InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Coding glitch hits credit scores
Recently, a consumer reporting agency (CRA) informed lenders and industry members that it experienced a coding issue when it changed some of the technology to its legacy online model platform. As a result of the issue, the CRA advised that the miscalculation impacted approximately 12 percent of credit scores, although credit reports were not affected.
In response, on June 1, Fannie Mae issued a notice regarding the coding error. Fannie Mae reminded lenders “of their obligations under the Selling Guide to correct erroneous credit data, ensure the accuracy of the credit data submitted to Desktop Underwriter® (DU® ) at the time of loan sale, and to provide any corrected information to us.” Freddie Mac issued a similar notice advising lenders of their credit reporting and data correction responsibilities. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are monitoring the situation and may issue additional guidance regarding the coding issue.
Freddie’s automated underwriting now includes bank account data
On May 26, Freddie Mac announced new automated underwriting capabilities that will allow mortgage lenders to verify assets, income, and employment using borrower-approved bank account data. The new functionality is available starting June 1, through Freddie’s asset and income modeler (AIM) within the Freddie Mac Loan Product Advisor. According to Freddie’s announcement, the automated underwriting capability “provides the borrower’s current employment status using borrower-approved bank account (direct deposit) or payroll data obtained from designated third-party service providers” in order to give “lenders a more efficient option than obtaining oral or written verification of employment prior to closing.” Freddie cited a recent study, which found that adopting offerings like AIM helps lenders “significantly boost efficiency and shorten cycle times by as much as 15 days.” These efficiencies, Freddie said, “translate into a 30 percent reduction in loan origination costs, greater customer satisfaction, and an increase in applications being completed and closed.” The announcement also noted that Freddie recently released the industry’s first automated-assessment of direct deposit income, which enables AIM to access additional fixed income or alternative income sources such as retirement, Social Security, Veteran Affairs benefits, alimony, and child support, as well as income from an applicant’s tax return for self-employed individuals.
HUD announces Kansas disaster relief
On May 26, HUD announced disaster assistance for certain areas in Kansas impacted by severe winter storms and straight-line winds from March 17 to March 22. The disaster assistance follows President Biden’s major disaster declarations on May 25. According to the announcement, HUD is providing immediate foreclosure relief, making various FHA mortgage insurance available to disaster victims, and providing information on housing providers as well as HUD-approved housing counseling agencies, among other measures. Specifically, HUD is providing an automatic 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages for covered properties effective May 25. It is also making various FHA insurance options available to victims whose homes require repairs or were destroyed or severely damaged. HUD’s Section 203(h) program allows borrowers from participating FHA-approved lenders to obtain 100 percent financing, including closing costs, for homes in which “reconstruction or replacement is necessary.” HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program enables individuals to finance the repair of their existing homes or to include repair costs in the finance of a home purchase or a refinance of a home. HUD is also allowing administrative flexibilities to community planning and development grantees, as well as to public housing agencies and Tribes.
VA eliminates pre-approval process for certain loans
On May 19, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-22-09 to announce new procedures for loan approval and new procedures for processing joint loans. The Circular explains that, historically, the Department conducted a pre-closing review of loan application packages when the borrower had been rated unable to manage financial affairs and has a VA-appointed fiduciary. The Department also conducted a pre-closing review of cases where a loan would include more than one veteran using entitlement. In both cases, “the lender has sent such loan application packages to VA in advance of loan closing, and loan closing has not been able to proceed until after VA has issued approval.” The Circular noted that in an effort to streamline procedures to improve the veteran experience, the Department “has determined that such case-by-case reviews add a step that VA no longer believes necessary for ensuring program integrity.” The Circular also noted that that post-audit oversight would be as effective as a pre-closing review in maintaining program integrity, without the delays and additional administrative burdens that can be associated with the historical process. The Circular is effective immediately.
