InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
HUD Launches Fair Housing Complaint Mobile Application
On February 28, HUD launched a mobile application for iPhone and iPad that will allow the public to learn about their housing rights and file housing discrimination complaints. The application will also inform the housing industry of its responsibilities under the FHA. HUD expects the application to assist fair housing groups and other civil rights advocacy organizations seeking to enforce fair housing rights. Adaptive mobile pages will also allow web content to display properly on all smartphone and tablet brands, and for fair housing complaints to be completed and submitted in Spanish.
Special Alert: HUD Issues Final Disparate Impact Rule
On February 8, HUD issued a final rule authorizing so-called "disparate impact" or "effects test" claims under the Fair Housing Act. The rule provides support for private or governmental plaintiffs challenging housing or mortgage lending practices that have a "disparate impact" on protected classes of individuals, even if the practice is facially neutral and non-discriminatory and there is no evidence that the practice was motivated by a discriminatory intent. The rule also will permit practices to be challenged based on claims that the practice improperly creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns.
In its final rule, HUD codified a three-step burden-shifting approach to determine liability under a disparate impact claim. Once a practice has been shown by the plaintiff to have a disparate impact on a protected class, the final rule states that the defendant would have the burden of showing that the challenged practice "is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests of the respondent . . . or defendant . . . . A legally sufficient justification must be supported by evidence and may not be hypothetical or speculative." As proposed, the defendant would have had the burden of proving that the challenged practice "has a necessary and manifest relationship to one or more legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests."
HUD explained in the rule's preamble that, although it declined to use the term "business necessity" in the second prong of the disparate impact analysis, the phrase "substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest" is "equivalent to the 'business necessity' standard found in the Joint Policy Statement. The standard set forth in this rule is not to be interpreted as a more lenient standard than 'business necessity.'" HUD also highlighted the removal of the word "manifest," which was replaced by the language "a legally sufficient justification must be supported by evidence and may not be hypothetical or speculative." HUD noted that the revised language is "intended to convey that defendants and respondents . . . must be able to prove with evidence the substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest supporting the challenged practice and the necessity of the challenged practice to achieve that interest."
With respect to the less discriminatory alternative prong, HUD clarified in the preamble that the alternative must also serve the specified interest supporting the challenge. However, HUD declined to specify in the rule that the less discriminatory alternative must be "equally effective" as the challenged policy - which would have made the rule consistent with the legal standard set forth in the Supreme Court case Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989).
Other noteworthy aspects of the final rule include:
- HUD's decision not to address comments raising objections to the rule based on the fact that the disparate impact standard is inconsistent with that set forth in Smith v. City of Jackson Miss., 544 U.S. 228 (2005) and Wards Cove.
- HUD's statement that the rule applies to pending and future cases because it is not a change in HUD's position but rather a formal interpretation of the Fair Housing Act that clarifies the appropriate standards for proving a violation under an effects theory. HUD also chose not to conduct a cost/benefit analysis on this basis.
- HUD's clarification that the Fair Housing Act provides in these cases awards of damages, both actual and punitive.
- New language in the regulation stating that unlawful discriminatory conduct under the Fair Housing Act includes "servicing of loans or other financial assistance with respect to dwellings in a manner that discriminates, or servicing loans or other financial assistance which are secured by residential real estate in a manner that discriminates, or providing such loans or financial assistance with other terms or conditions that discriminate" on a prohibited basis.
- Language in the preamble restating HUD's position that the Fair Housing Act applies to homeowner's insurance.
Notwithstanding HUD's view that the final rule merely clarifies the existing interpretation of the Fair Housing Act, we expect that this rule will pose substantial compliance challenges for financial institutions.
