InfoBytes Blog

Special Alert: CFPB Issues Proposal to Delay TRID Rule Until October 3

The CFPB issued a proposed rule today to delay the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) rule, including all amendments, from August 1 to October 3, 2015. The proposed delayed effective date is two days later than the date announced last week so that the effective date falls on a Saturday. The CFPB chose Saturday because it “may allow for smoother implementation by affording industry time over the weekend to launch new systems configurations and to test systems. A Saturday launch is also consistent with existing industry plans tied to the Saturday August 1 effective date.”

The proposed rule explains that, due to “an administrative error on the Bureau’s part in complying with the [Congressional Review Act]…, the [TRID] Rule cannot take effect until at the earliest August 15, 2015.” Because “some delay in the effective date is now required, the Bureau believes that a brief additional delay may benefit both consumers and industry more than would allowing the new rules to take effect on [August 15].” The Bureau stated that the additional delay is being proposed to avoid challenges associated with a mid-month effective date and to allow more time to implement the rule in light of recent information the CFPB received that “delays in the delivery of system updates have left creditors and others with limited time to fully test all of their systems and system components to ensure that each system works with the others in an effective manner.”

The proposed rule does not include any substantive changes to the TRID rule, other than changes to reflect the new proposed effective date. Despite requests by many in industry, the Bureau did not propose to allow lenders to begin complying with the rule before the effective date.

Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2015.

For additional information and resources on the TRID rule, please visit our TRID Resource Center.

* * *

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.

• Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
• Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
• John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
• Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
• Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
• Melissa Klimkiewicz, (202) 349-8098

CFPB TRID Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

Special Alert: CFPB Will Propose to Delay TRID Rule Until October 1

Two weeks after declining requests from industry and members of Congress for delayed enforcement of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) rule, the CFPB announced today that it will be issuing a proposed amendment to delay the rule’s effective date from August 1 to October 1, 2015.  CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated:

We made this decision to correct an administrative error that we just discovered in meeting the requirements under federal law, which would have delayed the effective date of the rule by two weeks. We further believe that the additional time included in the proposed effective date would better accommodate the interests of the many consumers and providers whose families will be busy with the transition to the new school year at that time.

The announcement further stated that “[t]he public will have an opportunity to comment on this proposal and a final decision is expected shortly thereafter.”

For additional information and resources on the TRID rule, please visit our TRID Resource Center.

* * *

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.

• Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
• Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
• John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
• Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
• Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
• Melissa Klimkiewicz, (202) 349-8098

CFPB TRID

Spotlight on Vendor Management: Mortgage Industry Continues To Bear Brunt of CFPB Regulatory Burdens

Mortgage industry players have had to adapt quickly in recent years to the evolving regulatory environment, and the latest scramble for mortgage lenders includes the various downstream effects of pending rule changes set to take effect on August 1, 2015, related to disclosures required under the implementing regulations of the Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). A critical factor to successful implementation of this historic set of rule changes, known as the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) rule, is coordinating with various vendors to address new timing and information requirements for Loan Estimates and Closing Disclosures, which are creating project management nightmares for mortgage professionals growing weary of the regulatory onslaught of revised regulations and enforcement actions.

“Despite the relative speed with which many companies have adapted to various rule changes since the CFPB came online, there seems to be a new rule change waiting in the wings at almost every turn,” observed Elizabeth McGinn, Partner in the D.C. office of BuckleySandler. “To make matters worse, managing service providers through the changes has undoubtedly tested the strength of deep industry relationships that have been in place for decades.”

Synchronizing TRID-related changes with third party mainstays throughout the origination and closing processes has required extensive planning with mortgage brokers, software vendors, title companies, and closing agents, all of whom play a significant role in ensuring that Loan Estimates and Closing Disclosures (and any revisions thereto) are delivered to borrowers in an accurate and timely fashion. Importantly, as the CFPB has made clear repeatedly in stating its vendor management expectations, the mortgage lender will bear primary responsibility for any failure to comply with the new TRID rules, regardless of whether such failures are the result of vendor missteps.

