Recently, the CFPB published an updated mortgage rules Readiness Guide for financial institutions to assist them in complying with new mortgage lending requirements. The Guide contains: (i) a summary of the mortgage rules finalized by the CFPB as of August 1, 2014; (ii) a readiness questionnaire to help perform self-assessments; (iii) a section on frequently asked questions; and (iv) a section on further tools to assist with compliance with the new rules. The guide discusses, among other rules, the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule that integrates the mortgage loan disclosures currently required under TILA and RESPA. That rule requires a new Loan Estimate form that combines two existing forms, the Good Faith Estimate and the initial Truth-in Lending disclosure. The Loan Estimate must be provided to consumers no later than the third business day after they submit an application. The rule also requires a Closing Disclosure form, which combines the current Settlement Statement (“HUD-1”) and final Truth-in Lending disclosures forms. The Closing Disclosure must be provided to consumers at least three business days before consummation of the loan. The new requirements are effective for loans where the lender receives an application on or after August 1, 2015.
On October 10, the CFPB issued a proposal to modify and make technical amendments to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule, issued in November of 2013. Specifically, the CFPB proposes to (i) relax the timing requirements associated with the redisclosure of interest rate dependent charges and loan terms after consumers lock in a floating interest rate, such that creditors would have until the next business day after a consumer locks in a floating interest rate to provide a revised disclosure; and (ii) add language to the Loan Estimate form that creditors could use to inform a consumer that the consumer may receive a revised Loan Estimate for a construction loan that is expected to take more than 60 days to settle. In addition, the Bureau proposes non-substantive changes such as technical corrections and corrected or updated citations and cross-references in the regulatory text and commentary, minor word changes throughout the regulatory text and commentary, and an amendment to the 2013 Loan Originator Rule, to provide for placement of the NMSR ID on the integrated disclosures. The CFPB is accepting comments on the proposed changes through November 10, 2014. The CFPB noted its intention to finalize the proposed amendments quickly in order to provide the industry adequate time to implement any resulting changes by August 1, 2015, the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule.
Special Alert: Proposed Amendments to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) Rule, Transcript of CFPB Webinar on the Loan Estimate Form, and Introducing BuckleySandler’s TRID Resource Center
BuckleySandler is pleased to announce our new TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) Resource Center. The TRID Resource Center is a one-stop shop for TRID issues, providing access to BuckleySandler’s analysis of the TRID rule and the CFPB’s amendments, transcripts of CFPB webinars providing guidance on the rule, and other CFPB publications that will facilitate implementation of the rule. In particular, the TRID Resource Center will address the following recent developments:
- Proposed amendments. On October 10, 2014, the CFPB proposed amendments to the TRID rule that, if adopted, would: (1) allow creditors to provide a revised Loan Estimate on the business day after the date the interest rate is locked, instead of the current requirement to provide the revised Loan Estimate on the date the rate is locked; and (2) correct an oversight by creating room on the Loan Estimate form for the disclosure that must be provided on the initial Loan Estimate as a condition of issuing a revised estimate for construction loans where the creditor reasonably expects settlement to occur more than 60 days after the initial estimate is provided. The proposal would also make a number of additional amendments, clarifications, and corrections, including:
- Add the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure to the list of loan documents that must disclose the name and NMLSR ID number of the loan originator organization and individual loan originator under 12 C.F.R. § 1026.36(g);
- Provide additional guidance related to the disclosure of escrow accounts, such as when an escrow account is established but escrow payments are not required with a particular periodic payment or range of payments; and
- Clarify that, consistent with the requirement for the Loan Estimate, the addresses for all properties securing the loan must be provided on the Closing Disclosure, although an addendum may be used for this purpose.
Comments on the proposal are due by November 10, 2014. For your convenience, we have updated our summary of the TRID rule to identify the most significant proposed changes.
On September 30, the CFPB announced a consent order with a Michigan-based title insurance company to address allegations that the company’s marketing services agreements (MSAs) with several real estate brokers violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act’s (RESPA) prohibition against kickbacks in connection with real estate settlement services. According to the CFPB, the MSAs provided that the company would pay the real estate brokers for performing marketing services promoting the company. Specifically, although the MSAs provided for payment to the brokers based on the marketing services provided to the company, according to the CFPB the brokers were actually paid, in part, based on the number of referrals to the company they generated. Also, the CFPB asserted that the company entered the MSAs “as a quid pro quo for the referral of business.” In addition, the CFPB alleged that brokers that had entered into a MSA with the company referred a “statistically significant” higher amount of business than brokers who had not entered into a MSA. According to the terms of the consent order, the company must pay a $200,000 civil monetary penalty, immediately terminate any existing MSAs, and not enter into any MSAsthe future, providing a very broad and novel definition of MSAs that includes agreements with any person in a position to refer business providing for endorsements, joint advertising, access to counterparty and its employees, or marketing of the company’s services to others. However, the company may still purchase consumer-oriented advertising from companies that do not offer settlement services such as newspapers or television or radio stations, provided that the publisher does not endorse the company as part of the advertisement.
