InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Delays Release of "Ability-to-Repay" Rule
On May 31, the CFPB announced that it has reopened the comment period for the proposed “ability-to-repay” rule that would require creditors to verify a consumer’s ability to repay prior to making a consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling. The rule would also define a “qualified mortgage” that has a presumption of compliance with the ability-to-repay requirement. The CFPB is specifically seeking comments on new loan data provided to the CFPB by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. According to the CFPB, the loan data, which contains loan-level information on the characteristics and performance of all single-family mortgages purchased or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, can be used to analyze the impact of certain variables on a consumer’s ability to repay such as debt-to-income ratio. The CFPB is also seeking comments regarding the potential risk of litigation in connection with the proposed rule. The CFPB specifies that it has not reopened for comment any other aspect of the proposed rule. Comments are due by July 9, 2012. In its press release, the CFPB states that it expects to issue its final rule before the end of 2012. For more information on the proposed rule, see InfoBytes, Apr. 22, 2011.
U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That RESPA Does Not Prohibit Unearned, Unsplit Fees
On May 24, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) is violated only if a charge for settlement services is divided between two or more persons and that the section does not cover the collection of an unearned, unsplit fee by a single settlement service provider. Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 10-1042, 2012 WL 1868063 (U.S. May 24, 2012). Plaintiffs had alleged that their lender charged them loan discount fees but did not provide a lower interest rate in return. Plaintiffs claimed that charging these fees violated section 8(b) of RESPA, arguing that RESPA may be violated even when only one party receives an unearned fee and not only where a fee is split between two parties. Plaintiffs cited a 2001 HUD Policy Statement declaring that a settlement service provider may violate section 8(b) when it receives an unearned fee. The defendant lender countered that HUD’s interpretation should be afforded no deference. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that section 8(b) “unambiguously covers only a settlement-service provider’s splitting of a fee with one or more other persons; it cannot be understood to reach a single provider’s retention of an unearned fee.” The Court struck down HUD’s interpretation, finding that HUD’s position “is manifestly inconsistent with the statute HUD purported to construe,” and that, because HUD’s Policy Statement “goes beyond the meaning that the statute can bear,” it was not necessary to determine whether HUD’s position was due Chevron deference. The Court’s opinion affirmed the underlying decision from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and resolved a split among the judicial circuits. The Second, Third and Eleventh Circuits previously had held that section 8(b) did apply to unearned fees retained by a single person.
Fannie Mae Extends Temporary Repurchase Accommodation Period to December 31
On May 23, Fannie Mae announced that the 90-day temporary repurchase accommodation period established in Servicing Announcement SVC-2011-12 has been extended to December 31, 2012. Absent the accommodation, servicers would have had 30 days to complete repurchases or submit paperwork required to formally appeal repurchase or make-whole requests. The accommodation was previously set to expire on June 30, 2012.
FHFA Seeks Public Comment on Strategic Plan
On May 14, the Federal Housing Finance Agency released for public comment a draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2013-2017. The draft plan updates FHFA’s existing strategic plan document to incorporate a proposal sent to Congress in February 2012 that outlined FHFA’s plan to build a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market, contract Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s current market dominance, and maintain the Enterprises’ roles in foreclosure prevention activities and refinance initiatives. The draft plan sets forth four strategic goals: (i) Safe and sound housing GSEs; (ii) Stability, liquidity, and access in housing finance; (iii) Preserve and conserve Enterprise assets; and (iv) Prepare for the future of housing finance in the U.S.
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Announce Numerous Selling Guide Updates
On May 15, Fannie Mae issued Selling Guide Announcement SEL-2012-04, which includes numerous changes to various Selling Guide topics. To address questions from lenders, the Announcement enhances and clarifies certain DU Refi Plus and Refi Plus requirements in connection with HARP program modifications. Fannie Mae also updated the eligibility and underwriting requirements for DU Refi Plus and Refi Plus to specifically permit financing provided through state Hardest Hit Fund programs to be used to pay down the mortgage balance at closing or to pay closing costs. All of the DU Refi Plus and Refi Plus updates are detailed in an attachment to the Announcement. A second attachment provides myriad updates to Fannie Maes employment and income policies, which are designed to provide additional flexibility and efficiency in processing employment and income documentation. The Announcement also includes miscellaneous Guide changes, including changes to Fannie Maes (i) restructured mortgage loan policy, (ii) Eligibility Matrix, (iii) eCommitONE Users Guide, and (iv) Standard ARM Plan Matrix. Also on May 15, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2012-11, which amends and adds a number of selling requirements, many of which are effective immediately. The Bulletin permits federally regulated sellers to conduct Electronic Transactions using electronic versions of certain loan documents during the initial loan origination process. Several new Guide provisions also are included in the Bulletin. The new requirements: (i) entitle Freddie Mac to recapture premiums and buyups associated with mortgages that are paid off within 120 days of their sale to Freddie Mac, regardless of the reason for the payoff; (ii) remove the requirement that ARMs sold to Freddie Mac have a note rate, margin, and lifetime ceiling that are divisible by one-eighth of one percent; (iii) prohibit the sale of Mortgages encumbered by certain private transfer fee covenants as of July 16, 2012; and (iv) cease Freddie Macs practice of purchasing mortgages originated on Fannie Mae balloon documents as of September 1, 2012. The Bulletin also notifies sellers that Freddie Mac will contact customers with counterparty authorization (CPA) compliant accounts for resubmission of outdated CPA compliance forms. Finally, the Bulletin reiterates guidance from a number of previous bulletins and email updates regarding Freddie Mac Relief Refinance Mortgages and UAD Field-Specific Standardization Requirements.