“There is a lot of concern that vendors and various critical third parties will not be up to the task,” notes Moorari Shah, Counsel in BuckleySandler’s Los Angeles office. “As a result, we are seeing a number of companies revising service provider contracts in an effort to have better visibility and control over the end-to-end process of loan origination.”

While many will sweat through the summer months in hopes of a flawless transition, TRID represents just the latest vendor management test for an industry that has already perspired through plenty. McGinn and Shah also recommend that legal and compliance personnel take note of recent guidance and enforcement actions which raise vendor management issues specific to the mortgage industry, including oversight of (i) mortgage servicers, (ii) mortgage advertising companies, and (iii) relationships between loan officers and title companies.

Mortgage Servicers

Amongst the most difficult adjustments companies have had to make has been increased oversight of mortgage servicers, which continues to consume considerable compliance resources and expense. Regulators are focused in particular with ensuring that servicers (i) have instituted policies and procedures consistent with new regulations and guidance, and (ii) comply with collections and credit reporting requirements:

• Under the revisions to Regulation X that took effect in January 2014, the CFPB may now cite an institution for failure to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, facilitate (i) ready access to accurate and current documents and information reflecting actions taken by service providers, and (ii) periodic reviews of service providers. See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.38(b)(3). The Bureau explained at the time it proposed § 1024.38(b)(3), that the new regulation was designed to address evaluations of mortgage servicer practices that had found that some major servicers ‘‘did not properly structure, carefully conduct, or prudently manage their third-party vendor relationships,” citing deficiencies in monitoring foreclosure law firms and default management service providers as key examples. Going forward, the CFPB expects that servicers seeking to demonstrate that their policies and procedures are reasonably designed to achieve these objectives will demonstrate that, in fact, the servicer has been able to use its information to oversee its service providers effectively.
• The compliance burdens on servicers are also evident in the latest CFPB guidance on mortgage servicing transfers. Bulletin 2014-01, Compliance Bulletin and Policy Guidance: Mortgage Servicing Transfers, was issued August 19, 2014, and outlines a number of CFPB expectations of servicers in connection with the transfer of mortgage servicing rights, including potentially preparing and submitting informational plans to the Bureau describing how the servicers will be managing the related risks to consumers. In this regard, a primary focus of Bulletin 2014-01 is signaling that the CFPB is committed to enforcing the new servicing transfer rules under RESPA, which, requires servicers to, among other things, maintain policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve the objectives of facilitating the transfer of information during mortgage servicing transfers and of properly evaluating loss mitigation applications.
• It should come as no surprise that one of the primary vendor management implications of the evolving regulatory requirements described above is that ongoing compliance will likely require significantly more dedication of financial and human resources for most mortgage servicers to comply. However, the cost of non-compliance can be substantially more devastating. Consider the troubles of one of the largest nonbank servicers that entered into a $2 billion settlement with the CFPB, authorities in 49 states, and the District of Columbia under a joint enforcement action in December 2013 over allegations related to charging customers unauthorized fees, misleading customers about alternatives to foreclosure, denying loan modifications for eligible homeowners, and sending robo-signed documents through the courts during the foreclosure process. Just one year later, in December 2014, the same servicer entered into a $150 million settlement with the New York Department of Financial Services in connection with allegations of mishandling foreclosures, abusing delinquent borrowers, and failing to maintain adequate systems for servicing hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages. In each consent order, the failure to maintain reasonable policies and procedures and engage in appropriate vendor oversight was highlighted as a finding by the regulators.
• In addition to ensuring that mortgage servicers are implementing adequate policies and procedures with respect to vendor oversight, federal agencies have also been attentive to debt collection and credit reporting practices of mortgage servicers. A joint enforcement action by the FTC and CFPB in April of this year was critical of the servicer, in part, for allegedly (i) threatening arrest and imprisonment to consumers that were behind on payments and placing collection calls outside of the daily call window permitted under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.), and (ii) furnishing inaccurate credit information to consumer reporting agencies in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) even after consumers indicated that they had reported the inaccuracies to the servicer. The servicer agreed to a $63 million settlement with the FTC and CFPB to resolve the matter.

