InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB, FTC, and consumer advocates ask 7th Circuit to review redlining dismissal
The CFPB recently filed its opening brief in the agency’s appeal of a district court’s decision to dismiss the Bureau’s claims that a Chicago-based nonbank mortgage company and its owner violated ECOA by engaging in discriminatory marketing and consumer outreach practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau sued the defendants in 2020 alleging fair lending violations predicated, in part, on statements made by the company’s owner and other employees during radio shows and podcasts. The agency claimed that the defendants discouraged African Americans from applying for mortgage loans and redlined African American neighborhoods in the Chicago area. The defendants countered that the Bureau improperly attempted to expand ECOA’s reach and argued that ECOA “does not regulate any behavior relating to prospective applicants who have not yet applied for credit.”
In dismissing the action with prejudice, the district court applied step one of the Chevron framework (which is to determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue”) when reviewing whether the Bureau’s interpretation of ECOA in Regulation B is permissible. The court concluded, among other things, that Congress’s directive does not apply to prospective applicants.
In its appellate brief, the Bureau argued that the long history of Regulation B supports the Bureau’s interpretation of ECOA, and specifically provides “that ‘[a] creditor shall not make any oral or written statement, in advertising or otherwise, to applicants or prospective applicants that would discourage on a prohibited basis a reasonable person from making or pursuing an application.” While Congress has reviewed ECOA on numerous occasions, the Bureau noted that it has never challenged the understanding that this type of conduct is unlawful, and Congress instead “created a mandatory referral obligation [to the DOJ] for cases in which a creditor has unlawfully ‘engaged in a pattern or practice of discouraging or denying applications for credit.’”
Regardless, “even if ECOA’s text does not unambiguously authorize Regulation B’s prohibition on discouraging prospective applicants, it certainly does not foreclose it,” the Bureau wrote, pointing to two perceived flaws in the district court’s ruling: (i) that the district court failed to recognize that Congress’s referral provision makes clear that “discouraging . . . applications for credit” violates ECOA; and (ii) that the district court incorrectly concluded that ECOA’s reference to applicants “demonstrated that Congress foreclosed prohibiting discouragement as to prospective applicants.” The Bureau emphasized that several courts have recognized that the term “applicant” can include individuals who have not yet submitted an application for credit and stressed that its interpretation of ECOA, as reflected in Regulation B’s discouragement prohibition, is not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” The Bureau argued that under Chevron step two (which the district court did not address), Regulation B’s prohibition on discouraging prospective applicants from applying in the first place is reasonable because it furthers Congress’ efforts to prohibit discrimination and ensure equal access to credit.
Additionally, the FTC filed a separate amicus brief in support of the Bureau. In its brief, the FTC argued that Regulation B prohibits creditors from discouraging applicants on a prohibited basis, and that by outlawing this type of behavior, it furthers ECOA’s purpose and prevents its evasion. In disagreeing with the district court’s position that ECOA only applies to “applicants” and that the Bureau cannot proscribe any misconduct occurring before an application is filed, the FTC argued that the ruling violates “the most basic principles of statutory construction.” If affirmed, the FTC warned, the ruling would enable creditor misconduct and “greenlight egregious forms of discrimination so long as they occurred ‘prior to the filing of an application.’”
Several consumer advocacy groups, including the National Fair Housing Alliance and the American Civil Liberties Union, also filed an amicus brief in support of the Bureau. The consumer advocates warned that “[i]nvalidating ECOA’s longstanding prohibitions against pre-application discouragement would severely limit the Act’s effectiveness, with significant consequences for communities affected by redlining and other forms of credit discrimination that have fueled a racial wealth gap and disproportionately low rates of homeownership among Black and Latino households.” The district court’s position would also affect non-housing credit markets, such as small business, auto, and personal loans, as well as credit cards, the consumer advocates said, arguing that such limitations “come at a moment when targeted digital marketing technologies increasingly allow lenders to screen and discourage consumers on the basis of their protected characteristics, before they can apply.”
