On January 29, the CFPB announced a proposed rule that would provide regulatory relief to more small lenders. Among other things, the proposed rule would (i) increase the loan origination limit to qualify for “small creditor” status from 500 loans to 2,000 loans annually; (ii) include certain mortgage affiliates in the calculation of small-creditor status; (iii) expand the definition of “rural” to include census blocks that are not in an urban area; and (iv) extend the transition period in which small lenders can make QMs with balloon payments, regardless of location, to April 1, 2016. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 30.
On February 3, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC), a regional fair housing non-profit organization based in New York City, filed a complaint alleging that a large bank discriminated in its mortgage lending practices on the basis of race and national origin. According to the complaint, the organization hired nine “testers” of various racial backgrounds to inquire about obtaining a mortgage for first-time homebuyers. Specifically, the complaint claims that the bank’s loan officers (i) used neighborhood racial demographics to steer minority testers to racially segregated neighborhoods and (ii) offered different loan terms and conditions based on race or national origin. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief to ensure compliance with fair housing and fair lending laws. FHJC et al v. M&T Bank Corp., No-15-cv-779 (S.D. NY. Feb. 3, 2014).
On January 19, the New York Attorney General (AG) announced an agreement with a New York-based community bank that the AG alleged had excluded predominantly minority neighborhoods from its mortgage lending business. As part of the agreement, the bank will (i) open two branches in neighborhoods with a minority population of at least 30 percent, with the first located within two miles of a majority-minority neighborhood and the second located within one mile of a majority-minority neighborhood; (ii) create a special financing program to provide $500,000 in discounts or subsidies on loans to residents of majority-minority neighborhoods; and (iii) create a marketing program directed at minority communities. Additionally, the bank agreed to submit to reporting and monitoring by the AG for a three-year period and pay $150,000 in costs to the State of New York.
Tenth Circuit Reverses District Court Ruling, Allows Credit Union To Pursue Lawsuit Against Mortgage Lender For Misappropriating Loan Funds
Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed a district ruling allowing a Texas-based credit union to sue against a mortgage lender. In 2003, the credit union’s predecessor in interest entered into a funding service agreement with the mortgage lender which originated 26 mortgage loans to individual borrowers. The credit union alleged that the mortgage lender and its closing agents wrongfully induced the predecessor to fund loans to “straw borrowers” as a vehicle to misappropriate $14 million in loan proceeds. In 2007, the credit union and its predecessor in interest entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA). According to the Court, when two parties to a contract agree to its terms, as pursuant to the PAA, a third party cannot object. Further, the Court noted that, because of the PAA, the credit union had all rights to pursue claims on behalf of the predecessor in interest. A district court had previously ruled that the credit union was not a proper plaintiff and dismissed the case. The dismissal was reversed. Security Service FCU v. First American Mortgage Funding, LLC, No. 13-1133 (10th Cir. Nov. 4, 2014).
On November 13, the CFPB ordered a residential mortgage lender to pay $730,000 for violating the Loan Originator Compensation Rule. According to the complaint filed by the CFPB, from June 2011 to October 2013, the mortgage lender paid quarterly bonus payments totaling $730,000 to 32 loan officers based in part on the interest rates of the originated loan. The rule, which has been enforced by the CFPB since July 2011, prohibits mortgage lenders from paying loan officers based on loan terms such as interest rates. As part of the consent order, the mortgage lender agreed to end its current compensation practice and pay $730,000 to affected consumers. The CFPB did not seek a civil penalty.
On October 28, 2014, BuckleySandler presented the webinar “Discussing The New CFPB Mortgage Origination Rules Deskbook.” Author Joe Reilly and contributors Joseph Kolar and Ben Olson discussed the need for the book and highlighted information from specific chapters. The webinar was moderated by Jeffrey Naimon. This webinar recap covers the highlights from their discussion. For more information about the CFPB Deskbook, including information on obtaining hard copies, email CFPBDeskbook@buckleysandler.com.
The purpose of the CFPB Deskbook is simple – consolidate in a clear, organized format, material from all of the many sources of regulatory guidance on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) mortgage origination rules. Reilly described the CFPB rulemaking, done in such a short period of time, as “herculean.” However, this short time frame created a major need for clarifications, leading to the development of numerous non-rule sources.
“The number of sources [actual rules, preamble language, CFPB webinars, CFPB Small Entity Compliance Guides and more] cried out for a one-stop shop and that’s what I tried to create,” said Reilly.
Olson, former Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Regulations at the CFPB, helped write many of the rules discussed in the CFPB Deskbook and finds a great deal of valuable in the book.
