InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CSBS proposes prudential standards for state-licensed nonbank mortgage servicers
On October 1, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) requested public comment on proposed regulatory prudential standards for nonbank mortgage servicers. According to CSBS, the proposal is being issued to address concerns about nonbank mortgage servicers, including the rapid market share growth, institution size, and financial stability and governance. The goals of the proposal are to (i) “[p]rovide better protection for borrowers, investors and other stakeholders in the occurrence of a stress event. . .[that] could result in harm”; (ii) “[e]nhance effective regulatory oversight and market discipline over these entities”; and (iii) “[i]mprove transparency, accountability, risk management and corporate governance standards.” Highlights of the proposal include:
- Baseline Standards. CSBS notes that the baseline standards, which cover eight areas—capital, liquidity, risk management, data standards and integrity, data protection/cyber risk, corporate governance, servicing transfer requirements and change of control—will represent regulatory requirements for state-licensed nonbank mortgage servicers and will “leverage existing standards or generally accepted business practices” in order to minimize the regulatory burden.
- Enhanced Standards. CSBS is proposing enhanced standards that would apply to servicers owning whole loans plus mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) totaling the lesser of $100 billion or representing at least a 2.5 percent total market share based on Mortgage Call Report quarterly data of licensed nonbank owned whole loans and MSRs (known as “Complex Servicers”). The enhanced standards would be applied to capital, liquidity, stress testing and living will/recovery and resolution planning. Additionally, the proposal notes that regulators may determine a nonbank mortgage servicer that does not meet the definition of Complex Servicer is still subject to the enhanced standards based on “a unique risk profile, growth, market importance, or financial condition of the institution.”
Comments on the proposal are due by December 31.
Hawaii regulator extends authorization for reduced office hours, temporary closures
On October 2, the Hawaii Division of Financial Institutions extended interim guidance allowing Hawaii-located financial institutions to reduce hours or close offices during Hawaii’s Covid-19 state of emergency (see here and here for previous coverage). Similar to previously issued guidance, financial institutions and escrow depositories are required to provide notice of closures or reductions in hours. While mortgage loan originators, mortgage servicers and money transmitters are not required to provide notice, the regulator requests a courtesy notification of any closure or reduction in hours. The guidance is extended “in accordance with the county emergency orders found on each county website.”
CFPB issues Summer 2020 Supervisory Highlights
On September 4, the CFPB released its summer 2020 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage servicing, and payday lending. The findings of the report, which are published to assist entities in complying with applicable consumer laws, cover examinations that generally were completed between September and December of 2019. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Consumer Reporting. The Bureau cited violations of the FCRA’s requirement that lenders first establish a permissible purpose before they obtain a consumer credit report. Additionally, the report notes instances where furnishers failed to review account information and other documentation provided by consumers during direct and indirect disputes. The Bureau notes that “[i]nadequate staffing and high daily dispute resolution requirements contributed to the furnishers’ failure to conduct reasonable investigations.”
- Debt Collection. The report states that examiners found one or more debt collectors (i) falsely threatened consumers with illegal lawsuits; (ii) falsely implied that debts would be reported to credit reporting agencies (CRA); and (iii) falsely represented that they operated or were employed by a CRA.
- Deposits. The Bureau discusses violations related to Regulation E and Regulation DD, including requiring waivers of consumers’ error resolution and stop payment rights and failing to fulfill advertised bonus offers.
- Fair Lending. The report notes instances where examiners cited violations of ECOA, including intentionally redlining majority-minority neighborhoods and failing to consider public assistance income when determining a borrower’s eligibility for mortgage modification programs.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau cited violations of Regulation Z and Regulation X, including (i) failing to provide periodic statements to consumers in bankruptcy; (ii) charging forced-placed insurance without a reasonable basis; and (iii) various errors after servicing transfers.
- Payday Lending. The report discusses violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act for payday lenders, including (i) falsely representing that they would not run a credit check; (ii) falsely threatening lien placement or asset seizure; and (iii) failing to provide required advertising disclosures.
The report also highlights the Bureau’s recently issued rules and guidance, including the various responses to the CARES Act and the Covid-19 pandemic.
New York regulator issues guidance to regulated mortgage lenders and servicers regarding fees
On September 1, the New York Department of Financial Services issued industry guidance instructing regulated mortgage lenders and servicers not to charge (or pass through to) consumers for mortgage default registration fees. The press release announcing the guidance notes that certain counties, cities, and municipalities in New York require mortgagees to pay a fee to register mortgages declared to be in default. Noting that consumers are facing financial hardship arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, the DFS guidance provides that these fees may not be passed on to consumers. Moreover, lenders and servicers who have charged consumers such fees must provide refunds, and must create a log of all borrowers who were charged such fees.
Colorado regulator updates guidance to real estate businesses with new mask requirements
On August 31, the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies updated its Safer at Home: Additional Guidance for Real Estate Brokers & Servicers, previously covered here and here, to note that the executive order creating a statewide mask ordinance was extended by Executive Order D 2020 164. Real estate businesses and professionals are encouraged to review the guidance, which responds to frequently asked questions related to real estate services, including field services.
D.C. enacts law extending obligations for debt collection, credit reporting, mortgage servicing, and evictions during the Covid-19 pandemic
On August 19, the mayor of D.C. signed the Coronavirus Support Second Congressional Review Emergency Act of 2020. The act extends the provisions of D.C.’s prior Covid-19 relief act (previously covered here), which was set to expire after 90 days, until November 16. Among other things, the act includes consumer protection provisions, including provisions regarding debt collection and credit reporting. It also provides housing and tenant protections, including in the areas of mortgage relief, restrictions on evictions, and foreclosures.