Mortgage Advertising Companies

The CFPB has taken direct aim at deceptive mortgage advertisements in 2015, particularly those that imply an affiliation with programs offered by the U.S. government. At least a handful of enforcement actions have been announced by the Bureau during the first half of the year, including a simultaneous announcement in February against three private mortgage lenders that sent mailings simulating notices from the U.S. government despite the fact that none of the companies had any connection to a government agency. In bringing these actions, the CFPB made note of the customary practice of mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders to hire marketing companies to produce advertisements for mortgage credit products:

• In the two matters that resulted in consent orders (n.b., the third matter is still pending), the CFPB compelled the companies to (i) pay a civil monetary penalty for which they could not seek indemnification from any of the marketing companies that assisted with producing the advertisements, and (ii) carefully review henceforth any proposed marketing materials prepared by such marketing companies for compliance specifically with the Mortgage Acts and Practices Rule (Regulation N, 12 C.F.R. § 1014.3(n)), and the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1)(B)).
• In terms of vendor management, a key takeaway from these enforcement actions is that the CFPB expects mortgage lenders to take the same precautions with mortgage advertising companies as they are required to do with any other service provider that interacts with customers, inclusive of appropriate due diligence and oversight. Treating mortgage advertising companies as service providers has taken some in the industry by surprise as such companies have generally been viewed as marketing partners rather than service providers for mortgage brokers and lenders, and often receive a marketing fee for any advertisement that yields a new origination. Note also that the general expansion of third parties that qualify as “service providers” under Dodd-Frank is in keeping with various CFPB enforcement actions taken against ancillary and add-on product providers in the credit card and auto finance industries.

Relationships between loan officers and title companies

Another area of focus for the CFPB has been referrals made by loan officers to title companies in exchange for cash and marketing services:

• In April of this year, the CFPB joined forces with Maryland Attorney General to take action against several loan officers for their alleged participation in steering title insurance and closing services to a title company in exchange for the loan officers’ receipt of marketing services and cash from the title company. The consent orders, in addition to outlining RESPA violations which prohibit the giving of a “fee, kickback, or thing of value” in exchange for a referral of business related to a real estate settlement service (12 U.S.C. § 2607(a)), barred each of the loan officers from the mortgage industry for a period of years. The April announcements were follow-on enforcement actions to ones that the CFPB had announced in January against two large banks stemming from allegations that the banks’ loan officers had participated in similar schemes with the same (now defunct) title company.
• The potential for RESPA violations presents another compliance challenge for mortgage lenders to increase their oversight of not only third party title companies, but also the lender’s own loan officers that may be engaged, wittingly or unwittingly, in potentially illegal activity. In addition to enhanced RESPA training for loan officers and title companies, mortgage lenders may need to increase their monitoring and auditing activities of interactions between loan officers and title companies to further mitigate the risk of RESPA violations.

Note: This article previously appeared in the June 12, 2015, issue of Mortgage News Daily.

CFPB Vendors TRID Elizabeth McGinn Moorari Shah

Special Alert: CFPB Issues Statement on TRID Enforcement

On June 3, CFPB Director Cordray responded to requests from industry and members of Congress for delayed enforcement of the Bureau’s TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) rule, which will take effect for applications received on or after August 1, 2015. The Bureau did not, as many had hoped, delay the effective date or establish a “hold harmless” period during which the rule would be in effect but public and private enforcement would be limited.

Instead, Director Cordray stated that he had spoken with other regulators “to clarify that [the Bureau’s] oversight of the implementation of the [TRID] Rule will be sensitive to the progress made by those entities that have squarely focused on making good-faith efforts to come into compliance with the Rule on time.” As noted in Director Cordray’s letter and a related CFPB blog post, this is consistent with the approach applied by the Bureau in early 2014 after the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule, Mortgage Servicing Rules, revised Loan Originator Compensation Rule, and other regulations implementing Title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Act took effect. Director Cordray noted that, in the Bureau’s view, this approach “has worked out well.” The Bureau stated in its Winter 2015 Supervisory Highlights that “[m]ost of the Title XIV rules took effect in January 2014 and the CFPB commenced supervisory examinations for compliance four months after the effective date.”

