Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations
Section Content

Upcoming Events

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • DOJ Announces Settlements with Non-Bank Mortgage Lender to Resolve Alleged False Claims Act Violations

    Lending

    On August 8, the DOJ announced a $74.5 million settlement with a non-bank mortgage lender and certain affiliates to resolve potential claims that they violated the False Claims Act by knowingly originating and underwriting mortgage loans insured by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Veterans Administration (VA), and by selling certain loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that did not meet applicable requirements. According to the terms of the two settlement agreements, $65 million of the settlement will be paid to resolve allegations relating to FHA loans, and $9.45 million will be paid to resolve potential civil claims relating to certain specified VA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac loans. The settlements also fully resolved a False Claims Act qui tam lawsuit that had been pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

    The settlement included no admission of liability by the lender. The lender issued a statement responding to the settlements: “We have agreed to resolve these matters, which cover certain legacy origination and underwriting activities, without admitting liability, in order to avoid the distraction and expense of potential litigation. While we cooperated fully in these investigations since receiving subpoenas in 2013, we concluded that settling these matters is in the best interest of [the company] and its constituents.”

    Lending Mortgages False Claims Act / FIRREA Mortgage Origination HUD Fannie Mae Freddie Mac FHA Settlement DOJ Nonbank Supervision

    Share page with AddThis
  • City Agrees to Settlement of Housing Discrimination Suit with DOJ

    Courts

    On May 26, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the city of Jacksonville, Florida (city), agreed on a settlement over claims that the city violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The DOJ alleged that the city denied permission for the development of permanent supportive housing for individuals with disabilities in an historic district and discriminated on the basis of the intended residents’ disabilities.

    The settlement provides for a civil penalty of $25,000 to be paid to the U.S. Treasury as well as the creation by the city of a $1.5 million grant to be awarded to a qualified developer of permanent supportive housing in the community. The city also agreed to take additional specific steps to comply with the requirements of the ADA and FHA.

    Two other plaintiffs whose suits were consolidated with the DOJ’s—Ability Housing, Inc. and Disability Rights Florida, Inc.—also received compensation for reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs.

    As part of the settlement, the city denied any wrongdoing alleged by the DOJ.

    Courts State Issues DOJ FHA Treasury Department Litigation

    Share page with AddThis
  • City of Philadelphia Sues National Bank for Discriminatory Lending Practices

    Lending

    On May 15, the City of Philadelphia filed a lawsuit against a national bank (Bank) alleging that it violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in discriminatory lending practices that targeted minority borrowers. (See City of Phila. v. Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-02203-LDD, 2017 WL 2060317 (E.D. Pa.).) The complaint alleges that beginning in 2004 and continuing through the present, the Bank engaged in “a continuous and unbroken discriminatory pattern and practice of issuing higher cost or more onerous mortgage loans to minority borrowers” while offering better terms to similarly situated non-minority borrowers. The City’s complaint alleges discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. The City claims that the Bank has a long history of both redlining (the practice of refusing to make loans in minority neighborhoods) and reverse redlining (the practice of targeting higher cost loans or loans with less favorable terms to minority neighborhoods). The complaint further describes a pattern of knowing and intentional discrimination by the Bank, relying on statistical analyses finding, among others, that: (i) a loan for a home in a predominantly minority neighborhood was 4.7 times more likely to go into foreclosure than a loan on a home in a mainly white neighborhood; (ii) African American and Latino borrowers were more than twice as likely to receive a high-cost loan as white borrowers; and (iii) when credit scores were factored in for borrowers with FICO scores of more than 660, African American borrowers were more than 2.5 times more likely than white borrowers to receive a high cost loan, and Latino borrowers more than twice as likely. As a result of the foreclosures and vacant homes, the City says it suffered a suppression of property tax revenue and increased cost of providing services such as police, fire fighting, and other municipal services.