FHFA seeks to codify fair lending oversight
On April 19, FHFA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to codify several existing practices and programs relating to the agency’s fair lending oversight requirements for the Federal Home Loan Banks and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). Intended to provide increased public transparency and greater oversight and accountability to the regulated entities’ fair housing and fair lending compliance, the NPRM seeks to also formalize requirements for the GSEs to maintain Equitable Housing Finance Plans, which are designed to address racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership and wealth and foster housing finance markets that provide equitable access to affordable and sustainable housing (covered by InfoBytes here). The NPRM will also codify requirements for the GSEs to collect and report homeownership education, housing counseling, and language preference information from the Supplemental Consumer Information Form (SCIF). Lenders are required to use the SCIF as part of the application process for loans with application dates on or after March 1, that will be sold to the GSEs (covered by InfoBytes here). Comments on the NPRM are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
FHFA updates GSE equitable housing finance plans
On April 5, FHFA announced updates to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s (GSEs) equitable housing finance plans for 2023. (See plans here and here.) The updates include adjustments to plans first announced last year (covered by InfoBytes here), which faced pushback from several Republican senators who argued that the plans raised “significant legal concerns” and that “no law authorizes FHFA to use a GSE’s assets to pursue affirmative action in housing.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The senators also argued that the Biden administration was “conscripting the GSEs as instrumentalities of its progressive racial equity agenda to achieve outcomes it cannot achieve legislatively or even legally.”
According to FHA’s announcement, the updated plans provide the GSEs with a three-year roadmap to address barriers to sustainable housing opportunities. Updates include (i) taking actions to remove barriers faced by Latino renters and homeowners in Fannie Mae’s plan; (ii) an improved focus on ensuring existing borrowers are able to receive fair loss mitigation support and outcomes through monitoring and developing strategies to close gaps; (iii) providing financial capabilities coaching to build credit and savings; (iv) supporting locally-owned modular construction facilities in communities of color; and (v) increasing the reach of GSE special purpose credit programs to support homeownership attainment and housing sustainability in underserved communities.
Arkansas amends LO sponsorship licensing requirements
On March 21, Arkansas enacted HB 1439 to clarify the sponsorship process and amend licensing requirements under the state’s Fair Mortgage Lending Act. The amendments modify the definition of a “transitional loan officer license” to mean a license that is issued to an individual who is employed “and sponsored by” a licensed mortgage banker or mortgage broker. The term “sponsor” was also added and defined as a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage banker “that has assumed the responsibility for and agrees to supervise the actions of a loan officer or transitional loan officer.” HB 1439 also amends provisions relating to the termination of a loan officer’s license to provide that should the employment of a loan officer or a transitional loan officer be surrendered or canceled, a “sponsor shall terminate the sponsorship of the loan officer or transitional loan officer with the commissioner within thirty (30) days from the date that the loan officer or transitional loan officer ceased to be employed or ceased activities for the sponsor.” Sponsorship termination extinguishes any rights of a loan officer or a transitional loan officer to engage in mortgage loan activity. The license will be marked as “approved-inactive” until a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage banker files an application with the commissioner to sponsor the loan officer. The “approved-inactive” status may be changed to “approved” if a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage banker files an application for sponsorship, pays a $50 fee, and provides sponsorship notice to the commissioner. The amendments will take effect 90 days following the adjournment of the legislature.
Real estate brokerage firm settles claims of discriminatory practices
On March 15, the New York attorney general announced a settlement with a real estate brokerage firm to resolve claims that it allegedly discriminated against Black, Hispanic, and other homebuyers of color on Long Island. According to the announcement, the Office of the Attorney General commenced investigations into several brokerage firms, in which it found that agents employed by the brokerage firm at issue violated the Fair Housing Act and New York state law when they allegedly “subjected prospective homebuyers of color to different requirements than white homebuyers, directed homebuyers of color to homes in neighborhoods where residents predominantly belonged to communities of color, and otherwise engaged in biased behavior.” In certain instances, agents allegedly disparaged neighborhoods of color and “warned white potential homebuyers about the diverse racial makeup of the neighborhood but did not share the same comments with Black and Hispanic potential homebuyers.”
Under the terms of the assurance of discontinuance, the brokerage firm agreed to stop the alleged conduct, will offer comprehensive fair housing training to all agents, and will provide a discrimination complaint form on its website. The brokerage firm will also pay $20,000 in penalties and $10,000 to Suffolk County to promote enforcement and compliance with fair housing laws. This is the fourth action taken by the AG’s office against real estate brokerage firms in the state. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August three Long Island real estate brokerage firms entered settlements to resolve claims of discriminatory practices.