On October 1, the CFPB and the Federal Reserve will co-host a webinar on the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures rule. By consolidating the existing mortgage disclosures required under TILA and RESPA, the integrated rule is intended to “make it easier for consumers to understand and locate key information,” while also integrating “the substantive and procedural requirements for providing these disclosures to consumers.” The webinar will address (i) questions regarding rule interpretation and implementation challenges that creditors, mortgage brokers, and others have raised to the Bureau; (ii) issues regarding how to complete the Loan Estimate; and (iii) portions of the Closing Disclosure. BuckleySandler provided a transcript of the second TILA-RESPA Disclosure webinar, which the CFPB hosted on August 26.
To address frequently asked questions regarding the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rules that take effect next August, CFPB staff provided non-binding, informal guidance in a webinar hosted by the Federal Reserve Board on August 26.
BuckleySandler has prepared a transcript of the webinar that incorporates the CFPB’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 Federal Reserve and may have minor inaccuracies due to sound quality. In addition, the transcripts have not been reviewed by the CFPB or the Federal Reserve 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
- Jonathan W. Cannon, (310) 424-3903
- Brandy A. Hood, (202) 461-2911
On September 8, the CFPB released an updated Small Entity Compliance Guide for its TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule, which becomes effective next August. The updates include information on where to find additional resources on the rule, additional clarification on questions relating to the Loan Estimate and 7 day waiting period, and additional clarification on questions relating to the timing for revisions to the Loan Estimate. The new guides follow a recent webinar hosted by the CFPB and the Federal Reserve Board to address rule implementation.
On August 12, the CFPB announced a consent order with a nonbank mortgage lender, its affiliated appraisal management company (AMC), and the individual owner of both companies to resolve allegations that the lender deceptively advertised mortgage rates to consumers, improperly charged fees before providing consumers with Good Faith Estimates (GFE), and failed to disclose its affiliation with the AMC while allowing the AMC to charge inflated fees.
As explained in the consent order, the lender primarily conducts business online through its own website, and also advertises its mortgages through display ads on independent websites and the website of an unaffiliated third-party rate publisher. The CFPB asserts that, over a roughly two-year period, a “systemic problem” caused the lender to list on the rate publisher’s website lower rates for certain mortgages than the lender was willing to honor, and that the lender supplied other rates to the rate publisher that were unlikely to be locked for the majority of the lender’s borrowers. The CFPB claims that the lender failed to perform systematic due diligence or quality control to ensure the accuracy of listed rates, even though the lender was made aware through consumer complaints that certain rates were inaccurate. Read more…
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).
On July 8, the CFPB released guidance designed to ensure equal treatment for legally married same-sex couples in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). Windsor held unconstitutional section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the word “marriage” as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and the word “spouse” as referring “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
The CFPB’s guidance, which took the form of a memorandum to CFPB staff, states that regardless of a person’s state of residency, the CFPB will consider a person who is married under the laws of any jurisdiction to be married nationwide for purposes of enforcing, administering, or interpreting the statutes, regulations, and policies under the Bureau’s jurisdiction. The Bureau adds that it “will not regard a person to be married by virtue of being in a domestic partnership, civil union, or other relationship not denominated by law as a marriage.”
The guidance adds that the Bureau will use and interpret the terms “spouse,” “marriage,” “married,” “husband,” “wife,” and any other similar terms related to family or marital status in all statutes, regulations, and policies administered, enforced or interpreted by the Bureau (including ECOA and Regulation B, FDCPA, TILA, RESPA) to include same-sex marriages and married same-sex spouses. The Bureau’s stated policy on same-sex marriage follows HUD’s Equal Access Rule, which became effective March 5, 2012, which ensures access to HUD-assisted or HUD-insured housing for LGBT persons.
This afternoon, the CFPB issued policy guidance on supervision and enforcement considerations relevant to mortgage brokers transitioning to mini-correspondent lenders. The CFPB states that it “has become aware of increased mortgage industry interest in the transition of mortgage brokers from their traditional roles to mini-correspondent lender roles,” and is “concerned that some mortgage brokers may be shifting to the mini-correspondent model in the belief that, by identifying themselves as mini-correspondent lenders, they automatically alter the application of important consumer protections that apply to transactions involving mortgage brokers.”
