California DBO Publishes Report on Lender and Servicer Data

On July 11, the California Department of Business and Oversight (DBO) published its 2015 Annual Report: Operation of Lenders and Servicers under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act, which compiles consolidated data from unaudited annual reports filed by mortgage lenders and servicers licensed under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. Notably, the report identifies a significant increase in the number and aggregate principal amount of mortgage loans that were originated by such licensees in 2015 as compared to 2014 (an increase of 47.3 percent and 56.7 percent, respectively). Additionally, among other things, the aggregate principal amount of mortgage loans serviced by such licensees increased each month in 2015 compared to 2014 (by 7.4 percent), while the number of foreclosures reported by such licensees somewhat decreased in 2015 compared to 2014 (by 3.6 percent).

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

CFPB’s Summer Edition of Supervisory Highlights Discloses Issues across Various Financial Markets

On June 30, the CFPB released its twelfth edition of Supervisory Highlights providing supervisory observations from its examiners in the areas of auto origination, debt collection, mortgage origination, small-dollar lending, and fair lending. In the area of auto origination, examiners determined that one or more institutions engaged in deceptive advertising practices related to the benefits of gap coverage products and the effects of payment deferrals, and failed to implement adequate compliance management systems. In the area of debt collection, examiners found that debt sellers sold thousands of debts that were unsuitable for sale because: (i) the accounts were in bankruptcy; (ii) the debts were the product of fraud; or (iii) the accounts had been paid in full. CFPB examiners further observed violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), determining that at least one collector falsely represented to consumers that a down payment was necessary in order to establish a repayment arrangement, when no such down payment was required by the collectors’ policies and procedures. For mortgage origination, CFPB examiners focused on compliance with provisions of CFPB’s Title XIV rules, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as implemented by Regulation Z, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), as implemented by Regulation X, disclosure provisions, and other applicable consumer financial laws. Read more…

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

The CFPB’s Mortgage Originations Agenda in 2016

John Kromer captionMichelle Rogers captionBen-Olson-captionNow more than ever, financial services firms need to proactively focus on issues of concern identified by the CFPB and ensure that they are engaged in industry best practices that are clearly identified and carefully monitored. In the mortgage originations sphere, the new TRID/ KBYO rule, MSAs, LO compensation, UDAAP, and fair lending are all issues for companies to focus on in the coming year.

TRID/KBYO

Compliance with the new TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure/Know Before You Owe (TRID/KBYO) rule will likely be an area of Bureau concern in 2016. The rule took effect on October 3, 2015 and does not include a “hold harmless” period for errors as lenders implement the new disclosure requirements, although letters from the OCC, FDIC, and CFPB have clarified that regulators will focus in the beginning on institutions’ implementation plans, training, and handling of early technical problems. It is likely that the CFPB will require remediation back to the rule’s compliance date when it identifies tangible consumer harm, but it is unlikely that the Bureau will bring enforcement actions initially based on technical issues where there is no tangible consumer harm.

GSEs have also issued letters stating they will not perform TRID/KBYO compliance file reviews at the beginning of the implementation period. The GSEs further stated that it will not exercise its repurchase and other remedies unless (1) a required form is not used or (2) a practice would impair its enforcement of its rights against borrowers.  In contrast, the FHA has stated that it expects lenders to comply with “all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and requirements applicable to the mortgage transaction as outlined in [the] FHA Handbook….” Read more…

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

FHA Loan Limits for Forward Mortgages to Increase in 2016

On December 9, FHA announced new maximum loan limits for forward mortgages for 2016 in 188 counties due to changes in housing prices. The new loan limits for forward mortgages are effective for case numbers assigned on or after January 1, 2016 through the end of the year. FHA noted that no areas saw a decrease in the maximum loan limits for forward mortgages and that, as detailed in Mortgagee Letter 2015-30, the national standard loan limits for low cost and high cost areas remain unchanged at $271,050 and $625,500, respectively.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Mortgage Company Resolves DOJ Allegations of False Claims Act Violations

On December 2, a Tennessee mortgage company agreed to pay the United States $70 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act. According to the DOJ, the company, acting as a direct endorsement lender, knowingly originated and accepted FHA-insured mortgage loans that did not meet applicable HUD underwriting and quality control requirements. As part of the settlement agreement, the company admitted to engaging in the following conduct between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2012: (i) employing unqualified junior underwriters to complete important underwriting tasks; (ii) setting high quotas for underwriters and disciplining them if the quotas were not met; and (iii) offering underwriters bonuses based in part on the number of loan files reviewed as incentive to increase loan production. Even though deficiencies in the loan underwriting process were identified in post-close audits, the company did not make any self-reports until 2009 and, even then, “[v]ery few of these self-reported loans were reported for containing serious underwriting deficiencies.” As a result of the company’s conduct, the FHA insured loans that were not eligible, purportedly suffering “substantial losses when it later paid insurance claims on those loans.”

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share