On May 19, NYDFS Superintendent Lawsky delivered remarks at the Mortgage Bankers Association’s National Secondary Market Conference & Expo regarding New York’s “broken judicial foreclosure process.” Noting that the state’s average of over 900 days from the date of filing to sale is more than a year longer than the national average, Lawsky stated that the “current system hurts virtually everyone involved in the foreclosure process,” including municipalities, lenders and mortgage investors, the courts and, most importantly, homeowners and their families. In a report issued the same day, NYDFS details the causes of the problems. In response, Lawsky proposed a number of legislative reforms intended to facilitate the “twin goals of protecting homeowners from foreclosure abuses and encouraging the efficient return of foreclosed properties to the market.” Lawsky emphasized that, “contrary to popular belief, these goals are not mutually exclusive. The key to achieving both is having a sound and timely judicial foreclosure process that is fair to both homeowners and the mortgage industry.” The specific reforms include proposals to modify the mandatory settlement conferences that cause much delay early in the litigation process, to improve disclosures to homeowners regarding their rights and obligations, and to expedite the foreclosure process for vacant and abandoned “zombie homes.”
On May 20, the FHFA announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac released updates to their operational and financial eligibility requirements for single-family mortgage Seller/Servicers. Because of changes in the servicing industry, the FHFA directed Fannie and Freddie to update their Seller/Servicer standards to “help ensure the safe and sound operation of the Enterprises and provide greater transparency, clarity and consistency to industry participants and other stakeholders and reflect feedback received over the past several months.” Fannie Mae’s revised operational standards will take effect by September 1, 2015, and Servicers must implement the financial eligibility changes by December 31, 2015. Operational standards for Freddie Mac Servicers will take effect August 18, 2015; financial eligibility revisions must be in place by December 31, 2015.
On May 26, The CFPB and the Federal Reserve will host a 60-minute webinar to answer questions with respect to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule under the TILA and RESPA, also known as TRID. “This fifth and final in the planned series of webinars will address specific questions related to rule interpretation and implementation challenges that have been raised to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by creditors, mortgage brokers, settlement agents, software developers, and other stakeholders,” according to the Federal Reserve. For those interested in attending, registration is required and can be accessed here.
On May 12, CFPB Director Richard Cordray addressed the National Association of Realtors regarding the 2008-2009 economic crash and the gradual recovery of the American housing market. In an effort to restore consumers’ confidence in the mortgage market, the Bureau implemented rules, such as the Ability-to-Repay rule and the Qualified Mortgage rule, to ensure that lenders were offering consumers mortgages they could afford. Effective August 1, the Bureau’s “Know Before You Owe” rule will replace the current separate disclosures required by TILA and RESPA with combined TILA-RESPA disclosures (“TRID”); the new forms are “consumer-tested to be more user-friendly, which will ease the process and improve the consumer experience.”. In his remarks, Cordray did not signal that the TRID effective date or enforcement of the same would by delayed by the Bureau.
On May 11, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2015-02, reminding creditors to include income from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Homeownership Program when underwriting mortgage loans. Within the Bulletin, the Bureau noted that it “has become aware of one or more institutions excluding or refusing to consider income derived from the Section 8 HCV Homeownership Program during mortgage loan application and underwriting processes,” further mentioning that “some institutions have restricted the use of Section 8 HCV Homeownership Program vouchers to only certain home mortgage loan products or delivery channels.” The Bulletin warns that disparate treatment prohibited under ECOA and Reg. B may exist when a creditor does not consider Section 8 as a source of income and provides guidance on how lenders can mitigate their fair lending risk. In conjunction with the guidance, the CFPB also published a blog post, providing an overview of the Section 8 HCV Program and detailed how consumers can submit complaints if they believe they have been discriminated against.
On May 21, the FDIC’s Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection is scheduled to host a teleconference that will focus on the implementation of the new mortgage rules issued by the CFPB in 2013. According to the FDIC, officials from the banking regulator will discuss findings and highlight best practices that its examiners have noted during initial examinations in the first year since the rules became effective in 2014. Registration is required, and will begin at 2:00 p.m. EST.
On May 8, FHFA Director Mel Watt spoke at the 22nd Annual Economic Summit, focusing on the agency’s conservatorship activities with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). Most significantly, Director Watt announced that the agency is extending the GSEs’ participation in HAMP and HARP until the end of 2016. Since their 2009 inception, the two programs have relieved many borrowers of high monthly payments. HARP, allowing borrowers who regularly make their mortgage payments to refinance their loans and take advantage of low income rates, and HAMP, providing significant payment reductions tied to borrowers’ income, have prevented a number of foreclosures. Since HARP and HAMP were never intended to be permanent programs, this will be FHFA’s final extension of the GSEs’ participation. Looking forward, the agency plans to “consider how best to build on the lessons of HAMP for 2017 and beyond,” exploring possible streamlined modifications and refinance solutions for borrowers.
National Non-Profit Fair Housing Organization Files Complaint Against Fannie Mae Alleging Racial Discrimination
On May 12, 2015, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and 19 local fair housing organizations (collectively, the “Complainants”) filed a fair housing discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development against Fannie Mae alleging a pattern of maintaining and marketing its foreclosed houses in white areas better than in minority areas. The complaint is the result of a five year investigation where investigators visited and documented the conditions of the foreclosed properties that Fannie Mae owns in 34 metro areas. In each of the investigated metropolitan areas, the Complainants allege that Fannie Mae engaged in the practice of maintaining and marketing its REO properties in a state of disrepair in communities of color while maintaining and marketing REO properties in predominantly White communities in a materially better condition. Fannie Mae REO properties in White communities were far more likely to have a small number of maintenance deficiencies or problems than REO properties in communities of color, while REO properties in communities of color were far more likely to have large numbers of such deficiencies or problems compared to those in White communities. As a result, the Complainants allege that Fannie Mae violated the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, including but not limited to 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a)-(d). The housing advocacy groups are calling for Fannie Mae to clean up the neglected properties and spend “millions” of dollars on grants or other compensation for those trying to buy foreclosed houses and people living in communities affected by them.