HUD Proposes Streamlined FHA Inspection and Warranty Requirements, New Jumbo Loan Maximum LTV
On February 6, HUD published a proposed rule that would eliminate two regulations in order to streamline the FHA inspection and warranty requirements. HUD proposes to repeal the regulations requiring a FHA-approved inspector to determine the construction quality of homes for which borrowers seek FHA insurance. HUD acknowledges that the market is sufficiently competitive and regulated to provide quality inspectors without FHA approval. HUD also proposes to remove requirements for borrowers to purchase 10-year protection plans to qualify for FHA insurance for high loan-to-value (LTV) mortgages on newly constructed homes. HUD expects the changes to yield savings for lenders and borrowers, and to eliminate related FHA administrative costs. Public comments are due by April 8, 2013. Also on February 6, HUD published in the Federal Register its previously announced proposal to increase the minimum down payment for FHA-insured loans over $625,500 by setting the maximum LTV ratio at 95 percent. HUD proposed this increase because the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund reported a decline from fiscal year 2011. HUD is accepting comments on the proposal through March 8, 2013.
HUD, FHFA Extend Foreclosure Protections for Hurricane Sandy Victims
On January 31, HUD and the FHFA announced that the FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac will extend for an additional 90 days protections against foreclosure actions for borrowers whose properties were damaged or destroyed due to Hurricane Sandy. Those protections were set to expire on January 31, 2013. For borrowers in certain counties, FHA is extending until April 30, 2013 its foreclosure moratorium and eviction suspension. Fannie Mae, through Lender Letter LL-2013-02, and Freddie Mac, through Bulletin 2013-1, also are extending their foreclosure and eviction moratoriums through the end of April.
HUD Announces Reverse Mortgage Program Changes, Increases Mortgage Insurance Premiums, Alters Underwriting Requirements
On January 30, HUD announced that for FHA case numbers assigned on or after April 1, 2013, FHA will use a consolidated pricing option for its home equity conversion mortgages, as explained in more detail in Mortgagee Letter 2013-01. Separately, HUD also announced that effective April 1, 2013, the mortgage insurance premiums for most new mortgages will increase by 10 basis points, and by 5 basis points for jumbo mortgages. To further support the stability of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, FHA also issued Mortgagee Letter 2013-04 to require most borrowers to continue paying annual premiums for the life of their mortgage loan, reversing a policy adopted in 2001 under which FHA cancelled premium requirements on loans when the outstanding principal balance reached 78 percent of the original principal balance. FHA also will (i) require lenders to manually underwrite loans for which borrowers have a decision credit score below 620 and a total debt-to-income ratio greater than 43 percent, (ii) increase from 3.5 to 5 percent the minimum down payment for jumbo loans, and (iii) increase its enforcement for FHA-approved lenders with regard to aggressive marketing to borrowers with previous foreclosures. Separately, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2013-02, which updates the certification language for all late endorsement requests for reverse mortgages. Finally, through Mortgagee Letter 2013-03, HUD extended to March 15, 2013 the date by which lenders must begin to assess borrowers in default under a new loss mitigation priority order and policies, as outlined in Mortgagee Letter 2012-22.
D.C. Circuit Reinstates Challenge to HUD Reverse Mortgage Regulations
On January 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that two widowed spouses have standing to pursue allegations that a HUD regulation defining conditions under which it would insure a reverse mortgage agreement contradicted the governing statute, and in doing so made it easier for lenders to foreclose on homes occupied by surviving spouses. Bennett v. Donovan, No. 11-5288, 2013 WL 45879 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 4, 2012). The surviving spouses, neither of whom were legal borrowers under the reverse mortgages entered into by their spouses, sought declaratory relief that HUD’s regulations requiring that the mortgage be due and payable in full if a borrower dies and the property is not the principal residence of at least one surviving borrower violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the rule is inconsistent with the governing statute. The statute protects “homeowners,” as opposed to “borrowers,” from displacement and defines “homeowner” to include “spouse of the homeowner.” The district court held that the spouses lacked standing to sue HUD because relief for their injuries depended solely on the lenders’ decision whether to foreclose. The appellate court held, however, that in situations like those at issue here, it is within HUD’s power to provide complete relief to the lenders and borrowers, and therefore such relief is likely, as opposed to speculative, and as such is sufficient to establish standing. Though it limited its holding to the standing issue, the court added that it was “puzzled” by HUD’s attempt to justify a rule that appears to contradict the governing statute. Further, the court outlined potential relief that HUD could provide, explaining that HUD could accept assignment of the mortgage, pay off the balance of the loans to the lenders, and then decline to foreclose against the spouses. The court reinstated the case and remanded for further proceedings.