Hawaii regulator extends guidance permitting licensees to reduce office hours, temporarily close
On August 13, the Hawaii Division of Financial Institutions extended, until September 30, 2020, interim guidance permitting licensees with locations in Hawaii to reduce hours or close offices during Hawaii’s Covid-19 emergency period. Consistent with the previous guidance, covered here, financial institutions and escrow depositories are required to provide notice of closures or reductions in hours. While mortgage loan originators, mortgage servicers, and money transmitters are not required to provide notice, the regulator requests a courtesy notification of any closure or reduction in hours.
Court rejects consumer’s RESPA claims against mortgage servicer
On August 5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted a mortgage servicer’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the servicer “maintained contact and regularly worked” with the consumer to complete her loss mitigation application and thus did not violate Regulation X. According to the opinion, after obtaining the rights to the property and assuming mortgage responsibilities pursuant to a divorce decree, the consumer stopped making mortgage payments in July 2018. The mortgage servicer confirmed the consumer as the successor in interest to the mortgage on March 7, 2019 and on March 14, 2019, the consumer sent the servicer an incomplete loss mitigation application. Between March 2019 and June 2019, the consumer submitted additional loss mitigation application materials and partial application materials for a loan assumption, with the servicer regularly contacting the consumer to obtain documents necessary to complete the applications. The consumer asserted that the servicer, in violation of §1024.41(b)(1), failed to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information from her to complete her loss mitigation application and, in violation of §1024.41(c)(1) and §1024.41(c)(2), failed to evaluate her complete loss mitigation application for all loss mitigation options available.
The court granted summary judgment in favor of the servicer. The court reasoned that “undisputed evidence” establishes that the servicer “maintained contact and regularly worked” with the consumer to obtain the paperwork it needed. Moreover, the court noted that while Regulation X requires a servicer to “evaluate a borrower for all loss mitigation options available, that does not mean it must offer every option it considered—or any option at all.” The court rejected the consumers’ claims that the servicer should have offered a loan modification that did not require information from her ex-husband, concluding that Regulation X “required” her ex-husband’s inclusion and nonetheless, “[u]nder the regulatory framework, [the servicer] has discretion to determine which option(s), if any, it offers an applicant.” Lastly, the court disagreed that the mortgage servicer’s actions caused the consumer to incur “substantial damages,” concluding that “evidence of record is clear that her damages were not caused by or even attributable to [the servicer].”
Fannie and Freddie announce new disaster payment deferral
On July 15, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac introduced a new home-retention workout option, the “disaster payment deferral,” for borrowers experiencing financial hardship. According to Fannie Mae’s Lender Letter LL-2020-11 and Freddie Mac’s Guide Bulletin 2020-28, the disaster payment deferral would bring the borrower current on their mortgage by deferring the delinquency amount (which includes up to 12 months of past-due principal and interest payments; out-of-pocket escrow advances paid to third parties; and servicing advances paid to third parties in the ordinary course of business) as a non-interest bearing balance, due and payable at liquidation, refinance, or maturity. To qualify for the program, an eligible disaster event is defined as (i) a financial hardship that impacts the borrower's ability to pay their contractual monthly payment; and (ii) either: the property securing the mortgage loan experienced an insured loss, the property securing the mortgage loan is located in an eligible FEMA-Declared Disaster Area, or the borrower's place of employment is located in an eligible FEMA-Declared Disaster Area. Among other requirements detailed by the Lender Letter and Bulletin, servicers must confirm that the borrower has resolved the financial hardship and have the ability to continue paying the contractual monthly payments. Servicers must begin evaluating borrowers for the disaster payment deferral beginning July 1.
House hearing on mortgage servicers’ implementation of CARES Act
On July 16, the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing entitled “Protecting Homeowners During the Pandemic: Oversight of Mortgage Servicers’ Implementation of the CARES Act.” The subcommittee’s memorandum regarding the hearing discussed, among other things, the HUD Office of Inspector General’s report of its review of the type of forbearance information accessible to borrowers on the top 30 mortgage servicers’ websites. The report highlighted concerns that 10 of the servicers failed to have forbearance information “‘readily available’ on their websites,” 14 servicers’ websites did not provide information about the length of the forbearance period to which borrowers are entitled under the CARES Act, and certain servicers “included information giving the impression that lump sum payments were required at the end of the forbearance period.”
Witnesses discussed widespread issues in CARES Act-related mortgage servicing, with several witnesses and lawmakers highlighting how preexisting inequalities have especially imperiled black and Latinx home ownership during the Covid-19 pandemic. One witness suggested that servicers should be required to provide written notice to borrowers of their options and rights under the CARES Act and should be held accountable for failing to provide consistent, accurate forbearance information to borrowers in a timely manner. Another witness noted that housing counselors have reported servicers providing misinformation on payment and deferral options, and stressed the need for coordinated efforts between the CFPB, FHFA, and HUD, in addition to strong supervisory and enforcement activity.
Other topics discussed during the hearing included (i) the importance of providing clear guidance for borrowers, as well as the importance of loan modifications, loss mitigation options, and long term solutions once forbearance has ended; (ii) understanding what servicers of non-federally backed mortgages not covered by the CARES Act are doing to assist borrowers, and whether there should be a safe harbor for these mortgage servicers from investor liability; and (iii) the CFPB’s responsibility for overseeing servicers. One of the witnesses noted during the hearing, however, that many mortgage servicers offered homeowners forbearance options before the CARES Act, provided forbearance to homeowners with non-federally backed mortgages, and have responded to “an evolving series of program and regulatory announcements from various programs and agencies.”