InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Treasury, HUD release housing finance reform plans
On September 5, the U.S. Treasury Department and HUD released complementary proposals in response to a presidential memorandum issued last March (previously covered by InfoBytes here) directing the departments to develop plans to end the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) and reform the housing finance system.
According to a press release released by the Treasury Department, the Treasury Housing Reform Plan outlines several broad goals and legislative and administrative reforms intended to protect taxpayers and assist homebuyers. Included in the Reform Plan are measures to privatize the GSEs, with the Treasury Department emphasizing that FHFA “should begin the process of ending” the conservatorships. “Central to this objective will be ensuring that the GSEs and their successors are appropriately capitalized to remain viable as going concerns after a severe economic downturn and also to ensure that shareholders and unsecured creditors, rather than taxpayers, bear losses.” Other notable agency and limited congressional action highlights include:
- Congress should authorize an explicit, paid-for guarantee by Ginnie Mae on qualified mortgage-backed securities for single-family and multifamily loans.
- Private sector participation should increase in the mortgage market to compete with the GSEs, and ensure a level playing field for lenders of all sizes.
- Congress should replace GSEs’ statutory affordable housing goals with a “more efficient, transparent, and accountable mechanism” to support underserved borrowers and expand HUD’s affordable housing activities.
- GSEs under FHFA’s capital rule should be required to maintain “capital sufficient to remain viable as a going concern after a severe economic downturn,” the cap on the GSEs’ investments in mortgage-related assets should be further reduced, and GSEs’ retained mortgage portfolios should be restricted to “solely supporting [the] business of securitizing mortgage-backed securities.”
- Mortgages eligible for GSE guarantees should have to comply with strict underwriting requirements.
- The Qualified Mortgage rule should be simplified and the so-called QM patch that allows GSEs to avoid certain regulations should be eliminated (see previous InfoBytes coverage on the CFPB’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking to allow the QM patch to expire here).
- Access to 30-year fix-rate mortgages for qualified homebuyers should be preserved.
HUD’s Housing Finance Reform Plan, released in conjunction with Treasury’s proposal, addresses the role of FHA and Ginnie Mae, and outlines steps to reduce risk in the FHA portfolio. According to HUD’s press release, the proposal focuses on four objectives: refocusing FHA to its core mission, protecting American taxpayers, providing tools to FHA and Ginnie Mae to appropriately manage risk, and providing liquidity to the housing finance system. Among other objectives, HUD’s plan (i) stresses that FHA, which serves low- and moderate-income borrowers, “must ensure that borrowers are creditworthy and that they have access to loans that meet their financial needs without creating undue risk”; (ii) recommends that FHA and FHFA establish a “formalized collaborative approach” to streamline government-supported mortgage programs to ensure they are “not competing and do not crowd private capital out of the marketplace;” (iii) encourages continued efforts to reduce loan churning; (iv) encourages a continued partnership between FHA and DOJ “to provide more clarity on how the agencies will consult on the appropriate use of the [False Claims Act]” to provide regulatory certainty to lenders; (v) encourages FHA to develop servicing standards for home equity conversion mortgage programs to reduce operational and financial burdens; and (vi) recommends that FHA develop a mortgage origination risk tool that integrates an automated underwriting system.
Agencies issue Hurricane Dorian guidance
On August 29, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and HUD issued disaster relief guidance related to Hurricane Dorian. Fannie Mae reminded servicers of available mortgage assistance options for homeowners impacted by the hurricane: (i) qualifying homeowners are eligible to stop making mortgage payments for up to 12 months without incurring late fees and without having delinquencies reported to the credit bureaus; (ii) servicers may immediately suspend or reduce mortgage payments for up to 90 days without any contact with homeowners believed to have been affected by a disaster; and (iii) foreclosures and other legal proceedings for homeowners believed to be impacted by a disaster are temporarily suspended. Freddie Mac similarly reminded servicers of these mortgage relief options.
