InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
California bankruptcy court says a forbearance that modifies the original loan is subject to state usury laws in certain instances
Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment in an action concerning “piecemeal exemptions” to California’s usury law. Plaintiffs entered into a loan agreement secured by their residence carrying an interest rate of 11.3 percent and a default interest rate of 17.3 percent (plus late fees) with a then-unlicensed lender. They also signed a promissory note, which stated that should they fail to make a monthly payment within 10 days of the due date they would be assessed a late charge equal to 10 percent of the monthly payment. After plaintiffs struggled to make payments, the parties entered into an extension agreement to supplement and amend the original loan (but not replace it), which slightly lowered the initial interest rate but increased the monthly payments and default interest rate. The extension also included language adding a charge on the final balloon payment that was not part of the original loan. Plaintiffs again began to miss loan payments and sought to refinance the loan with a different lender. A payoff quote provided by the defendant included what was originally called a “prepayment penalty” but was later changed to represent a late charge on the principal balance in line with the extension.
Plaintiffs sued the defendant and related parties in state court, seeking damages and alleging claims related to breach of contract, fraud, and intentional interference. After the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs filed an appeal on the same day one of the plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy. The defendant eventually filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims in the amended complaint, whereas plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on several new claims, including that (i) the extension violated state usury law; (ii) the defendant “demanded an illegal acceleration penalty” from plaintiffs; and (iii) the defendant illegally charged multiple late fees on a single loan payment.
In a case of first impression, the court held that under California law, a loan extension that modifies the original loan, including by extending the maturity date, is considered a forbearance subject to state usury laws because there was no other sale, lease, or other transaction involved. The court noted that the statute “provides a restricted definition of the term ‘arranged’ in relation to a forbearance,” and that it also “painstakingly sets forth the instances in which a forbearance negotiated by a real estate broker would be exempt under usury law: when that broker was previously involved in arranging the original loan and that loan was in connection with a sale, lease, or other transaction, or when that broker had previously arranged for the sale, lease or other transaction for compensation.” The court further stated that “[c]onspicuously absent from those instances is a scenario in which a forbearance is arranged on a simple loan of money secured by real estate, with no other sale, lease, or other transaction involved,” adding that it “cannot create an exemption here to save [the defendant].” In the subject transaction, the real estate broker involved when the original loan was made was not involved in the extension, the court said.
The court also held that the loan forbearance violated California usury laws although the original loan was exempt from usury laws, disagreeing with the defendant’s position that “an originally non-usurious transaction cannot be transformed into a usurious transaction at a later point.” The court pointed out the distinction in this case from others cited by the defendant, stating that the “difference between a non-usurious loan and a loan subject to an exemption is slight but distinct. . . . Once the exemption (no real estate broker involved) ceased to apply, the exemption disappeared, and the transaction became subject to the full consequences of the usury law.” Because the extension’s interest rate and default interest rate both violated state usury law, the defendant is entitled only to the principal balance of the extension minus the amount of usurious interest paid.
Additionally, the court determined that under California law, the liquidated damages provision of the loan extension was separate from the interest charged by the extension, and a late charge on top of a balloon payment under extension was an unenforceable penalty provision instead of a valid provision for liquidated damages. The court also declined to consider punitive or other damages and said it will make a determination in the future as to what the defendant is entitled to by way of reimbursements or costs, as well as any interest accrued and owed after the extension’s maturity date.
FFIEC releases new HMDA tool
On August 30, the CFPB unveiled the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council’s Quarterly Graphs tool, which permits users to view HMDA mortgage loan data and, for the first time, follow mortgage market trends throughout the collection year. According to the CFPB, the new tool integrates currently available quarterly data submitted by financial institutions who report a combined total of at least 60,000 applications and covered loans (excluding purchased covered loans) for the preceding calendar year. The tool provides graphs for an extensive lists of metrics, including loan-to-value ratios, debt-to-income ratios, borrower credit scores, denial rates, interest rates, and total loan costs. The tool also allows users to download graphs in a number of formats, including CSV, XLS, PDF, or custom web link. The tool currently contains data for 2019, 2020, 2021 and the first quarter of 2022, with future quarter data being added as it is available.
