InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Extend Streamlined Modifications, Announce HAMP Changes, Increase Certain State Foreclosure Timelines
On September 16, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2013-17, and on September 18, Fannie Mae issued Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-18, which extend those entities’ streamlined modification programs to include all streamlined modification trial period plans that become effective by December 1, 2015. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also extended the expiration date for HAMP such that Trial Period Plan Effective Dates must be on or before March 1, 2016 and Modification Effective Dates must be on or before September 1, 2016. Fannie Mae further applied these extended time frames to Second-Lien Modification Programs. In addition, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revised their eligibility requirements for proposed HAMP modifications that are submitted through the Treasury Net Present Value Model on or after January 1, 2014. Further, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (i) retired the annual servicer “Pay for Success” incentive for HAMP-eligible mortgages, effective for modifications with effective dates on or after April 1, 2014 and (ii) updated requirements for repurchased loans subject to a HAMP permanent mortgage loan modification or trial plan. Finally, the Freddie Mac bulletin increased state foreclosure timelines by 30 days in Nevada, New Mexico, and Washington, for all foreclosure sales completed after September 1, 2013, while Fannie took the same action through a separate servicing notice.
Fannie Mae Announces Requirements for Foreclosure Sale Eliminations and Rescissions
On September 18, Fannie Mae issued Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-19, which establishes requirements for eliminations and rescissions of foreclosure sales, effective immediately. The announcement states that when a servicer identifies an issue that requires an elimination and/or rescission, the servicer must submit a request for elimination and/or rescission within five days of that identification. When Fannie Mae identifies an issue that requires a property to be eliminated from its REO inventory or a foreclosure sale to be rescinded, Fannie Mae will initiate the elimination and/or rescission process through a report to the servicer, which will list Fannie Mae’s decision for each servicer-requested elimination or rescission, as well as those eliminations and/or rescissions that Fannie Mae has processed. The servicer must then (i) review the report for notification of servicer-requested elimination/rescission approvals and Fannie Mae-processed eliminations/rescissions, (ii) add each eliminated file back into its servicer system within 24 hours of notification of approval or notification that the file has been eliminated by Fannie Mae, and (iii) resume managing the eliminated/rescinded file pursuant to the Servicing Guide.
Special Alert: CFPB Finalizes Additional Amendments to the 2013 Mortgage Rules
On September 13, the CFPB finalized another set of amendments to its January 2013 mortgage rules. Whereas previous amendments focused largely on the ability-to-repay/qualified mortgage rule, these amendments – originally proposed in late June 2013 – principally address several important questions that have emerged during the implementation process for the mortgage servicing and loan originator compensation rules. We have prepared a Special Alert regarding these latest amendments.
The amendments provide guidance on complying with the rules and, in several cases, the CFPB revised the proposed amendments in response to concerns raised by the industry during the comment period. Nevertheless, the volume and complexity of the new requirements and the number of outstanding issues still present a daunting task for many industry participants as they work to implement the rules by January 2014. The CFPB declined industry requests to provide additional time for compliance and, except as discussed in our Special Alert, has not indicated whether additional amendments will be forthcoming.
Questions regarding the matters discussed in the 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.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
CFPB Finalizes Additional Modifications to Certain Mortgage Rules
On September 13, the CFPB issued final amendments to its Mortgage Servicing and Loan Originator Compensation rules. The CFPB’s press release states that the amendments (i) clarify what servicer activities are prohibited in the first 120 days of delinquency, (ii) outline procedures for obtaining follow-up information on loss mitigation applications, (iii) facilitate servicers’ offering of short-term forbearance plans, (iv) clarify best practices for informing borrowers about the address for error resolution documents, (v) facilitate lending in rural or underserve areas, (vi) clarify the restrictions on the financing of credit insurance premiums, (vii) clarify the definition of a loan originator, (viii) clarify the points and fees thresholds and loan originator compensation rules for manufactured housing employees, and (ix) revise effective dates of many loan originator compensation rule provisions to align with other mortgage rule effective dates. We are reviewing the actual final amendments and plan to provide more information and analysis in the near future. Please also see our Special Alert on these changes as proposed in June.
OCC Announces Additional Foreclosure Review Settlement
On August 23, the OCC announced an amended consent order with one of the financial institutions that entered into a consent order in April 2011 to resolve allegations that the institutions engaged in improper mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices. The agreement follows numerous others released earlier this year and requires the institution to pay roughly $43 million, including $37 million in cash payments to more than 32,000 borrowers. The amendment also effectively ends the Independent Foreclosure Review process set forth under the original consent order for the institution and its customers.