The same day, HUD released Mortgagee Letter ML 2019-14 (ML 2019-14), which updates Handbook 4000.1 and expands its “Disaster Standalone Partial Claim” loss mitigation option which “allow[s] borrowers in Presidentially Declared Major Disaster Areas (PDMDAs) with delinquent FHA-insured mortgages to bring their mortgages current without increasing their interest rates or principal and interest payments.” The mitigation option, introduced last year, “covers missed mortgage payments up to 30 percent of Unpaid Principal Balance” through an interest-free second loan on the mortgage without a required trial payment plan. The second loan will become payable only when the borrower sells the home or refinances. Additionally, the loss mitigation option will streamline income documentation and other requirements to expedite relief to eligible borrowers struggling to pay their mortgages while recovering from disasters.
Separately on August 30, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, to close offices affected by Hurricane Dorian’s severe weather conditions at their discretion “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” In issuing the proclamation, the OCC noted that it expects that only those bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions will close and that they should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address the banking needs of their customers. The proclamation directs institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on natural disasters and other emergency conditions.
HUD revises proposed FHA mortgage lender certification
On August 14, HUD published revisions in the Federal Register to the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) lender certification requirements originally issued in May. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) In response to comments received on its initial proposal, HUD released a proposed streamlined FHA Annual Lender Certification, which removes a broad statement regarding lenders certifying compliance with all HUD requirements in order to maintain FHA approval. Commenters generally recommended HUD: “(1) Rescind the annual certification statements since the National Housing Act does not require certification of compliance with FHA eligibility requirements or completion of an annual certification; or (2) revise the annual certification statements to a general acknowledgement of the existence of policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure material compliance.” Comments are due September 13.
5th Circuit upholds $298 million fine in FCA/FIRREA mortgage fraud action
On August 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that ordered two mortgage companies and their owner to pay nearly $300 million in a suit brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). The suit accused the defendants of allegedly making false certifications, which reportedly led to mortgages ending in default. The jury agreed that the defendants defrauded the Federal Housing Agency’s mortgage insurance program when a state audit revealed unregistered company branches were used to originate loans in violation of agency guidelines, and the court determined that there was ample evidence to find that the false certifications were a proximate cause of losses from loan defaults. As a result, the government trebled the damages and civil penalties under the FCA from $93 million to roughly $298 million. The defendants appealed the decision, challenging, among other things, the sufficiency of evidence, methodologies presented by the government’s expert witnesses, and the judge’s decision to not order a new trial after dismissing a disruptive juror.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit opined that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings, and rejected the defendants’ expert witness challenges, holding first that the defendants had waived any argument about the loan default sampling methodology used by one of the witnesses, because their argument that the witness “failed to control for obvious causes of default” never came up “during the extensive negotiations over the sampling methodology that would be used.” The appellate court also concluded that nothing in the record supported the defendants’ argument that the second witness “did not apply the HUD underwriting standards” in his re-underwriting methodology. The appellate court further noted that it has declined to adopt a rule used by other circuit courts that prohibits jurors from being dismissed “unless there is no possibility” that the juror’s failure to deliberate stems from their view of the evidence. Rather, the 5th Circuit held that the district court had grounds to dismiss the juror who “failed to follow instructions, exhibited a lack of candor during questioning, and had engaged in threatening behavior towards other jurors.”
Maximum LTV lowered for FHA cash-out refinances
On August 1, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2019-11, which lowers the maximum loan-to-value (LTV) and combined maximum loan-to-value (CLTV) from 85 percent to 80 percent on cash-out refinances for FHA-insured mortgage loans. The letter notes that the total number of cash-out refinance mortgages of FHA-insured mortgage loans has increased 250.47 percent from FY 2013 to FY 2018, and that the FHA therefore has concluded that the reduction in LTV is prudent “in order to strengthen the equity position of cash-out refinances and reduce loss severities in the event of default, [and] stay ahead of any potential future shift in the housing market.” The new LTV is effective for any mortgage loans insured by FHA on or after September 1.