NYDFS issues industry letter on reverse mortgage lending
On May 17, NYDFS announced an industry letter to establish its expectations for all institutions engaged in reverse mortgage lending in the State on cooperative apartment units (coop-reverse mortgages) once newly enacted Section 6-O*2 of the New York Banking Law takes effect May 30. The letter noted there is a comprehensive regulatory framework that addresses the marketing, origination, and servicing of reverse mortgages in New York and stated that most of the existing requirements apply equally to coop-reverse mortgages. This includes Title 3 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations Part 79 (3 NYCRR 79), which establishes various requirements relating to the marketing, origination, servicing, and termination of reverse mortgage loans in New York, and Title 3 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations Part 38 (3 NYCRR 38), which addresses issues involving, among other things, commitments and advertising for mortgage loans generally. Even so, the letter noted that NYDFS is considering amending its existing regulations to specifically address coop-reverse mortgages, or issuing a separate regulation governing this as a new product. Finally, the letter explained that “institutions that seek to originate, or service coop-reverse mortgages are directed to comply with the provisions of 3 NYCRR 79, and 3 NYCRR 38 in originating or servicing such mortgages” (subject to described clarifications, modifications, and exclusions). However, NYDFS stated that “in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of Section 6-O*2 and provisions of either 3 NYCRR 79 or 3 NYCRR 38, the provisions of Section 6-O*2 will govern; and in the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of 3 NYCRR 79 and 3 NYCRR 38, provisions of 3 NYCRR 79 will govern.”
Ginnie announces Digital Collateral Program and eGuide enhancements
On May 23, Ginnie Mae announced enhancements to its Digital Collateral Program and released updated guidance for the securitization of eNotes. According to the announcement, the revised Digital Collateral Guide (eGuide) applies to all existing eIssuers and provides eligibility and technological requirements for interested applicants. The announcement noted that Ginnie Mae’s digital program has received continued interest since Ginnie Mae securitized its first eNote in January 2021. The current participants in the Ginnie Mae program are existing issuers, which is a requirement under the program. After a successful pilot phase of its new Digital Collateral Program, Ginnie Mae said that it will reopen the program to new applicants on June 21. Additionally, enhancements to the program include the ability to perform eModifications to eNotes, streamlined procedures for Release of Secured Party requests, and the acceptance of eNotes using a Power of Attorney. The eGuide updates are effective June 1.
District Court grants in part/denies in part defendant’s motion in RESPA, FDCPA case
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted in part and denied in part a defendant mortgage servicer’s motion for summary judgment concerning allegations that the defendant improperly foreclosed on plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant wrongfully accused her of failing to remedy her default and therefore violated RESPA and the FDCPA, among other things. Ultimately, the court denied defendant’s summary judgment request as to plaintiff’s RESPA claim because the defendant failed to exercise due diligence. But the court granted defendant’s request for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s FDCPA claim because plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant acted deceptively.
The plaintiff’s original loan—serviced by a previous servicer—was modified in 2016. But payments again were not made, so the previous servicer notified the plaintiff in December 2018 that it had accelerated the loan’s maturity date and referred the loan to foreclosure. The plaintiff, however, again applied for another modification in early 2019. After telling plaintiff her application was complete, the previous servicer then told the plaintiff, who claimed she inherited the property, that it needed additional documents to prove plaintiff’s successor-in-interest status. Ultimately, the previous servicer did not confirm the modification because the plaintiff did not confirm her successor-in-interest status.
The plaintiff again applied for a loan modification in March 2019, after the previous servicer transferred servicing rights to the defendant, and this modification was denied. She allegedly spoke with one of defendant’s representatives about the denial and indicated that she wished to reapply for a modification. However, the representative advised that she would have to reinstate the mortgage first before any loan modification. The defendant then sent a default letter to plaintiff’s property, which advised that the loan was still in default and needed payment.
The plaintiff submitted at least one additional request for mortgage assistance after the March 2019 modification application. The defendant acknowledged receipt of the request and detailed the documents it needed to process the request. The defendant then followed up in June 2019, stating again that it could not confirm that she was the successor-in-interest on the loan without documentation. A month later the defendant advised the plaintiff again that documents were still missing that were necessary to process her loan assistance request. The loan remained in default thereafter and the defendant foreclosed in August 2019.
In adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied as to the RESPA claim, the district court noted that the defendant possibly should have sought documents, specifically the successor-in-interest documentation from the previous servicer, after the plaintiff submitted an incomplete loan modification application. The court stated that “there is a question of material fact whether [defendant] exercised reasonable diligence in failing to request the successor-in-interest documentation from [the previous servicer].” The court added that “there is a requirement of reasonable diligence, and there is no evidence showing that [defendant] met this standard. Failing to address the regulatory standard creates a question that cannot be resolved on the available information. Thus, there is at least one question of material fact here.”
Regarding plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, the court noted that “there is no evidence of deception in the foreclosure of loan payment process” and that “[p]laintiff has failed to provide any evidence that [defendant] acted dishonestly in requesting additional documentation to complete the loan modification.” The court therefore granted defendant’s summary judgment motion as to the FDCPA claim.
FDIC approves final rule for trust, mortgage servicing account insurance
On May 18, the FDIC published a final rule that amends the deposit insurance regulations for trust accounts and mortgage servicing accounts. According to the FDIC, the final rule is “intended to make the deposit insurance rules easier to understand for depositors and bankers, facilitate more timely insurance determinations for trust accounts in the event of a bank failure, and enhance consistency of insurance coverage for mortgage servicing account deposits.”
The final rule, among other things: (i) establishes updates to the Banker Resources Guide Deposit Insurance Page with the Small Entity Compliance Guide (Community Bank Information) to promote understanding of the regulations; (ii) amends the deposit insurance regulations by merging the revocable and irrevocable trusts categories; (iii) “amends the regulation to expand the current per-borrower coverage of up to $250,000 to include any funds paid into the account to satisfy the principal and interest obligation of the mortgagors to the lender”; and (iv) establishes that certain “depositors within excess of $1.25 million in trusts deposits at a particular IDI may want to make changes given the new coverage limits” effective April 1, 2024.
CFPB report finds variance in mortgage servicers’ pandemic response
On May 16, the CFPB released a report examining data collected across 16 large mortgage servicers from May through December 2021 on the servicers’ responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the Bureau, there is significant variation in how servicers collected information on borrowers’ language preference, stating that “the substantial lack of information about borrowers’ language preference and varying data quality made it challenging to make any comparison between servicers.” However, the report also found that “the number of non-[limited English proficiency] borrowers who were delinquent without a loss mitigation option after forbearance declined over time, with the greatest decrease between October and November 2021, while the number of unknown and limited English proficiency (LEP) borrowers did not reflect the same decrease.” The report noted that servicer response to the Bureau’s requests for borrower demographics, including “a breakdown of the total loans they service by race, and race information for forbearances, delinquencies, and forbearance exits” was limited, precluding comparisons. The report encouraged "servicers to ensure that they are preventing discrimination in the provision of loss mitigation assistance.” Other key findings from the report included: (i) by the end of 2021, more than 330,000 borrowers’ loans remained delinquent – with no loss mitigation solution in place; (ii) the average hold times of more than ten minutes and call abandonment rates exceed 30 percent for certain servicers; (iii) the percentage of borrowers in delinquency and who had a non-English language preference increased during the reviewed period, but the percentage decreased for borrowers in delinquency and who identified English as their preferred language; (iv) more than half of the borrowers in the data received are categorized as race “unknown”; and (v) most borrowers exiting Covid forbearance exited with a loan modification (27 percent), while 15.2 percent exited in a state of delinquency.
9th Circuit: Incomplete loan modification application bars plaintiff's CA Homeowner Bill of Rights claims
On May 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a plaintiff’s allegations that a lender violated RESPA and the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), breached its contract, and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s request for promissory estoppel. In affirming the district court, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff’s HBOR claims failed, specifically because the plaintiff insufficiently showed that she incurred actual damages because of a RESPA violation. The appellate court also agreed that the plaintiff’s HBOR claims failed because she did not submit a complete application. Under HBOR, mortgage servicers are prohibited from reporting a notice of default if a lender’s “complete application for a first lien loan modification” is pending. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently show that she had submitted a complete loan modification application, and did not demonstrate that she took follow-up action in response to a letter stating her loan modification application was incomplete, meaning her claim failed.
With respect to the plaintiff’s remaining claims, the 9th Circuit held, among other things, that the lender’s “alleged promise to consider plaintiff’s loan modification application upon dismissal of her lawsuit was neither sufficiently definite to create a contract nor sufficiently ‘clear and unambiguous to support a promissory estoppel.’” Moreover, the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing also failed because she could not prove breach of contract. Specifically, she did not state a claim for breach of the deed of trust because, as the plaintiff herself noted, “she failed to perform under the deed of trust when she did not make loan payments, and performance under the contract is a necessary element of a breach of contract claim.”
The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority in two key respects. First, the judge argued the majority wrongfully rejected the plaintiff’s HBOR claim because the complaint contended that the lender “would send out such boilerplate letters so that it did not have to comply with the requirement that it cease foreclosure activities once an application is complete,” and that “a lender’s bad faith conduct does not render a borrower’s application incomplete.” Regarding the plaintiff’s good faith and fair dealing claim, the judge argued that the plaintiff plausibly alleged that she submitted a complete application to the lender. According to the complaint, the plaintiff submitted the necessary documents and was allegedly informed by the lender’s lawyer that “her application was ‘in review, which meant that plaintiff’s application was complete.’”