State Law Update: Mortgage Law Changes in Alabama & West Virginia
Alabama Enacts Residential Mortgage Satisfaction Act. On May 3, Alabama enacted Senate Bill 347, which establishes procedures by which a borrower can obtain a payoff statement for a residential mortgage, including the form of such a request, deadlines for responding to a request (14 days), and the method for providing the statement, among other things. The bill also requires a secured creditor to record a mortgage satisfaction within 30 days after it receives full payment and performance of the obligation, and establishes a process for enforcing the recording requirement. The bill takes effect March 1, 2013.
West Virginia Amends Mortgage Record Keeping Requirements. Recently, West Virginia amended regulations that implement the record keeping requirements for all licensed residential mortgage lenders, brokers, and servicers. For lenders who provide the initial funding on a loan, the rules now make clear that the requirement to retain electronic records includes emails between the lender and borrower. Initial lenders and mortgage brokers also must maintain an itemized list of all fees and charges imposed on each loan and received by the lender or broker and by any third party. Further, the regulation adds a new requirement that a lender or broker document tangible net benefit to the borrower prior to refinancing a residential mortgage. The regulation also contains a new section on the process by which the state Division of Banking will determine if mortgage loan originator applicants meet certain standards of financial responsibility required by West Virginia law. The requirements took effect May 1, 2012.
CFPB Outlines Potential Mortgage Loan Originator Compensation and Qualification Rules
On May 9, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) outlined in its outreach materials to small business representatives its proposals to implement the loan originator compensation provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). These proposals will amend the rules applicable to compensation in mortgage loan transactions, and they would also "help level the playing field" in connection with regulation of mortgage loan originators under the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act). The CFPB intends to finalize rules on these topics by January 21, 2013.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, restrictions were placed on the ability of creditors and consumers to compensate mortgage loan originators (which includes employee loan officers, mortgage brokerages, and employees of mortgage brokerages). This restriction is similar to the restrictions implemented by the Federal Reserve Board (Board), effective April 2011, that prohibit a creditor from compensating a loan originator based on the terms and conditions of the transaction.
The Dodd-Frank Act generally provides that loan originators may be compensated only by consumers, unless two conditions are met: (i) the loan originator must not receive any compensation directly from a consumer; and (ii) the consumer must not make an upfront payment of discount points, origination points, or fees, other than bona fide third-party fees that are not retained by the creditor, the loan originator, or either company's affiliates.
The CFPB has the authority to create exemptions to the second "points and fees" provision if it finds that an exemption is "in the interest of consumers and in the public interest." In its proposal, the CFPB states that it is considering using this exemption authority to permit consumer payment of upfront points and fees under certain circumstances, and the CFPB is further considering whether to propose particular conditions for payments to affiliates. The CFPB is considering a number of proposals that would carry out this restriction:
- No-Discount-Point Loan Option: Under the CFPB's proposal, the loan originator would be required to offer a no-discount-point transaction. Offering this option, according to the CFPB, would enable the homebuyer to better compare competing offers from different lenders.
- Interest-Rate Reductions When Consumers Pay Discount Points: The CFPB's proposal would mandate that any "discount point" be a "bona fide" discount point that actually reduces the interest rate by at least a minimum amount.
- Origination Charges Must Not Vary with the Size of the Loan: The CFPB proposes that mortgage brokerage firms and creditors would be allowed to charge only flat origination fees instead of fees that vary with the size of the loan. The CFPB proposes that upfront fees may be paid to affiliates, provided that these fees are likewise flat and so do not vary with the size of the loan (except for title insurance payments).