HUD proposes burden-shifting framework for Disparate Impact Regulation
On August 16, HUD announced a proposed rule amending the agency’s interpretation of the Fair Housing Act’s disparate impact standard (also known as the “2013 Disparate Impact Regulation”) to bring the rule “into closer alignment with the analysis and guidance” provided in the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) and to codify HUD’s position that its rule is not intended to infringe on the states’ regulation of insurance.
The proposal codifies the burden shifting framework outlined in Inclusive Communities, adding five elements that a plaintiff must plead to support allegations that a specific, identifiable, policy or practice has a discriminatory effect. The five elements would require a plaintiff to adequately allege (i) the challenged policy or practice is “arbitrary, artificial, and unnecessary” to achieve a valid interest or legitimate objective; (ii) a “robust causal link” between the challenged policy or practice and a disparate impact on members of a protected class; (iii) the challenged policy or practice has an adverse effect on members of a protected class; (iv) the disparity caused by the policy or practice is significant (the disparity must be material); and (v) the complaining party’s alleged injury is directly caused by the challenged policy or practice. HUD emphasizes that plaintiffs alleging a single event, “will likely not meet the standard” of the proposal unless “the plaintiff can establish that the one-time decision is in fact a policy or practice.”
The proposed rule also provides methods for defendants to rebut a disparate impact claim, including (i) showing its discretion is materially limited by a third party, such as through a controlling law or binding court order; and (ii) showing the algorithmic model relied on does not use inputs that are substitutes for protected characteristics and is predictive of risk or other valid objective, was created or maintained by a recognized third party, or that a neutral third party has analyzed the model and determined it is a demonstrably and statistically sound algorithm.
The proposal, which has yet to be released by HUD, is reportedly under review by Congress and is set to be published in the Federal Register afterward. Comments will be due 60 days after publication.
HUD approves settlement resolving redlining allegations
On July 29, HUD announced a conciliation agreement to resolve allegations that a California-based bank engaged in redlining practices from 2014 to at least 2017 against African-American and Latino mortgage applicants in the Los Angeles region. In 2017, a California-based community advocacy organization filed a complaint with HUD asserting that the bank violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in discriminatory acts, which allegedly resulted in a lower number of mortgages made to African-American and Latino borrowers relative to the area’s demographics and to the industry as a whole. Additionally, the complaint claimed that the bank located and maintained its branches in areas that do not serve minority neighborhoods or borrowers. While the bank denies having engaged in any discriminatory behavior, it agreed to (i) invest $5 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase credit opportunities for residents of majority-minority neighborhoods; (ii) contribute $1.3 million to advertising and community outreach; and (iii) provide $1 million in grants for various financial education, counseling, community revitalization, and homelessness programs. The bank also committed to originating “$100,000,000 in home purchase, home improvement and home refinance loans to borrowers in majority-minority areas, and to open a full-service branch serving the banking and credit needs of residents in a majority-minority and low- and moderate-income neighborhood.”
HUD approves settlement resolving Fair Housing Act violations
On July 23, HUD released a Conciliation Agreement with a real estate group and a mortgage company and its agents (collectively, the “respondents”) who allegedly discriminated against African-American home seekers. The complaint, brought by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC), claims the respondents violated the Fair Housing Act during a series of FHCRC fair housing tests whereby African-American “testers” were falsely informed that there were no available homes and were subject to tougher pre-qualification requirements than white testers. While the respondents deny having engaged in any discriminatory behavior, they have agreed to pay $10,000 in relief and provide fair housing training to their agents.