Fannie Mae Announces Miscellaneous Servicing Policy Changes
On August 28, Fannie Mae issued Announcement SVC-2013-17, which describes miscellaneous servicing policy changes and updates. The announcement provides that a servicer is no longer obligated to treat a servicer name change as a transfer of servicing (although all other notification requirements related to name changes remain unchanged). In addition, the announcement clarifies servicer obligations with respect to unemployment forbearance arrangements, providing that (i) prior to expiration of an initial unemployment forbearance term (or upon re-employment), the borrower must be evaluated for an extension or another workout option and (ii) prior to expiration of an extended unemployment forbearance term or upon notification of re-employment, the borrower must be evaluated for other available foreclosure alternatives. The announcement also provides that (i) a borrower in a trial period plan who receives an evaluation notice has 14 days to indicate his or her intent to accept or reject the modification offer, and (ii) in situations where a due-on-sale clause is not enforceable because the property transfer constitutes an “exempt transaction,” a servicer must implement policies and procedures allowing it to promptly identify and communicate with the new property owner (including a widow, executor or administrator of the borrower’s estate, or other authorized representative upon notice of the death of a borrower) and allow such new property owner to make mortgage payments, to pursue an assumption, and to be evaluated for foreclosure alternatives, as applicable. If a mortgage loan is delinquent and the new property owner is unable to bring the mortgage loan current, he or she must be evaluated for all available workout options, and the servicer must follow Servicing Guide eligibility and Borrower Response Package requirements in doing so. All changes and updates take effect immediately for mortgage loans that become delinquent on or after the date of the announcement, except those related to unemployment forbearance. Servicers are required to implement the unemployment forbearance policies no later than November 1, 2013.
FHFA Plans Enhanced Oversight of Mortgage Servicing Transfers
On August 22, the FHFA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report on its review of the FHFA’s oversight of Fannie Mae’s January 2013 representation and warranty settlement with a mortgage originator and the FHFA’s related approval of the sale of certain of the originator’s mortgage servicing rights (MSR) to specialty servicers. The OIG reviewed the process by which the FHFA assessed and approved the MSR transfer and concluded that the FHFA’s review of the MSR transfer did not reflect the “depth of analysis that likely would have been accorded had FHFA followed a process comparable to that used in its newly established process for reviewing mortgage repurchase . . . settlements.” As such, the OIG determined that the FHFA should establish a formal review process for “compensatory fee settlements and significant mortgage servicing rights transfers.” In a letter attached to the report, the FHFA concurred with the OIG’s recommendation, and committed to establish guidelines for compensatory fee settlements and significant MSR transfers by January 31, 2014.
Freddie Mac Updates SCRA Servicing Requirements
On August 15, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2013-05, which, among other things, revises requirements relating to the SCRA and similar state laws and explains servicer responsibilities to effectively implement military relief legal protections. Specifically, Freddie Mac eliminated the requirement that servicers collect and report official documentation of a servicemember’s disability or death and available government benefits in the event a servicemember dies or becomes disabled while on active duty. In addition, Freddie Mac added a new guide section to include the additional foreclosure relief Freddie Mac provides to servicemembers and their dependents, and repurposed another guide section to remind servicers of their responsibilities to evaluate servicemembers and their dependents for the most appropriate relief or workout option from Freddie Mac’s existing options when a servicemember or dependent: (i) does not qualify for mortgage relief under the provisions of the SCRA or similar state laws; or (ii) qualifies for mortgage relief under the provisions of the SCRA or similar state law, but chooses to explore other relief options.
Eighth Circuit Extends Recent TILA Rescission Holding
On August 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that borrowers facing foreclosure were required to file suit prior to the foreclosure sale to complete the exercise of their right to rescind under TILA. Hartman v. Smith, No. 12-1947, 2013 WL 4407058 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2013). In this case, the bank moved to foreclose after the borrowers failed to make payments to a real estate financing firm with which the borrowers had placed mortgages on the property. After the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale, the borrowers sued the bank and the financing firm, seeking, among other things, to rescind the loans under TILA on the basis that they provided written notice of rescission prior to the foreclosure sale. Applying its recent holding in Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 720 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. Jul. 12, 2013) that a borrower seeking rescission under TILA must file suit within three years to preserve the borrower’s right of rescission, the court again held that providing notice under TILA is a necessary but not sufficient predicate to exercising the right to rescind. Here, where the foreclosure sale occurred within the three-year rescission period, the court held that the borrowers were required to file a rescission action in a court prior to the foreclosure sale. Because they failed to do so, the court held that their rescission claim was barred.
CFPB Issues Report on Examination Findings, Other Supervisory Activities
This afternoon, the CFPB released its summer 2013 Supervisory Highlights report, which covers supervisory activity from November 2012-June 2013. This is the second such report the CFPB has released; the first report came out in October 2012 and covered activity from July 2011 through September 2012.
The report provides a brief review of the CFPB’s public enforcement actions and non-public supervisory actions and developments in the supervision program, including the issuance of bulletins, the issuance of new fair lending examination procedures, and the reorganization of supervision staff. The report also reviews the CFPB’s risk-based approach to examinations, including the “Institution Product Lines” approach, and outlines the factors that influence examination priorities. The report does not identify any planned supervisory activities.
The bulk of the report, however, summarizes the CFPB’s examination findings. Key findings are discussed below.
Compliance Management Systems (CMS)
- CMS Elements
- Although the report states no specific CMS structure is required, it also states that, based on the CFPB’s supervisory experience, an effective CMS commonly has the following components: (i) board and management oversight; (ii) compliance program; (iii) consumer complaint management program; and (iv) independent compliance audit. The report provides additional discussion on each component.