    City of Miami Suit. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the Supreme Court recently ruled that municipal plaintiffs may be “aggrieved persons” authorized to bring suit under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) against lenders for injuries allegedly flowing from discriminatory lending practices, although the five-justice majority held that such injuries must be proximately caused by the FHA violations. The Supreme Court returned the City’s lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit because, while the Court found that the City’s injuries appeared to be a foreseeable result of the lender’s practices, this was not enough to establish proximate cause. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether the City can show proximate cause.

    Lending Courts FHA Mortgage Lenders Consumer Finance

    Share page with AddThis
  • Special Alert: Supreme Court Holds Cities Have Standing Under FHA, But Limits Potential Claims

    On May 1, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that municipal plaintiffs may be “aggrieved persons” authorized to bring suit under the Fair Housing Act against lenders for injuries allegedly flowing from discriminatory lending practices. However, the Court held that such injuries must be proximately caused by the alleged misconduct—rather than simply a foreseeable result. Some commentators suggest that the Court’s zone of interest analysis will result in the filing of new claims. Our view of this decision is that it will reduce such litigation efforts as prospective municipal plaintiffs recognize that it will be more difficult to survive early dispositive motions focused on whether the damages claims bear a direct relationship to the conduct alleged.

    ***
    Click here to read full special alert.

    If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, visit our Fair Lendingpractice page for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    FHA Fair Lending U.S. Supreme Court

    Share page with AddThis
  • FHA Price Cut Officially Halted by New Administration

    Federal Issues

    On January 20, the newly-installed Trump Administration issued Mortgagee Letter 2017-07, which indefinitely suspended the reduction in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) premiums that had been scheduled to go into effect January 27 under a policy approved by outgoing HUD Secretary Julian Castro. In suspending the rate change, FHA explained that it remains “committed to ensuring its mortgage insurance programs [remain] viable and effective in the long term for all parties involved, especially our taxpayers,” and that, “more analysis and research are deemed necessary to assess future adjustments while also considering potential market conditions in an ever-changing global economy that could impact our efforts.” FHA also confirmed that it “will issue a subsequent Mortgagee Letter at a later date should this policy change.”

    Federal Issues Mortgages FHA Mortgagee Letters Trump

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB Requests Rehearing of Decision Threatening Agency's Structure

    Federal Issues

    Earlier today, the CFPB filed its much-anticipated response in PHH Corp. v. CFPB, requesting reconsideration by the full D.C. Circuit. As discussed in our special alert, on October 11, 2016, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated the CFPB’s $109 million penalty against PHH under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). In addition, a majority of the panel held that, to resolve a constitutional defect in the CFPB’s structure, the Director was removable by the President at will, meaning that President Trump could remove Director Cordray upon taking office. However, the panel’s decision is stayed until seven days after the court rules on the CFPB’s request.

    Rather than proceeding directly to the Supreme Court, the CFPB proceeded as expected by requesting rehearing en banc by the full D.C. Circuit, which is generally disfavored and granted only for matters of “exceptional importance.” Perhaps most significantly, the Bureau’s petition does not request rehearing of the panel’s conclusion that RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations applied to administrative as well as judicial actions brought under that statute. 

    The CFPB’s petition argues that the panel’s constitutional ruling on the CFPB’s structure should be reheard because it “sets up what may be the most important separation-of-powers case in a generation.” Specifically, the Bureau argues that the panel’s determination that a multi-member commission is an essential component of an independent agency runs contrary to Supreme Court precedent and “unduly limits Congress’s flexibility to respond to the various crises of human affairs … by creating independent administrative agencies headed by a single director.” The Bureau further states that the panel’s reasoning “may affect not only the Bureau but also other agencies headed by a single director removable only for cause,” such as the Social Security Administration, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Office of Special Counsel.