HUD restores 2013 discriminatory effects rule
On March 17, HUD announced the submission of a final rule—Reinstatement of HUD’s Discriminatory Effects Standard—which would rescind the agency’s 2020 regulation governing Fair Housing Act (FHA or the Act) disparate impact claims and reinstate the agency’s 2013 discriminatory effects rule. Explaining that “the 2013 rule is more consistent with how the [FHA] has been applied in the courts and in front of the agency for more than 50 years,” HUD emphasized that it also “more effectively implements the Act’s broad remedial purpose of eliminating unnecessary discriminatory practices from the housing market.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2021, HUD proposed rescinding the 2020 rule, which was intended to align the 2013 rule with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. The 2020 rule included, among other things, a modification of the three-step burden-shifting framework in its 2013 rule, several new elements that plaintiffs must show to establish that a policy or practice has a “discriminatory effect,” and specific defenses that defendants can assert to refute disparate impact claims. According to HUD’s recent announcement, the modifications contained within the 2020 rule complicated the discriminatory effects framework, created challenges for establishing whether a policy violates the FHA, and made it harder for entities regulated by the Act to assess whether their policies were lawful.
The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. According to HUD, the 2020 rule never went into effect due to a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the 2013 rule has been and currently is in effect. Regulated entities that have been complying with the 2013 rule will not need to change any practices currently in place to comply with the final rule, HUD said.
DOJ, CFPB: Lenders that rely on discriminatory appraisals violate the FHA and ECOA
On March 13, the DOJ and CFPB filed a statement of interest saying that a “lender violates both the [Fair Housing Act (FHA)] and ECOA if it relies on an appraisal that it knows or should know to be discriminatory.” (See also CFPB blog post here.) Pointing out that the case raises important legal questions regarding the issue of appraisal bias, the agencies explained that the DOJ has enforcement authority under both the FHA and ECOA, and the Bureau has authority to interpret and issue rules under ECOA and enforce the statute’s requirements.
The case, which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, concerns whether an appraiser, a real estate appraisal company, and an online mortgage lender (collectively, “defendants”) violated federal and state law by undervaluing plaintiffs’ home on the basis of race and denying a mortgage refinancing application based on the appraisal. Plaintiffs, who are Black, claimed their home was appraised for a lower amount on the basis of race, and maintained that the lender denied their loan even after being told the appraisal was discriminatory. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed that after they replaced family photos with pictures of white people and had a white colleague meet a new appraiser, that appraiser appraised the house for $750,000—a nearly 60 percent increase despite there not being any significant improvements made to the house or meaningful appreciation in the value of comparable homes in the market.
The defendant appraiser filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs providing technical arguments for why he valued the home at $472,000, including that the property next door was listed for $500,000, but was later reduced to $475,000, only 10 days after he completed the appraisal. He further claimed that the second appraisal failed to include that property as a comparison and relied on home sales that had not happened as of the time of the first appraisal. The lender argued that it should not be held liable because it was relying on a third-party appraiser and that “it can be liable only if it took discriminatory actions that were entirely separate from [the appraiser’s].”
While the statement does not address the issue of vicarious liability, the DOJ and CFPB asserted that lenders can be held liable under the FHA and ECOA for relying on discriminatory appraisals. They explained that it is “well-established that a lender is liable if it relies on an appraisal that it knows or should know to be discriminatory.” The statement also provided that for disparate treatment claims under the FHA and ECOA, “plaintiffs need only plead facts that plausibly allege discriminatory intent.” The agencies also argued that a violation of Section 3617 of the FHA (which includes “a prohibition against retaliating in response to the exercise of fair housing rights”) “does not require a ‘predicate violation’ of the FHA.
CFPB publishes HMDA review
On March 3, the CFPB published findings from a voluntary review of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule issued in October 2015, as well as subsequent related amendments that eased certain reporting requirements and permanently raised coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit (covered by InfoBytes here). Under Section 1022(d) of Dodd-Frank, the Bureau is required to conduct an assessment of each significant rule or order adopted by the agency under federal consumer financial law. The Bureau noted that it previously determined that the 2015 HMDA Final Rule “is not a significant rule for purposes of section 1022(d)” and said the decision to conduct the review was voluntary.