HUD suspends downpayment assistance mortgagee letter following injunction
On July 23, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2019-10, announcing the official suspension of the effective date of the agency’s April guidance (Mortgagee Letter 2019-06), which changed the downpayment assistance (DPA) guidelines. The suspension comes just a week after the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted an American Indian band and its mortgage company (collectively, “plaintiffs”) a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of the April changes, and ordering that HUD “shall not deny insurance nor cause insurance to be denied based on non-compliance with Mortgagee Letter 19-06 and shall provide public notice that the effective date of Mortgagee Letter 19-06 is suspended until after a final determination on the merits of the case.” Buckley is co-counsel in the pending litigation.
The suspended guidance, Mortgagee Letter 2019-06 (Mortgagee Letter), issued on April 18, imposed new documentation requirements purportedly aimed at confirming that Governmental Entities operate their DPA programs within the scope of their governmental capacity when providing any portion of a borrower’s Minimum Required Investment (MRI). The letter updated Handbook 4000.1 to specify that when any portion of a borrower’s MRI comes from a Governmental Entity, a mortgagee must obtain the following documentation: (i) proof that the Governmental Entity has authority to operate in the jurisdiction where the property is located; (ii) a legal opinion from the Governmental Entity’s attorneys, signed and dated within two years of closing, establishing the Governmental Entity’s authority to operate in the jurisdiction where the property is located, which in the case of a federally recognized Indian Tribe means the entity is operating on tribal land in which the property is located, or offering DPA to enrolled members of the tribe; and (iii) evidence that the Governmental Entity is providing DPA and is doing so in its governmental capacity. The Mortgagee Letter went on to require documentation indicating that the provision of DPA is not contingent upon the future transfer of the insured mortgage to a specific entity.
The plaintiffs filed suit against HUD on April 22 arguing that the Mortgagee Letter was unlawful and discriminatory, and unfairly targeted American Indian tribes by “requiring them, for the first time, to confine their DPA programs to the geographic boundaries of their reservations and to enrolled members of the tribes, literally driving them out of the national marketplace and back onto the reservation.” Additionally, the complaint argued that HUD failed to execute these changes in accordance with the protections of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by providing a notice and comment period—purporting the Mortgagee Letter to be an “informal ‘guidance’ document that merely ‘clarifies’ existing law.” The decision to grant the preliminary injunction was announced by the court at the conclusion of a July 16 hearing. In the written order released the following week, the court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that the agency violated the APA because the Mortgagee Letter was actually a legislative rule with the force and effect of the law, not merely an interpretive rule. Moreover, the court rejected HUD’s argument that the Mortgagee Letter merely reiterates jurisdictional limitations that were already present, and stated the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated irreparable harm caused by the new jurisdictional limitations in the Mortgagee Letter.
District Court orders mortgage company founder to pay $500,000 FIRREA fine in mortgage fraud suit
On July 10, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered the founder and president of a mortgage company to pay $500,000 in a suit brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). The suit accused the defendant of allegedly submitting fraudulent certifications certifying he was not under criminal indictment in order to participate in HUD’s Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance program. (Certification is necessary to participate in the FHA program.) In 2016, the defendant appealed to the 7th Circuit that the district court’s ruling—which originally ordered approximately $10 million in treble damages and $16,500 in penalties under the FCA—had been held to the wrong causation standard. In 2017, the appellate court issued an opinion referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, holding that in this matter, the district court had improperly relied on a “but for” causation standard for FCA liability, and had failed to adequately develop whether the defendant’s “falsehood was the proximate cause of the government’s harm.”
On remand, the district court found that the government's losses were not proximately caused by the defendant’s form certifications, and thus failed to satisfy the proximate cause standard for damages in a FCA suit. The district court ordered the defendant to pay $500,000 for making false statements to HUD in violation of FIRREA. “Half a million dollars is a substantial sum of money, and it reflects the seriousness of [the defendant’s] wrongdoing over a series of years, as well as the fact that there is no good-faith explanation for his actions,” the court stated. The court further elaborated that “[a]t the same time, [the fine] also reflects that [the defendant’s] conduct, while serious, does not put him within the worst class of FIRREA violators.”