“You always wish after you publish a rule that you had said more,” said Olson. “The Bureau has tried to answer some of those questions, but answers can be hard to find. If the Bureau says something about it, it’s in the Deskbook.” Read more…
BuckleySandler is pleased to announce the availability of “The New CFPB Mortgage Origination Rules Deskbook,” by partner Joseph Reilly. The CFPB Deskbook, published in partnership with the American Bankers Association, is an all-inclusive compilation of all the mortgage origination rules made by effective by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in January 2014, including:
- Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage requirements
- Points and Fees
- Loan Originator Compensation
- High-Cost Mortgages
- Qualified Mortgage Provisions for Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Affairs loans
- Summary of the TILA-RESPA disclosure integration taking effect in 2015
“Our goal was to consolidate the numerous sources of CFPB regulatory guidance into a clear, organized format,” said Reilly. “We wanted to provide comprehensive descriptions from not just the rule text and official commentary but also from CFPB webinars, compliance guides, preamble material from federal register releases and informal compliance discussions with CFPB staff. We hope this will be a ‘one-stop shop’ for origination compliance.”
Benjamin K. Olson, BuckleySandler partner and former Deputy Assistant Director in the CFPB’s Office of Regulations who was involved in the development of many of the rules covered by the CFPB Deskbook, describes it as “an invaluable resource with the potential to change the way regulations are understood.”
The CFPB Deskbook is available in PDF and hard copy formats. Requests for copies should be sent to CFPBDeskbook@buckleysandler.com.
On August 21, the CFPB announced the companies that have been selected to participate in its residential mortgage eClosing pilot program. The program is intended to explore how the increased use of technology during the mortgage closing process may affect consumer understanding and engagement and save time and money for consumers, lenders, and other market participants. Specifically, the program seeks to aid the CFPB in better understanding the role that eClosings can play in addressing consumers’ “pain points” in the closing process, as identified by the CFPB in an April 2014 report. The three-month pilot program will begin later this year, and the participants include both technology vendors that provide eClosing solutions and creditors that have contracted to close loans using those solutions.
Unofficial Transcripts of the ABA Briefing/Webcast “Mortgage Q&A with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”
To address outstanding questions regarding the new mortgage rules that took effect in January 2014, CFPB staff provided non-binding, informal guidance in a webinar hosted by the American Bankers Association (ABA). Specifically, CFPB staff answered questions regarding the mortgage origination rules and the mortgage servicing rules on April 22, 2014.
With the ABA’s consent, BuckleySandler has prepared a transcript of the webinar that incorporates the ABA’s slides. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinions, interpretations, or advice by BuckleySandler. The transcript was prepared from the audio recording arranged by the ABA and may have minor inaccuracies due to sound quality. In addition, the transcripts have not been reviewed by the CFPB or the ABA for accuracy or completeness.
Questions regarding the matters discussed in the webinar or the rules themselves may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Joseph J. Reilly, (202) 349-7965
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
- Benjamin K. Olson, (202) 349-7924
- Shara M. Chang, (202) 349-8096
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk, (310) 424-3917
On August 6, the Structured Finance Industry Group released the first edition of a “comprehensive set of proposed industry standards” to promote growth in the private label RMBS market. The SFIG explains that the project “seeks to reduce substantive differences within current market practices through an open discussion among a broad cross-section of market participants,” and, where possible establish best practices related to: (i) representations and warranties, repurchase governance, and other enforcement mechanisms; (ii) due diligence, disclosure, and data issues; and (iii) roles and responsibilities of transaction parties and their communications with investors. The paper is the first in an iterative process, and touches on only a few of the items identified in a sprawling master agenda. With regard to representations and warranties, the paper discusses fraud, regulatory compliance, and objective independent review triggers. For due diligence, data and disclosure, the paper considers underwriting guidelines disclosure and due diligence extract to investors. Finally, the paper addresses the role of transaction parties and bondholder communication.
On July 23, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed HB 3783, which prohibits creditors from requiring borrowers or owners to purchase flood insurance on the property: (i) at a coverage amount that exceeds the outstanding mortgage thereon; (ii) that includes coverage for contents; or (iii) that includes a deductible less than $5,000. Borrowers and owners will still have the option of purchasing a greater amount of insurance. The law provides that, in each instance flood insurance is required, the creditor must provide notice explaining that insurance coverage will only protect the creditor or lender’s interest in the property, and may not be sufficient to pay for repairs or property loss after a flood. The changes took effect immediately.
