On October 12, the CFPB issued an updated version of its small entity compliance guide on the Know Before You Owe TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) Rule. The updated TRID compliance guide incorporates guidance from CFPB webinars on various topics, including (i) record retention; (ii) Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure requirements, including format and delivery; (iii) good faith standards and determinations; (iv) disclosures related to seller-paid costs; and (v) construction loans. The newly released TRID compliance guide replaces the CFPB’s July 2015 guide. The CFPB also issued a separate revised guide for completing the Loan Estimate and Disclosure forms.
On October 18, the American Banking Association (ABA) and Consumer Bankers Association (CBA) submitted a joint comment letter responding to a recent proposal by the CFPB seeking to codify informal guidance and clarifications to the Know Before Your Owe TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rule. Of particular concern among lenders and investors was the lack of clarity about liability for unintentional mistakes and technical noncompliance with TRID. To help address these concerns, the Associations urged the CFPB to, among other things, (i) publish the specific statutory provisions it relied upon for each disclosure item or requirement identified in the recent proposal; (ii) grant a “safe harbor” for model forms issued by the bureau; (iii) grant an extension of the “good faith” compliance examination policy pending the CFPB’s proscribed deadlines for the proposed rules; and (iv) develop a formal process to address ongoing compliance and legal issues related to TRID.
The Associations also expressed appreciation for “the numerous amendments offered in th[e] proposal,” including those allowing corrected closing disclosures to reset applicable good faith tolerances for creditors. The Associations further explained that their “preliminary analysis reflects that this proposed rule will resolve multiple ambiguities that banks deem significant” and “urged that the bureau . . . allow for the correction of previous non-compliance caused by the interpretive ambiguity that the bureau is now fixing” (emphasis added).
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.
* * *
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.
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Jon David D. Langlois, (202) 349-8045
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Benjamin K. Olson, (202) 349-7924
- Matthew P. Previn, (212) 600-2310
- Joseph J. Reilly, (202) 349-7965
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Michelle L. Rogers, (202) 349-8013
- Kathleen C. Ryan, (202) 349-8055
- Andrew L. Sandler, (202) 349-8001
- Brandy A. Hood, (202) 461-2911
- Sasha Leonhardt, (202) 349-7971
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk, (310) 424-3917
- Steven vonBerg, (202) 524-7893
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…
CFPB Takes Action Against Former Loan Officer for “Fee-Shifting” Practices, Alleges RESPA Violations
On May 26, the CFPB announced a consent order against a former mortgage loan originator of a San Francisco-based bank for allegedly violating Section 8(a) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The CFPB alleges that, from at least November 2013 through February 2015, the loan officer and an escrow company in California “engaged in a scheme in which they manipulated escrow fees, at [the loan officer’s] direction, by shifting them among loans in order to structure no-cost mortgage transactions.” The CFPB further contends that the loan officer referred settlement-services business for federally related mortgages to the escrow company in exchange for allowing him to dictate the escrow fees. According to the CFPB, the arrangement between the loan officer and the escrow company constituted providing a “thing of value” – prohibited under RESPA – because it allowed the officer to consistently deliver “no closing cost” loans to his clients, which “ultimately increased the number of loans he was able to close and, as a result, the commissions he earned.” The CFPB’s consent order imposes an $85,000 civil penalty and prohibits the loan officer from participating in the mortgage industry for one year.