In connection with these proposals, the CFPB indicates that it may allow (i) certain payments and bonuses to loan originator based on profitability, (i) certain payments to mortgage brokerage employees when the consumer pays the brokerage, and (iii) certain types of pricing concessions to be covered by the loan originator's compensation. The CFPB's proposal also considers whether to permit certain types of "point banks," and whether to impose record-retention requirements on loan originators directly. Further, the CFPB is considering whether to "sunset" any potential partial exemption from the statute that it implements.
Significantly, the CFPB's proposal would restrict the ability of a lender to charge its own up-front origination fees, except for a fixed fee that does not vary based on loan size. Under the Board's rules, compensation to loan originators is restricted, but lenders may charge origination fees and discount points without restriction. This proposal, if implemented, would require lenders to make significant adjustments to their fee schedules. Further, the CFPB interprets the Dodd-Frank Act's amendments as imposing a ban on loan originator compensation that varies based on loan terms (except principal balance) even in transactions in which the consumer pays compensation directly.
Although the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB to draft rules related to the anti-steering provisions of the loan originator compensation rules, the CFPB indicates that it will address those provisions at a later date.
In a second major aspect of the outline, the CFPB indicates its intention to carry out its authority under TILA to ensure that loan originators be "qualified." Currently, the SAFE Act imposes registration or licensing requirements on loan originators, but these requirements vary widely based on whether the loan originator is an employee of a depository institution or of a non-bank institution.
Under the CFPB's proposal, loan originators-regardless of employer-would be subject to certain qualifications:
- All loan originators would be subject to the same standards for character, fitness,
and financial responsibility;
- Loan originators would be subject to a criminal background check; and
- Loan originators would be required to undertake training commensurate with the size and mortgage lending activities of the employer. This training would be analogous to the continuing education requirement that applies to individuals who are subject to SAFE Act licensing.
As a result of these proposals, registered mortgage loan originators would be subject to some of the same requirements as licensed loan originators.
The CFPB proposal was created in connection with the CFPB's compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), which mandates that the CFPB convene a Small Business Review Panel anytime a proposed rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This panel meets with selected representatives of small businesses, and these representatives provide feedback to the panel on the potential economic impact of the proposal. In addition to the outline, the CFPB also issued a press release, a fact sheet, and a set of discussion questions for the panel.
New York Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss FHFA Mortgage-Backed Securities Case
On May 4, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied, in large part, a motion to dismiss one of the many pending mortgage-backed securities (MBS) cases brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). Federal Housing Finance Agency v. UBS Americas, Inc., No. 11-5201, 2012 WL 1570856 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2012). The court’s decision allows FHFA’s federal securities action to proceed while dismissing related state law negligent misrepresentation claims. In July 2011, as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs), FHFA initiated multiple lawsuits alleging that billions of dollars of MBS purchased by the GSEs were based on offering documents that “contained materially false statements and omissions.” Defendants in the instant case argued that these claims were time-barred. FHFA countered that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) controlled questions of timeliness, a point on which the court agreed in refusing to dismiss related federal claims. In this regard, the court concluded that a reasonably diligent plaintiff (here, the FHFA) could not have “discovered” the underlying federal claim within the year before the GSEs were placed into conservatorship. Rather, such a plaintiff could only have “discovered” this claim when the securities were “downgraded from investment grade to near-junk status,” which was less than a year before conservatorship.
Fannie Mae Announces New Document Custodian Requirements
On February 4, 2016, the SEC announced a settlement with the CEO of Chile-based LAN Airlines S.A. and its holding company Latam Airlines Group SA, Ignacio Cueto Plaza, regarding his approval of the payment of over $1.15 million to an Argentinian consultant in connection with LAN Airline’s attempts to settle disputes over wages and work conditions with employees in Argentina. According to the SEC, Cueto knew that a portion of these payments might be passed on to union officials in Argentina and that the actual services agreed to in the underlying consulting agreement would not be performed. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Cueto agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty and "certify his compliance with his airline’s policies and procedures by attending anti-corruption training among other undertakings." In its administrative cease and desist order, the SEC found that Cueto violated both the FCPA’s internal accounting controls and books and records provisions.
The company has said that this was an isolated matter, that it cooperated with the SEC’s investigation, and strengthened its accounting controls since the incident took place.
Fourth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of TILA Claim
On May 9, Fannie Mae announced new requirements for document custodians with respect to compliance audits and certification practices. In Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2012-08, Fannie Mae states that document custodians must engage third-party auditors to conduct an annual assessment of eligibility and operational compliance. Custodians that had a Fannie Mae on-site review prior to August 1, 2011 must engage an independent third-party auditor and complete the first annual audit by July 31, 2013, while custodians that had or will have a Fannie Mae audit between August 1, 2011 and July 31, 2012 will have until December 31, 2013. All custodians must also develop and implement a monthly quality control review by September 30, 2012.