Fannie Mae Updates Fraud Notice Requirements, Policies Regarding Significant Derogatory Credit Events, Other Selling Topics
On July 29, Fannie Mae issued Selling Guide Announcement SEL-2014-10, which includes updates and clarifications regarding numerous selling topics. The announcement states that the long-standing requirement that a lender must notify Fannie Mae immediately if it learns of any misrepresentation, breach of selling warranty, or fraud is being updated to clarify Fannie Mae’s expectation that the lender perform due diligence to establish a reasonable belief that a misrepresentation, breach of selling warranty, or fraud may have occurred prior to making the self-report to Fannie Mae. Several other changes in the announcement relate to significant derogatory credit events, and many of them were previously announced in the Desktop Originator/Underwriter Release Notes. These changes relate to, among other things, waiting periods related to: (i) mortgage debt discharged through bankruptcy; (ii) a preforclosure sale or deed-in-lieu of a foreclosure; and (iii) charge off accounts. In addition, the announcement (i) provides a table of policy updates and clarifications regarding lender quality control processes; (ii) describes changes to the MBS buyup and buydown ratio grids; and (iii) updates property insurance requirements for condos, co-ops, and PUDs.
On July 24, the CFPB issued a proposed rule to expand the scope of HMDA data reporting requirements. Section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred responsibility for HMDA and Regulation C to the CFPB and directed the CFPB to conduct a rulemaking to expand the collection of mortgage origination data to include, among other things: (i) the length of the loan; (ii) total points and fees; (iii) the length of any teaser or introductory interest rates; (iv) the applicant or borrower’s age and credit score; and (v) the channel through which the application was made. The Dodd-Frank Act also granted the CFPB discretion to collect additional information as it sees fit. The proposed rule would implement all of the new data points required by the Dodd-Frank Act, and also would utilize the CFPB’s discretionary authority to substantially expand the number of new data points required to be reported. In addition, the CFPB’s proposal would require reporting for all dwelling-secured loans, which would include some loans not currently covered by Regulation C, including reverse mortgages, and all home equity lines of credit irrespective of their purpose. The proposal follows a review initiated by the CFPB earlier this year to assess of the potential impacts of a HMDA rulemaking on small businesses. The CFPB released a summary of that review with the proposed rule. Comments on the proposal are due by October 22, 2014. We are reviewing the proposed rule and plan to provide a more detailed summary in the coming days.
Maryland’s High Court Holds Suits Under Finder’s Fee Law Subject To Three-Year Statute Of Limitations
On July 21, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state’s highest court, held in responding to a question certified by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland that alleged violations of Maryland’s Finder’s Fee Act are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. NVR Mortg. Fin. v. Carlsen, Misc. No. 11, 2014 WL 3565472 (Md. Jul. 21, 2014). In this case, a borrower sued a mortgage broker on behalf of a putative class alleging the broker violated the state’s Finder’s Fee Act by failing to make certain disclosures before collecting finder’s fees for brokering mortgages. The borrower filed suit more than three years after the alleged failure to disclose, but asserted that an alleged violation of the Finder’s Fee Act is an “other specialty” under Maryland state law and as such is subject to a 12-year state of limitations. Under state law an alleged violation of a statute is an “other specialty” only if, in relevant part, the duty, obligation, prohibition, or right sought to be enforced is created or imposed solely by the statute, or a related statute, and does not otherwise exist as a matter of common law. The court rejected the borrower’s claim that the Finder’s Fee Act created a statutory duty for mortgage brokers, and held instead that a mortgage broker owes to a borrower a common law duty to disclose all facts or information which may be relevant or material in influencing the judgment or action of the borrower in the matter. The court held, therefore, that in an action for an alleged violation the Finder’s Fee Act the duty sought to be enforced exists as a matter of common law, rather than having been created solely by the statute, and is subject to a three-year, not 12-year, statute of limitations.
Ninth Circuit Holds Plaintiffs Not Required To Plead Tender Or Ability To Tender To Support TILA Rescission Claim
On July 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an allegation of tender or ability to tender is not required to support a TILA rescission claim. Merritt v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., No. 17678, 2014 WL 3451299 (9th Cir. Jul. 16, 2014). In this case, two borrowers filed an action against their mortgage lender more than three years after origination of the loan and a concurrent home equity line of credit, claiming the lender failed to provide completed disclosures. The district court dismissed the borrowers’ claim for rescission under TILA because the borrowers did not tender the value of their HELOC to the lender before filing suit, and dismissed their RESPA Section 8 claims as time-barred.
On appeal, the court criticized the district court’s application of the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Yamamoto v. Bank of New York, 329 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2003) that courts may at the summary judgment stage require an obligor to provide evidence of ability to tender. Instead, the appellate court held that borrowers can state a TILA rescission claim without pleading tender, or that they have the ability to tender the value of their loan. The court further held that a district court may only require tender before rescission at the summary judgment stage, and only on a case-by-case basis once the creditor has established a potentially viable defense. The Ninth Circuit also applied the equitable tolling doctrine to suspend the one-year limitations period applicable to the borrower’s RESPA claims and remanded to the district court the question of whether the borrowers had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violations earlier. The court declined to address two “complex” issues of first impression: (i) whether markups for services provided by a third party are actionable under RESPA § 8(b); and (ii) whether an inflated appraisal qualifies as a “thing of value” under RESPA § 8(a).