California broadens DFPI commissioner’s enforcement authority
On August 26, the California governor signed AB 2433, which broadens DFPI’s unlawful practices oversight and enforcement power over any person currently engaging in or having engaged in the past, in unlicensed activity. Among other things, the bill amends the DFPI commissioner’s enforcement of various laws, such as the California Commodity Law, Escrow Law, California Financing Law (CFL), Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), Student Loan Servicing Act, and California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. The bill establishes that the commissioner may act “upon having reasonable grounds to believe that a broker-dealer or investment advisor has conducted business in an unsafe or injurious manner.” The bill also permits the DFPI to “act upon having cause to believe that a licensee or other person has violated the CFL.” The CFL provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders, brokers, and specified program administrators by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to issue a citation to the licensee or person and to assess an administrative fine, as specified, among other things. The CFL also regulates certain persons acting under the PACE program, including PACE solicitors and PACE solicitor agents. The new bill establishes that “if the commissioner, upon inspection, examination, or investigation, has cause to believe that a PACE solicitor or PACE solicitor agent is violating any provision of that law, or rule or order thereunder, the commissioner or their designee is required to exhaust a specified procedure before bringing an action.” Additionally, bill specifies that certain “procedures apply when the commissioner has cause to believe that a PACE solicitor or solicitor agent has violated any provision of that law or rule or order thereunder.” The bill also mentions the Student Loan Servicing Act, which “provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by the commissioner,” and establishes that the commissioner is required, upon having reasonable grounds after investigation to believe that a licensee is conducting business in an unsafe or injurious manner, to direct, by written order, the discontinuance of the unsafe or injurious practices. This bill specifies “that these procedures also apply if, after investigation, the commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a licensee has conducted business in an unsafe or injurious manner.” The bill is effective immediately.
FHFA updates FAQs and clarifies Covid-19 tenant protections
On August 25, FHFA updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assistance options for families impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, FHFA revised its “Tenant Protections for Enterprise-Backed Rental Properties in Response to COVID-19,” which is intended “to assist households that are unable to pay rent or utilities.” Among other things, the FAQs indicate that renters “living in a property financed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have access to housing counselors with expertise in rental assistance programs and other programs to overcome financial hardships.” FHFA’s “Tenant Protections for Enterprise-Backed Rental Properties in Response to COVID-19,” clarifies and updates information for tenants in rental properties secured by a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage.
FDIC releases July enforcement actions
On August 26, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in July. During the month, the FDIC issued seven orders consisting of “two orders of prohibition, two orders to pay civil money penalty, two section 19 orders, and one order terminating consent order.” Among the actions is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against an Iowa-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank: (i) “made, increased, extended, or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance”; (ii) “made, increased, extended or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without providing timely notice to the borrower as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral”; and (iii) “failed to comply with proper procedures for force-placing flood insurance in instances where the collateral was not covered by flood insurance at some time during the term of the loan.” The order requires the payment of a $2,500 civil money penalty. The actions also include a civil money penalty imposed against a Texas-based bank related to six alleged violations of the FDPA for “failure to obtain flood insurance or obtain an adequate amount of insurance coverage, at or before loan origination, for all structures in a flood zone, including multiple structures,” among other alleged violations. The order requires the payment of a $6,000 civil money penalty.
Court grants summary judgment in payday lender suit
On August 23, a Municipal Court in Ohio granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case involving payday lending. According to the order, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendant, in April 2019, executed a Line of Credit and Security Agreement with a lender in the amount of $1,101, and agreed to repay amounts advanced within a 30-day billing cycle pursuant to certain fees and a 24.99 percent interest rate. The complaint further alleged that defendant failed to make timely payment, and thereafter plaintiff, as assignee of the lender, sought to enforce the agreement. In her answer, the defendant denied entering any such agreement and characterized the transaction as “a $500 loan,” asserting that this case “involves an illegal scheme by [the short-term cash lender, the mortgage lender, and the plaintiff] to issue and collect illegal payday loans under a scheme to attempt to evade compliance with new state lending laws. The plaintiff asserted counterclaims for violations of the Short-Term Loan Act, the Mortgage Loan Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and for civil conspiracy.
On motion for summary judgment, the defendant argued that she was entitled to judgment on “Plaintiff's complaint because the parties’ April 2019 agreement ‘is void because it was made in violation of Ohio lending and consumer laws.’” The defendant presented two arguments: (i) the lender is not licensed under the Short-Term Loan Act to issue a loan less than $1000; and (ii) the lender is “prohibited from engaging in acts or practices to evade the prohibition against Mortgage Loan Act registrants issuing loans for $1,000 or less or that have a duration of one year or less.”