- Nonbanks
- The report states that nonbanks are more likely than banks to lack a robust CMS. The CFPB found one or more instances of nonbanks that lack formal policies and procedures, have not developed a consumer compliance program, or do not conduct independent consumer compliance audits. According to the CFPB, the lack of an effective CMS has, in a number of instances, resulted in violations of Federal consumer financial laws. In these instances, the CFPB has required appropriate corrective action.
- The report notes that CMS deficiencies in nonbanks are generally related to the supervised entity’s lacking a CMS structure altogether. CFPB examinations have found instances where nonbanks do not have a separate compliance function; rather, compliance is embedded in the business line, which can lead to deficiencies.
- Banks
- The CFPB found that banks generally had an adequate CMS structure; however, several institutions lacked one or more of the components of an effective CMS.
- The most common weakness the CFPB identified in banks is a deficient system of periodic monitoring and independent compliance audits. An entity that lacks periodic monitoring and instead relies on an annual independent compliance audit to identify regulatory violations and CMS deficiencies increases its risk that violations and weaknesses will go undetected for long periods of time, potentially leading to multiple regulatory violations and increased consumer harm.
Mortgage Servicing
- Servicing Transfers
- Examiners found noncompliance with RESPA’s requirement to provide disclosures to consumers about transfers of the servicing of their loans.
- Examiners also noted lack of controls relating to the review and handling of key documents – such as loan modification applications, trial modification agreements, and other loss mitigation agreements – necessary to ensure the proper transfer of servicing responsibilities for a loan.
- Examiners noted that one servicer did not review any individual documents that the prior servicer had transferred, such as trial loan modification agreements.
- At another servicer, examiners determined that documentation the servicer received in the transfer was not organized or labeled, and as a result, the servicer did not utilize loss mitigation information provided to the prior servicer in its loss mitigation efforts.
- Payment Processing
- A servicer provided inadequate notice to borrowers of a change in the address to which they should send payments, which constituted a potentially unfair practice impacting thousands of borrowers. The entity acted promptly to ensure that it did not impose late fees or other delinquency fees, or any other negative consequences.
- A servicer decided – without notice to borrowers – to delay property tax payments from December of one year to January of the next, resulting in the borrowers’ inability to claim a tax deduction for the prior year, which the CFPB cited as an unfair practice.
- A servicer paid certain property taxes late, in violation of RESPA. The CFPB directed the servicer to pay any fees associated with the late payment and to investigate whether consumers experienced any additional harm as a result of the late payments. Further, at the CFPB’s direction, the servicer will notify consumers of the late payment and solicit information about any additional harm. If any such harm is identified, the servicer will remediate it.
- Examiners have found violations of the Homeowners Protection Act (HPA) at several servicers. In one examination, examiners found excessive delays in processing borrower requests for private mortgage insurance (PMI) cancellation. Additionally, in cases where PMI was canceled, the servicer improperly handled unearned PMI premiums in violation of the HPA. The CFPB required the servicer to amend its policies and procedures relating to PMI cancellation. The servicer also must conduct a review to determine whether borrowers were subject to additional harm caused by delays in processing PMI cancellations.
- Examiners identified a servicer that charged consumers default-related fees without adequately documenting the reasons for and amounts of the fees. Examiners also identified situations where servicers mistakenly charged borrowers default-related fees that investors were supposed to pay under investor agreements. Servicers have refunded these fees to borrowers.
- Loss Mitigation
- Examiners have found issues related to: (i) inconsistent borrower solicitation and communication; (ii) inconsistent loss mitigation underwriting; (iii) inconsistent waivers of certain fees or interest charges; (iii) long application review periods; (iv) missing denial notices; (v) incomplete and disorganized servicing files; (vi) incomplete written policies and procedures; and (v) lack of quality assurance on underwriting decisions.
- The CFPB states that weak compliance management surrounding loss mitigation processes creates fair lending risk and that it expects that entities servicing mortgage loans will implement fair lending policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that they are ECOA compliant. The CFPB states that servicers should conduct fair lending training for loss mitigation staff and engage in effective and timely fair lending risk assessments, compliance monitoring, and testing.
Fair Lending
- ECOA
- The report states that some lenders are not complying with various aspects of the adverse action notification requirements under ECOA and Regulation B. The CFPB has found instances where supervised entities violated ECOA and Regulation B by failing to comply with either the provision, content, or timing requirements for adverse action notices and has directed the entities to develop and implement plans to ensure that the appropriate monitoring and internal controls are in place to detect and prevent future violations.
- The report specifically notes that loan servicers should have systems in place to determine whether borrowers who apply for a change in the terms of credit are entitled to adverse action notices. The CFPB notes that some institutions may find it helpful to arrange for independent, internal reviews of loan files to ensure that the documentation supports the action taken and that all timing requirements are met. In addition, the report states that institutions should provide comprehensive periodic training to management and staff regarding compliance with ECOA and Regulation B, including compliance with provisions on adverse action notices.
- CMS Elements