    The Bureau also asks the D.C. Circuit to rehear the panel’s determination that RESPA permits lenders and mortgage insurers to enter into tying arrangements under which the lender refers mortgage insurance businesses to the insurer in exchange for the insurer purchasing reinsurance from the lender’s affiliate. In support of this request, the Bureau argues that “the panel’s decision misinterpreted [RESPA] in a manner that so fundamentally defeats the statutory purpose [of prohibiting kickbacks] as to warrant rehearing en banc.” Specifically, the Bureau states that “[t]he panel’s reading of the statute would permit any mortgage lender to condition referrals on the purchase of goods or services in any related or unrelated business line. Such schemes flout the core purposes of RESPA.”

    Under the D.C. Circuit’s rules, PHH is not permitted to file a response to the CFPB’s petition unless ordered by the court to do so. However, the court will not modify the panel’s opinion without allowing PHH to respond to the petition. There is no deadline for action by the court.

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance CFPB RESPA FHA POTUS U.S. Supreme Court PHH v CFPB

    Share page with AddThis
  • Release Updated FHA Guidance on State and Local Land Use Laws

    Federal Issues

    On November 10, DOJ and HUD issued a Joint Statement updating guidance on the application of the FHA to state and local land use and zoning laws. The guidance—which is provided in the form of frequently asked questions and answers thereto—is designed to help state and local governments better understand how to comply with the FHA when making zoning and land use decisions as well as to help members of the public understand their rights under the FHA. The first section of the Joint Statement, questions 1–6, describes generally the FHA’s requirements as they pertain to land use and zoning. The second and third sections, questions 7–25, discuss more specifically how the FHA applies to land use and zoning laws affecting housing for persons with disabilities, including guidance on regulating group homes and the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations. The fourth section, questions 26–27, addresses HUD’s and DOJ’s enforcement of the FHA in the land use and zoning context.

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance HUD DOJ FHA

    Share page with AddThis
  • Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Whether City Has Standing to Bring Mortgage Suits

    Courts

    On November 8, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, addressing whether the Fair Housing Act permits Miami to sue mortgage lenders as an “aggrieved person” for alleged racial discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing. The questions presented to the Court for decision are whether (i) the language in the Fair Housing Act that limits standing to sue to “aggrieved person[s]” means that Congress meant to impose a more narrow standing requirement than that in Article III of the Constitution; and (ii) the proximate cause standard in the Fair Housing Act requires that the plaintiffs show more than the possibility that the defendants could have foreseen the harm that occurred through a chain of consequences.

    Courts Consumer Finance FHA U.S. Supreme Court Mortgage Lenders

    Share page with AddThis
  • FHA MMI Fund Shows Gains in Fiscal 2016

    Lending

    On November 15, HUD released its 2016 Annual Report to Congress Regarding the Financial Status of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance (MMI) Fund (the MMI Report). The MMI Report reflected the Fund’s improved financial condition for the fourth year in a row amid rising home prices, fewer defaults and a surge of new borrowers. The capital cushion of the Fund grew to 2.32 percent in fiscal 2016, up from 2.07 percent. It was only the second year since 2008 that the capital ratio, a proxy for the fund's health, exceeded the 2 percent minimum required by law. The net worth of the Fund, which stands behind $1 trillion in U.S. home loans and serves as a sort of savings account to pay lender claims if borrowers default, grew by $3.8 billion to $27.6 billion.

    Mortgages HUD Insurance FHA Miscellany

    Share page with AddThis
  • FHA Eases Owner-Occupancy Requirement on Condominium Financing

    Federal Issues

    On October 26, the FHA released Mortgagee Letter 2016-15 announcing its decision to lower the owner-occupancy requirement on condominiums to as low as 35 percent. The letter follows a September announcement in which the FHA stated that, pursuant to the Housing Opportunity through Modernization Act of 2016, or H.R. 3700, it was required to “issue guidance regarding the percentage of units within an approved condominium development that must be owner occupied.” The guidance outlined in Mortgagee Letter 2016-15 is “effective immediately for all condominium project approval applications, recertification applications, annexation applications or reconsideration applications submitted for review.”

    Federal Issues Mortgages FHA Mortgagee Letters

    Share page with AddThis

Pages