In granting summary judgment for the defendant, the court found that the underlying transaction was an “open-end loan under the plain language” of the Mortgage Loan Act, and that it was not a loan for $1,000 or less or one with a duration of one year or less under the Mortgage Loan Act, but that by using the security agreement framework, the lender engaged in an act or practice to evade the Mortgage Loan Act’s prohibition. The court found that the evidence showed defendant went to the lender for a simple loan under $1,000 and was provided on that day a check for $501. The court found further that, “it would appear [the lender] gave Defendant what she was seeking, namely a short-term loan … but without complying with any of the myriad restrictions applicable to such loans under the Short-Term Loan Act.” The court held that the security agreement framework did not stand because the “legally convoluted” structure did not benefit the parties in any meaningful way, and “the only explanation the Court can discern as to why that structure was used is that it was a stratagem for eluding the restrictions of the Short-Term Loan Act that would have otherwise applied to the parties’ transaction.”
FHA requires mortgagees to provide UEI
On August 23, the FHA announced in Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2022-14 that all FHA-approved lenders and mortgagees, and institutions seeking FHA approval, must provide an active Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) as part of their institution data in the Lender Electronic Assessment Portal (LEAP) or application for FHA approval. Additionally, the ML, among other things: (i) informs mortgagees how to register for an UEI; (ii) provides instructions on updating the institution profile in LEAP; and (iii) invites feedback from interested parties for 30 calendar days from the ML’s issuance date. The new provisions must be implemented no later than December 31.
Massachusetts reaches settlement with mortgage servicer over foreclosure practices
On August 17, the Massachusetts attorney general announced that a national mortgage servicer must pay $3.2 million to resolve allegations that its mortgage servicing, debt collection, and foreclosure practices were unfair and deceptive. According to the assurance of discontinuance, the servicer allegedly violated Massachusetts’ Act Preventing Unlawful and Unnecessary Foreclosures by not providing notice and opportunity for borrowers to apply and be reviewed for loan modifications. Among other things, the servicer also allegedly placed debt collection calls exceeding the number of calls permitted by state law, did not inform borrowers of their right to request verification of the amount of their debt, unfairly charged foreclosure-related fees prior to obtaining authority to foreclose, and failed to send required debt validation notices. While the servicer denied the allegations, it agreed to pay borrowers $2.7 million in the form of principal forgiveness on eligible loans as well as a $500,000 fine. The servicer also agreed to “make significant changes” to its business practices.
FHFA, Ginnie Mae update minimum financial eligibility requirements for enterprise seller/servicers and issuers
On August 17, FHFA and Ginnie Mae released a joint announcement regarding updated minimum financial eligibility requirements for seller/servicers and issuers. Ginnie Mae also updated its requirements for servicers of Ginnie Mae mortgages in coordination with FHFA. According to the standards, sellers and servicers will be required to maintain a base net worth of $2.5 million plus 35 basis points of the unpaid principal balance for Ginnie Mae servicing and 25 basis points of the unpaid principal balance for all other 1-to-4-family loans serviced. Fannie and Freddie sellers and servicers would be required to maintain a capital ratio of tangible net worth to total assets that is greater than or equal to 6 percent. Depository institutions would continue to rely on their prudential regulatory standards to meet the GSEs’ capital and liquidity requirements. According to HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge, the standards “ensure that we continue to address the needs of underserved communities through easy, equitable and sustained access to mortgage credit.” FHFA also released FAQs regarding the seller/servicer minimum financial eligibility requirements, and Ginnie Mae released eligibility requirement comparison tables.
FHFA proposes new GSE multifamily housing goals
On August 16, FHFA announced a proposed rule regarding benchmark levels for the 2023 and 2024 multifamily housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). According to the proposed rule, the GSEs will switch from using the number of units in multifamily properties financed annually by each institution to a new methodology of using the percentage of units financed. Instead of measuring the multifamily housing goals based on a number of units, the proposed rule would use the percentage of each of the GSE’s annual multifamily loan acquisitions that are affordable to each income category. FHFA acknowledged that the existing methodology does not incentivize the GSEs to continue to acquire mortgages backed by goal-qualifying units after the institutions have purchased enough mortgages to meet the minimum numeric benchmark levels. According to FHFA Director Sandra Thompson, the proposal “would ensure that each [of the GSE’s] focus remains on affordable segments of the multifamily market and reaffirms FHFA’s commitments to its statutory duty to promote affordability nationwide.”