Southern District of New York Denies Class Certification in Fair Lending Suit Against Global Investment Bank
On May 14, the District Court for the Southern District of New York denied class certification status in a fair lending suit brought by the ACLU and NCLC against a global investment bank. Adkins v. Morgan Stanley, No. 12-CV-7667 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2015). The Plaintiffs had alleged that the bank, as a significant purchaser of subprime residential mortgage loans, had caused a disparate impact on African-American borrowers in Detroit in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. In an exhaustive 50-page opinion, the court denied class certification on multiple grounds, including the variation in loan types and the role of broker discretion. BuckleySandler anticipates the ruling will be widely cited in future fair lending class actions.
CFPB Updates Mortgage Origination Examination Procedures to Include Requirements of TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule
On May 4, the CFPB updated its Supervision and Examination Manual’s Mortgage Origination examination procedures to include guidance on how its compliance examiners will examine loan disclosures and terms of closed-end residential mortgage loans that are subject to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rule. The TRID examination procedures updates are reflected in module 4 of the Manual’s 8 modules, and instruct compliance examiners to review a sample of complete loan files to determine a company’s compliance. Further, if consumer complaints exist concerning the mortgage origination and closing disclosure requirements, then compliance examiners are permitted to interview the consumers included in the sample and inquire about each subject area listed in the module. The TRID rule is scheduled to go into effect August 1, 2015.
On April 27, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that three working groups of state regulators – the State Coordinating Committee (SCC), the Multi-State Mortgage Committee (MMC), and the Multi-State MSB Examination Task Force (MMET) – issued annual reports to state regulators regarding their 2014 operations and progress. Responsible for information sharing and examination work with the CFPB, the SSC report outlines the two agencies’ 9 joint examinations. The MMC – established as the “oversight body for multi-state mortgage supervision” in 2008 – is responsible for coordinated, multi-state mortgage exams, and its report covers the 6 joint mortgage examinations conducted with the CFPB in 2014. Finally, the MMET supervises the money services businesses; its report highlights 57 examinations conducted jointly with the CFPB in 2014.
On April 30, the FHA announced revisions to its Single Family Housing Policy HandBook (HandBook) and extended the effective date for various policies contained within from June 15 to September 14, 2015. The policy topics affected include, (i) the annual mortgage insurance premium reductions, (ii) the maximum mortgage limits 2015, (iii) the electronic appraisal delivery portal, and (iv) the refinance of borrowers in negative equity positions program.
On April 21, the CFPB and the FTC announced a joint enforcement action against a national mortgage servicing company, ordering the company to pay roughly $63 million in relief and penalties for allegedly mishandling home loans for borrowers who were trying to avoid foreclosure. Both regulators allege that from 2010 to 2014, the servicing company failed to honor modifications made to loans it acquired from other firms. According to the complaint, the company allegedly insisted that homeowners make the higher monthly payments and also make payments before providing loss mitigation options. Moreover, the CFPB and FTC claim the company illegally harassed borrowers who fell behind, made false threats, and revealed debts to the borrowers’ employers. The servicing company will pay $48 million in relief to eligible homeowners and a $15 million civil money penalty to the CFPB.
On April 17, the FHFA announced that Fannie and Freddie have revised the requirements for private mortgage insurance companies insuring mortgage loans that Fannie and Freddie either own or guarantee. By setting financial and operational standards for the mortgage insurers seeking approval with Fannie and Freddie, the new requirements are designed to reduce risk to the GSEs. The new requirements are effective immediately for new applicants and will become effective December 31, 2015 for existing insurers already approved by Fannie and Freddie.
U.S. Files Complaint Against Leading Non-Bank Mortgage Lender For Alleged Improper Underwriting Practices on FHA-Insured Loans After Lender Files Suit Against U.S. Alleging Arbitrary and Capricious Investigation Practices
On April 17, Quicken Loans filed a preemptive lawsuit against the DOJ and HUD in the Eastern District of Michigan against HUD, the HUD-IG, and DOJ, asserting that it “appears to be one of the targets (due to its large size) of a political agenda under which the DOJ is “investigating” and pressuring large, high-profile lenders into paying nine- and ten-figure sums and publicly ‘admitting’ wrongdoing, including conceding that the lenders had made ‘false claims’ and violated the False Claims Act.” Specifically, the complaint alleged that HUD, the HUD-IG, and DOJ retroactively changed the process for evaluating FHA loans, from an individual assessment of a loan’s compliance, taking into account a borrower’s individual situation, the unique nature of each property, and the specific underwriting guidelines in effect, to a sampling method which extrapolates any defects found in a small subset of loans across the entire loan population, contrary to HUD’s prior guidance and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The complaint further alleged that the sampling method used by the government was flawed, and asked for declaratory and injunctive relief against the government’s use of sampling. Quicken also asked the court to rule that the FHA loans it made between 2007-2011 in fact were “originated properly in accordance with the applicable FHA guidelines and program requirements, and pose no undue risk to the FHA insurance fund,” asserting that “HUD reviewed a number of these loans and, except in a few rare instances, either concluded the loans met all FHA guidelines or that any issues were immaterial or had been cured.” Read more…