOs to other major cities, we will learn even more about the money laundering risks in the national real estate markets, helping us determine our future regulatory course.”

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Treasury Adopts Methodology for Monitoring the Affordability of Auto Insurance

On July 13, the Treasury Department announced that the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) adopted a methodology for monitoring the affordability of auto insurance. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FIO is authorized to monitor the extent to which affordable personal automobile insurance is made available to traditionally underserved communities and consumers, minorities, and low- and moderate-income (LMI) persons. Pursuant to the new methodology, FIO will calculate affordability by using an affordability index that divides the average annual personal automobile liability premium by the median household income for identified majority-minority or majority-LMI ZIP codes. If the Affordability Index does not exceed to 2%, then FIO will consider personal automobile liability insurance affordable. Finally, to monitor the availability of auto insurance, FIO will obtain and analyze aggregated premium data in addition to using publicly available data through the U.S. Census Bureau.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share