The guidance describes how the CFPB evaluates mortgage transactions involving mini-correspondent lenders and confirms who must comply with the broker compensation rules, regardless of how they may describe their business structure. In announcing the guidance, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that the CFPB is “putting companies on notice that they cannot avoid those rules by calling themselves by a different name.”
The CFPB is not offering an opportunity for the public to comment on the guidance. The CFPB determined that because the guidance is a non-binding policy document articulating considerations relevant to the CFPB’s exercise of existing supervisory and enforcement authority, it is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Read more…
On June 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a borrower failed to state a claim under RESPA because her purported qualified written requests (QWRs) did not trigger the servicer’s RESPA duties. Roth v. CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 13-3839, 2014 WL 2853549 (2d Cir. Jun 24, 2014). A borrower who defaulted on her second residential mortgage sued the servicer of the loan after the servicer threatened to take legal action. The borrower alleged that the servicer violated RESPA by failing to respond to three letters the borrower characterized as QWRs. The court agreed with a Tenth Circuit holding that Regulation X permits servicers to designate an exclusive address for QWRs, and held that the borrower’s letters did not trigger the servicer’s RESPA duties because they were not sent to the QWR address designated by the servicer and provided on the borrower’s mortgage statements. The court further explained that servicers are not prohibited from changing a QWR address. For the same reasons, the court rejected the borrower’s claim that the alleged inadequate QWR address notice violated state prohibitions on unfair and deceptive practices. Finally, the court held that the borrower’s FDCPA claim failed because the servicer did not acquire the debt after it was in default and therefore the servicer did not qualify as a debt collector subject to the FDCPA.
Last week, the CFPB announced its latest RESPA enforcement action, adding to one of the CFPB’s most active areas of enforcement. In this case, the CFPB required a New Jersey title company to pay $30,000 for allegedly paying commissions to more than twenty independent salespeople who referred title insurance business to the company. The matter was referred to the CFPB by HUD.
The CFPB asserts that from at least 2008 to 2013, the title company offered commissions of up to 40% of the title insurance premiums the company received. The CFPB explained that paying commissions for referrals is allowed under RESPA if the recipient of the payment is an employee of the company that is paying the referral, but claimed in this case that the individuals involved were actually independent contractors and not bona fide employees. The CFPB determined that although the individuals received W-2 forms from the title company, the company “did not have the right or power to control the manner and means by which the individuals performed their duties.”
In determining the penalty amount, the CFPB took into consideration the company’s ability to pay and remain a viable business. Notably, the consent order removes the “employer-employee” exception for this company on a going forward basis, including under existing employment contracts. The order prohibits the company from paying any employee “any fee, kickback, or thing of value that is contingent on the referral of title insurance business or other settlement services, notwithstanding the ‘employee exception’ contained in 12 C.F.R. §1024.14(g)(vii).” The order also establishes certain compliance, record keeping, and reporting requirements.
On May 28, the CFPB ordered the largest real estate company in Alabama to pay a $500,000 civil penalty to settle claims that the company provided inadequate disclosures of its relationship with an affiliated title insurance company. The CFPB alleged that the realty company failed to comply with the disclosure-related provisions of RESPA in connection with affiliated business arrangements (AfBAs). Under RESPA, AfBAs do not violate the prohibition on the exchange of referral fees if, among other things, the party referring a consumer to its affiliate gives the consumer a disclosure clearly stating that the consumer may shop for other, lower-cost providers and that the consumer is not required to use the affiliate. Read more…
On April 29, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that RESPA’s preclusion of liability for otherwise illegal kickbacks based on “services actually performed” relates only to “settlement services” as defined in RESPA, and not to some broader set of services. Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin. Inc., No. 14-cv-01240, 2014 WL 1682005 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2014). Last month in the same case, the court held that the overnight delivery services provided by certain delivery companies to a parent company of various escrow companies were “settlement services” under RESPA and concluded that the borrowers had pleaded facts sufficient to establish that the defendant parent company may have violated RESPA by accepting marketing fees from certain delivery companies in exchange for “referring”—via its escrow subsidiaries—overnight delivery business to those delivery companies. The defendant then moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that its subsidiary performed actual services in exchange for the marketing fees it received from the delivery companies, and therefore was not liable under RESPA. The court held that although the relevant RESPA section uses only the general term “services” and not the specific phrase “settlement services” used elsewhere in the statue, “Congress would have vitiated RESPA’s purposes by permitting kickbacks as long as the recipient performed any service—even if the service bore no relationship to a real-estate settlement.” The court held that Congress clearly intended to provide a safe harbor only with regard to “settlement services.” In this case, the court held that issues of fact persist as to whether the services performed were settlement services and denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings.