InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB reminds servicers to use HAF funds to prevent foreclosure
On March 14, the CFPB published a blog post strongly encouraging mortgage servicers to participate in the Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) to help borrowers avoid foreclosure and resolve delinquencies. While participation is voluntary, the Bureau reminded servicers that it remains focused on preventing avoidable foreclosures, and HAF funds can only help “if mortgage servicers work with state housing finance agencies and HUD-approved housing counselors to help borrowers” complete the process. HAF funds may allow borrowers to pay down the amount owed on a mortgage and help them enter loan modifications with lower payments. The Bureau also encouraged servicers to offer HAF program training to customer service representatives to ensure borrowers are provided accurate information about the loss mitigation process. Additionally, servicers should maintain policies and procedures that are designed to properly evaluate loss mitigation applications and should review existing policies and procedures to ensure borrowers are not improperly referred to foreclosure, especially in cases where a borrower’s HAF application is pending, or a borrower is awaiting HAF funds. The Bureau reminded servicers that it will continue to closely monitor servicer conduct and review mortgage servicing complaints to ensure compliance with all applicable federal consumer financial laws.
FHA announces SFHA mortgagee requirements
On March 9, FHA announced FHA INFO 2022-25, which makes enhancements to FHA Connection (FHAC) and requires mortgagees to indicate if property improvements are in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and provide applicable flood insurance data electronically if so. The enhancements implement new fields for the electronic submission of flood related data currently contained in FHA case binders. The electronic data collection will permit FHA to perform more data analytics on FHA-insured properties in flood zones. Mortgagees may submit additional flood-related data electronically for single family forward mortgages and Home Equity Conversion Mortgages on the corresponding Insurance Application Screens in FHAC, which include, among other things: (i) information regarding whether the property improvement is in a SFHA; (ii) indication of the existence of a final Letter of Map Amendment, final Letter of Map Revision, or a FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Elevation Certificate to verify that the property is not in a SFHA; and (iii) other details which may include flood insurance building coverage, flood insurance company, and the flood insurance policy number.
VA updates loan repayment relief for Covid-19 borrowers
On February 28, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued changes updating Circular 26-21-07 to address loan repayment relief for borrowers affected by Covid-19. The circular is “Change 2” of the original circular issued in June 2021, which, among other things, provided servicers with information regarding home retention options and foreclosure alternatives for impacted borrowers. The guidance stems from the extended duration of the pandemic and developments in the VA’s program. (Covered by InfoBytes here). The circular is now effective until July 2023.
FDIC releases January enforcement actions
On February 25, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in January. During the month, the FDIC made public nine orders consisting of “four Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalty, one order terminating consent order, one voluntary termination of deposit insurance, and three orders of prohibition from further participation.” Among the actions is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Wisconsin-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank “fail[ed] to obtain adequate flood insurance for two loans,” and “faile[d] to provide to borrowers a Notice of Special Flood Hazard and Availability of Federal Disaster Relief Assistance within a reasonable time before the completion of the transaction on four loans.” The order requires the payment of a $3,000 civil money penalty. The orders also include pay a civil money penalty order imposed against a Iowa-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. 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 a loan 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 and/or the servicer 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 $16,250 civil money penalty.
FHFA re-proposes GSE seller/servicer eligibility requirements
On February 24, FHFA re-proposed updated eligibility standards that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, GSEs) mortgage sellers and servicers would have to meet. The updated proposed requirements are designed to provide transparency and consistency of capital and liquidity requirements for sellers and servicers with different business models, and would differentiate between the servicing of Ginnie Mae mortgages and GSE mortgages. FHFA noted that the updated proposed requirements, which reflect coordination with other federal agencies, also incorporate feedback from a January 2020 proposal (covered by InfoBytes here), as well as lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under the updated proposed requirements, all GSE sellers and servicers (both depositories and non-depositories) would be required to maintain a tangible net worth requirement 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 unit residential loans serviced, including GSE loans. Current GSE sellers and servicers, as well as new applicants, will be required to comply with the updated proposed requirements by December 31, 2022, minus the exception that Capital and Liquidity Plan requirements must be submitted to the GSEs by December 31, 2023, and are due annually by the end of each year thereafter. Comments on the proposed changes are due in 60 days. FHFA stated it anticipates finalizing the updated proposed requirements in the second quarter of 2022, with most requirements taking effect six months after finalization.
HUD announces Nebraska and Iowa disaster relief
On February 24, HUD announced disaster assistance for certain areas in Nebraska and Iowa impacted by severe storms, straight-line winds, and tornadoes on December 15, 2021. This follows President Biden’s major disaster declaration for certain counties on February 23. The disaster relief includes providing an automatic 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages for covered properties and making FHA insurance available to victims whose homes were destroyed or severely damaged, such that “reconstruction or replacement is necessary.” Additionally, HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program will allow individuals who have lost homes to finance the purchase of a house, or refinance an existing house and the costs of repair, through a single mortgage. The program will also allow homeowners with damaged property to finance the rehabilitation of existing single-family homes. Flexibility measures for state and local governments, public housing authorities, tribes, and tribally designated house entities are also addressed.
4th Circuit reviews whether borrowers’ letters are QWRs under REPSA
On February 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s dismissal of claims related to whether letters sent by plaintiff borrowers to a defendant loan servicer constituted qualified written requests (QWRs) under RESPA or Regulation X that would require the defendant to stop sending adverse information about accounts to credit reporting agencies. According to the opinion, one of the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant asking to have his records corrected after noticing his credit reports reflected purported overdue home loan payments that were allegedly affecting his employment after his employer expressed concerns about the credit report. The plaintiff noted a discrepancy between the amount he was allegedly behind on his mortgage payment and included a copy of the credit report his employer received, his account number, the ID number of the agent with whom he spoke on the phone, and requested that the error be corrected. However, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to report adverse loan information. The other named plaintiff allegedly fell behind on her loan payments, and the defendant began reporting adverse information to the credit reporting agencies. She later applied for a loan modification, which was not finalized due to the existence of a lien by a solar panel company. The plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant challenging the existence of “title issues” and asked for her dispute to be investigated and corrected. The parties ultimately finalized a loan modification, but in the interim, the defendant continued reporting adverse information. The plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that despite sending QWRs, the defendant continued to report adverse information on their loans to credit reporting agencies; however, the district court dismissed the claims.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the first plaintiff’s claim, holding that the plaintiff’s letter was a QWR subject to RESPA because it contained sufficient details to identify his account and indicate why he believed the credit reporting was in error. In particular, the court noted that the letter constituted a QWR because it did not rely solely on the alleged phone call “as the basis for the description of the problem,” but also detailed conflicting balance information received from the defendant and the credit reporting service. The dissenting judge wrote that this plaintiff’s letter was not a QWR because it failed to identify the possible error and did not provide a statement of reasons for believing the unidentified error existed.
With respect to the other named plaintiff’s claim, the court affirmed dismissal because the letter did not qualify as a QWR. The court explained that the content of the plaintiff’s letter failed to satisfy the requirements of a valid QWR, finding that “correspondence limited to the dispute of contractual issues that do not relate to the servicing of the loan, such as loan modification applications, do not qualify as QWRs.”
Agencies weigh in on availability of SPCPs under ECOA and Regulation B
On February 22, the CFPB, DOJ, FDIC, Fed, FHFA HUD, OCC, and NCUA released an interagency statement “to remind creditors of the ability under [ECOA] and Regulation B to establish special purpose credit programs [(SPCPs)].” The statement points creditors to the CFPB’s December 2020 Advisory Opinion on SPCPs, which clarified (i) the content that a for-profit organization must include in a written plan that establishes and administers a SPCP under Regulation B; and (ii) the type of research and data that may be appropriate to inform a for-profit organization’s determination that an SPCP is needed to benefit a specified class of persons. The statement highlights December 7, 2021 HUD guidance, which concluded that SPCPs “instituted in conformity with ECOA and Regulation B generally do not violate the FHA,” conveying that SPCPs may also be appropriate avenues to expand credit access in mortgage lending. This was reiterated in a post released by the CFPB, stating that the “[interagency] statement [on SPCPs] calls attention to these programs as one way to expand access to critical financial services, including mortgage lending.”
Montana adopts NMLS forms and procedure amendments
Recently, the Montana Department of Administration adopted Nationwide Multistate Licensing System & Registry standardized forms and procedures that include, among other things, information and updates on: (i) escrow business licenses; (ii) definitions for mortgage licensees; (iii) revocation, suspension, or surrender of mortgage licenses; (iv) sales finance company licenses; and (v) consumer loan license surrender. The provisions became effective February 12.
CFPB seeks to prevent algorithmic bias
On February 23, the CFPB released an outline of possible options for upcoming rulemaking to prevent algorithmic bias in automated home valuation models (AVMs). Dodd-Frank mandates that the Bureau, Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA engage in joint agency rulemaking to strengthen the oversight of AVMs, which requires (i) ensuring a high level of confidence in the estimates; (ii) protecting against data manipulation; (iii) avoiding conflicts of interest; (iv) requiring random sample testing and reviews; and (v) accounting for other factors deemed “appropriate” by the agencies. The Small Business Advisory Review Panel’s Outline of Proposals and Alternatives Under Consideration details options for ensuring computer models used to determine home valuations are accurate and fair. While recognizing that AVMs “have the potential to contribute to lower costs and shorter turnaround times in the performance of property valuations” and are increasingly being used—in part due to advances in database and modeling technology and the availability of larger property datasets—the Bureau cautioned that using AVMs may introduce several risks that can impact data integrity and accuracy. The outline also expressed concerns that AVMs may “reflect bias in design and function or through the use of biased data and may introduce fair lending risk.” To mitigate potential fair lending risks in AVMs, the Bureau stated it is considering proposing “a requirement that covered institutions establish policies, practices, procedures, and control systems to ensure that their AVMs comply with applicable nondiscrimination laws.” The Bureau added that it “preliminarily believe[s] standards designed to ensure compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws may help ensure the accuracy, reliability, and independence of AVMs for all consumers and users.” Without proper safeguards, the Bureau warned in its announcement that “flawed” AVMs “could digitally redline certain neighborhoods and further embed and perpetuate historical lending, wealth, and home value disparities.”
Among other things, the outline also previewed definitions under consideration for terms such as “mortgage originator,” “mortgage,” and “consumer’s principal dwelling,” and noted that the Bureau is considering a “principles-based option” to allow regulated institutions more flexibility to set their own AVM quality control standards, as well as a “prescriptive option” with a more detailed set of requirements for institutions to reduce potential compliance uncertainty. “It is tempting to think that machines crunching numbers can take bias out of the equation, but they can’t,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said. “This initiative is one of many steps we are taking to ensure that in-person and algorithmic appraisals are fairer and more accurate.”
The Bureau stated that the next step will be to review the options to determine their potential impact on small business stakeholders as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Feedback will be used to inform the Bureau’s efforts on developing a formal proposal with the other agencies.