The Bureau’s statements, while helpful in understanding its general approach to supervision and enforcement under the TRID rule, do not provide guidance on what constitutes “good-faith efforts to come into compliance.” Instead, as with the Title XIV rules, this will be determined by the Bureau on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the “good-faith efforts” standard will not apply in actions brought by borrowers to enforce the provisions of the TRID rule that carry a private right of action.

Click here to view the full Special Alert.

*          *          *

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
• Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
• Benjamin B. Klubes, (202) 349-8002
• John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040

CFPB TRID

CFPB and Federal Reserve Host Final Webinar on TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure

On May 26, The CFPB and the Federal Reserve will host a 60-minute webinar to answer questions with respect to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule under the TILA and RESPA, also known as TRID. “This fifth and final in the planned series of webinars will address specific questions related to rule interpretation and implementation challenges that have been raised to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by creditors, mortgage brokers, settlement agents, software developers, and other stakeholders,” according to the Federal Reserve. For those interested in attending, registration is required and can be accessed here.

CFPB Federal Reserve TRID

CFPB Director Provides Update on TRID and U.S. Housing Market

On May 12, CFPB Director Richard Cordray addressed the National Association of Realtors regarding the 2008-2009 economic crash and the gradual recovery of the American housing market. In an effort to restore consumers’ confidence in the mortgage market, the Bureau implemented rules, such as the Ability-to-Repay rule and the Qualified Mortgage rule, to ensure that lenders were offering consumers mortgages they could afford. Effective August 1, the Bureau’s “Know Before You Owe” rule will replace the current separate disclosures required by TILA and RESPA with combined TILA-RESPA disclosures (“TRID”); the new forms are “consumer-tested to be more user-friendly, which will ease the process and improve the consumer experience.”. In his remarks, Cordray did not signal that the TRID effective date or enforcement of the same would by delayed by the Bureau.

CFPB TRID

CFPB Updates Mortgage Origination Examination Procedures to Include Requirements of TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule

On May 4, the CFPB updated its Supervision and Examination Manual’s Mortgage Origination examination procedures to include guidance on how its compliance examiners will examine loan disclosures and terms of closed-end residential mortgage loans that are subject to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rule. The TRID examination procedures updates are reflected in module 4 of the Manual’s 8 modules, and instruct compliance examiners to review a sample of complete loan files to determine a company’s compliance. Further, if consumer complaints exist concerning the mortgage origination and closing disclosure requirements, then compliance examiners are permitted to interview the consumers included in the sample and inquire about each subject area listed in the module. The TRID rule is scheduled to go into effect August 1, 2015.

CFPB Examination TRID Mortgage Origination

CFPB Releases New Mortgage Toolkit in Anticipation of New Mortgage Disclosure Rule

On March 31, the CFPB announced a new toolkit as part of its “Know Before You Owe” mortgage initiative. Designed to “help customers understand the nature and costs of real estate settlement services,” the step-by-step guide includes worksheets, checklists, and research tips for consumers. The new toolkit replaces an existing HUD booklet that creditors provide to mortgage applicants. The release of the toolkit precedes the August 1 effective date for the TILA/RESPA integrated disclosure rule, giving the industry “time to order and receive or print the new toolkit and integrate electronic versions into their mortgage origination systems.”

CFPB TILA RESPA Disclosures TRID Mortgage Origination

CFPB Finalizes TILA-RESPA Integrated Mortgage Disclosure (TRID) Amendments

As previously reported in our Special Alert on January 20, the CFPB finalized certain amendments to its TRID rule, which combines the mortgage disclosures consumers receive under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  Significant amendments include: (i) allowing three business days for providing a revised Loan Estimate after an interest rate is locked (instead of the current same day requirement and the original proposal’s one business day requirement); and (ii) permitting the inclusion of certain information about construction loans on the Loan Estimate. The final rule, as amended, takes effect August 1.  For more information, please visit our TRID Resource Center.

CFPB TILA RESPA TRID Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

Special Alert: CFPB Finalizes Amendments to TILA-RESPA Integrated Mortgage Disclosures

On January 20, 2015, the CFPB finalized amendments to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) rule that make a number of amendments, clarifications, and corrections, including:

CFPB TILA RESPA TRID