The Report on the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Rule Voluntary Review found, among other things, that (i) “[c]onsistent with the 2015 HMDA Final Rule’s increase in the closed-end reporting threshold for depository institutions, HMDA coverage of first lien, closed-end mortgages decreased between Q1 of 2017 and Q1 of 2018, from 97.0 percent to 93.8 percent”; (ii) for all financial institutions originating closed-end mortgages, “the share of those institutions reporting HMDA data decreased between 2015 and 2020, with the largest decreases observed in 2017 and 2020” after the reporting threshold rose from 25 loan originations to 100 loan originations; (iii) revising data points to include the age of applicant and co-applicant race, ethnicity, gender, and income, increased the amount of compiled data; and (iv) analyzing data assists in detecting fair lending risk and discrimination in mortgage lending. “HMDA’s expanded transactional coverage improved the risk screening used to identify institutions at higher risk of fair lending violation by improving the accuracy of analysis and thus reducing the false positive rate at which lenders were mistakenly identified as high risk,” the report said.
The report also noted that interest rate data “provides an important observation that enables data users, including government agencies, researchers, and consumer groups to analyze mortgage pricing in order to better serve HMDA’s purposes. In particular, interest rate information brings a greater transparency to the market and facilitates enforcement of fair lending laws.” The Bureau further noted that HMDA data is “crucial” to federal regulators when conducting supervisory examinations and enforcement investigations. The Bureau commented that the “requirement to report new HMDA data points greatly increased the accuracy of supervisory data since the additional data points are now used to assess fair lending risks and are subject to supervisory exams for accurate filing to HMDA,” adding that the data is “also used to estimate appropriate remuneration amounts for harmed consumers.”
DOJ announces $9 million redlining settlement with Ohio bank
On February 28, the DOJ announced a settlement with an Ohio-based bank to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by engaging in “redlining” in the Columbus metropolitan area. The DOJ’s complaint claimed that from at least 2015 to 2021, the bank failed to provide mortgage lending services to Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Columbus area. The DOJ also alleged that all of the bank’s branches were concentrated in majority-white neighborhoods, and that the bank did not take meaningful measures to compensate for not having a physical presence in majority-Black and Hispanic communities.
Under the proposed consent order, the bank will, among other things, (i) invest a minimum of $7.75 million in a loan subsidy fund for majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Columbus area to increase access to credit for home mortgage, improvement, and refinance loans, and home equity loans and lines of credit; (ii) invest $750,000 to go towards outreach, advertising, consumer financial education, and credit counseling initiatives; (iii) invest $500,000 to be spent in developing community partnerships to expand access to residential mortgage credit for Black and Hispanic consumers; (iv) establish one new branch and one new mortgage loan production office in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Columbus area (the bank must “ensure that a minimum of four mortgage lenders, at least one of whom is Spanish-speaking, are assigned to serve these neighborhoods” and employ a full-time community development officer to oversee lending in these neighborhoods); and (v) conduct a community credit needs assessment to identify financial services needs in majority-Black and Hispanic census tracts in the Columbus area. The announcement cited the bank’s cooperation with the DOJ to remedy the identified redlining concerns.
NYC Banking Commission to combat lending and employment discrimination
On February 10, the New York City Banking Commission, which consists of the city’s mayor, the comptroller, and the Commissioner of the Department of Finance, announced two transparency measures to combat lending and employment discrimination by designated banks. Designated banks are those eligible to hold NYC deposits and are expected to provide approved banking products and services for city entities. The announcement states that beginning with this year’s biennial designation cycle, a public comment process will now be included prior to and during the Banking Commission’s public hearing to designate banks that will be eligible to hold deposits of city funds. Revisions have also been made to the certifications that banks are required to submit ahead of designation in order “to reinforce the obligation for depository banks to provide detailed plans and specific steps to combat different forms of discrimination in their operations.” NYC Mayor Eric Adams added “[t]hese new steps will ensure the Banking Commission is designating only those banks that have shown that they can protect taxpayer money and that are committed to promoting equity in all aspects of their operations.”