HUD Obtains First Settlement Under Rule Requiring Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Equal Access
On January 2, HUD announced that a lender agreed to settle a claim that it refused to provide FHA financing to a lesbian couple. HUD noted that the agreement is the first enforcement action taken under a rule finalized in January 2012 that aims to provide equal access to housing, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, including by prohibiting lenders from determining FHA-insured financing eligibility based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The lender denies the allegations, but HUD required the lender to pay $7,500 so the parties could avoid additional costs associated with the administrative proceedings. The agreement also requires the lender to update its fair lending training program to support compliance with the new rule.
Senate Confirms FHA Commissioner and Other Key Agency Nominees
On December 30, the Senate confirmed Carol Galante as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration Commissioner. Ms. Galante, who was nominated for the position in October 2011, has been serving in an acting role. Her confirmation was made possible after certain Senators, including Bob Corker (R-TN), who had expressed concerns about the pace of reforms at the FHA, secured a commitment from Ms. Galante to (i) place a moratorium on the full drawdown reverse mortgage program, (ii) substantially increase underwriting criteria for borrowers with FICO scores between 580 and 620 by establishing a meaningful maximum debt-to-income ratio, (iii) increase the down payment requirement and the insurance pricing for loans between $625,000 and $729,000, and (iv) increase underwriting requirements for borrowers who have been foreclosed upon within the last seven years. On January 1, as described in media reports, the Senate confirmed Joshua Wright as FTC Commissioner and Mignon Clyburn as FCC Commissioner, and also confirmed Richard Berner for the new position of Director of the Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research.
Fair Housing Group Accuses Insurance Company of Redlining
On December 21, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) announced that it filed with HUD a housing discrimination complaint against a major insurance company regarding the offering of hazard insurance in a certain geographic area. According to the statement filed in support of its complaint, NFHA alleges that the company refuses to underwrite homeowners’ insurance policies for homes that have flat roofs in the Wilmington, Delaware area, a policy that NFHA charges has a racially disparate impact on African-American and minority communities. Although insurance and insurers are not explicitly covered in the Fair Housing Act, NFHA argues that federal courts have given deference to HUD’s interpretation of the statute, holding that the Fair Housing Act applies to all types of discriminatory insurance practices. NFHA’s complaint is based on its own testing of independent insurance agencies and a single university study of the relationship between roof type and race in the Wilmington area. NFHA claims that its testing of six insurance agencies shows that independent insurance agents were willing to underwrite policies on homes with flat roofs, while agents affiliated only with the insurance company targeted by NFHA cited a company policy that disallowed underwriting policies on such homes. Further, NFHA claims that the university study found a statistically significant relationship between minority populations and homes that have flat roofs, and therefore the “no flat roof policy” disproportionately impacts African-American and minority communities. Moreover, NFHA claims that there is no business justification for such a policy and that the insurance company does not apply the same policy in other cities. Under its fair housing complaint procedures HUD will now conduct its own investigation and determine whether further administrative action is required.
HUD Issues Mortgagee Letters Regarding Flood Zone and Small Supervised Lender Reporting Requirements
Last month, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2012-28, which restates and updates guidance regarding flood zone requirements for FHA-insured mortgages. The letter states that, effective February 9, 2012, (i) FHA will require all mortgagees to obtain a flood zone determination on all properties and to retain evidence that clearly indicates that the flood zone determination service is for the life of the loan, and (ii) properties within a designated Coastal Barrier Resource System unit will not be eligible for an FHA-insured mortgage. The letter attaches a chart demonstrating the Flood Zone Requirements within a given scenario. A second letter, Mortgagee Letter 2012-29, advises supervised lenders of the method by which they should submit their call reports in place of audited financial statements, as permitted by prior HUD guidance.