InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Fines Mortgage Lender $3.5 Million for Paying Illegal Kickbacks
On January 31, the CFPB issued consent orders against four entities—a mortgage lender, two real estate brokers, and a mortgage servicer—alleged to have participated in an illegal mortgage business referral scheme. According to the first order (2017-CFPB-0006), the mortgage lender violated RESPA when it, among other things, (i) paid for referrals pursuant to various agreements with real estate brokers and other counterparties; (ii) encouraged brokers to require consumers to “prequalify” with the lender; and (iii) split fees with a mortgage servicer to obtain consumer referrals. Based on these and other allegations, the CFPB ordered the lender to pay a $3.5 million civil money penalty. In addition, the Bureau issued consent orders against the two real estate brokers and the mortgage servicer that allegedly participated in the kickback scheme (see 2017-CFPB-0008, 2017-CFPB-0009, and 2017-CFPB-0007). Notably, the Bureau alleges that the servicer also violated FCRA by ordering “trigger leads” from credit bureaus so that it could market the lender to consumers. The real estate brokers and servicer were ordered to pay a combined $495,000 in consumer relief, repayment of ill-gotten gains, and penalties. Read the special alert issued February 1 on InfoBytes.
Special Alert: CFPB Consent Orders Address Wide Range of Real Estate Referral Practices Under Section 8(a) of RESPA
On January 31, the CFPB announced consent orders against mortgage lender Prospect Mortgage, LCC (“Prospect”), real estate brokers Willamette Legacy, LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Mid-Willamette, and RGC Services, Inc. d/b/a Re/Max Gold Coast Realtors (together, “the Brokers”), and mortgage servicer Planet Home Lending, LCC (“Planet”), based on allegations that a wide range of business arrangements between the parties violated the prohibition on “kickbacks” in Section 8(a) of RESPA.
In a press release accompanying the settlements, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that the Bureau “will hold both sides of these improper arrangements accountable for breaking the law, which skews the real estate market to the disadvantage of consumers and honest businesses.” The consent orders address a number of practices that have long been the source of uncertainty within the industry. Unfortunately, despite acknowledging in the orders that referrals are an inherent part of real estate transactions, the Bureau provided little constructive guidance as to how lenders, real estate brokers, title agents, servicers, and other industry participants should structure referral arrangements to comply with RESPA.
RESPA Section 8(a)
Section 8(a) of RESPA provides that “[n]o person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.”
Notably, the CFPB’s consent orders make no reference to Section 8(c)(2), which provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting … the payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed.” In a much discussed decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the CFPB’s $109 million penalty against PHH Corporation in October 2015 based on, among other things, the CFPB’s failure to establish that payments for the service at issue (reinsurance) exceeded the fair market value of the service. The CFPB is currently seeking rehearing of this decision from the full D.C. Circuit, as discussed in our summaries of the Bureau’s petition for en banc reconsideration, responses from PHH and the Solicitor General, a motion to intervene filed by several State Attorneys General, and, most recently, PHH’s reply to both the Solicitor General and the motions to intervene.
Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the order or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice for more information, or contact a BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
**UPDATE** PHH v. CFPB
On January 27, PHH filed a scheduled response brief to views briefed last month by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Obama, likely bringing to a close the parties’ briefing of the CFPB’s petition for en banc review by the full D.C. Circuit of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. Also on January 27, PHH separately filed a (less significant) brief, opposing the recent-filed motion to intervene on the CFPB’s behalf submitted by 17 Attorneys General.
As previously covered on InfoBytes, late last year the Court invited briefing by President Obama’s DOJ on behalf of the United States. (Note that the DOJ does not represent the CFPB; the Bureau is legally permitted to litigate on its own behalf.) The DOJ’s brief focused on the constitutional issue (without wading into the RESPA rulings), and argued that the en banc court should either (i) review the panel’s majority holding that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional because the majority’s reasoning was erroneous in view of Supreme Court precedent, or (ii) review and simply adopt the dissenting panelist’s view that because the panel was in all events reversing the CFPB’s RESPA rulings and remanding to the CFPB on that basis, the panel majority should not have reached the constitutional issue.
In response to the DOJ, PHH argues that en banc review is unnecessary because the DOJ had only pointed to an error in the panel’s constitutional reasoning, without stating whether DOJ’s preferred mode of analysis would have led to a different result than the one reached by the panel, namely the severing of the “for cause” removal provision applicable to the CFPB Director under Dodd-Frank. PHH also contended that there is no precedent for an en banc court panel to review a panel decision just to determine whether the panel had properly reached a constitutional issue, and that in any event the panel’s decision to reach the issue was entirely proper (and therefore not worthy of review) because, as PHH’s framed the matter, the panel could not have remanded the case to an agency with a potentially unconstitutional structure.
In addition, on January 26, two other non-parties filed two motions to intervene on the CFPB’s side: (i) one by the Democratic Ranking Members of the Senate and House Committees with jurisdiction over the CFPB, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Rep. Maxine Waters of California, respectively; and (ii) one by a coalition of interest groups, which included the Center for Responsible Lending, US PIRG, Americans for Financial Reform, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and other movants.
CFPB Fines Mortgage Servicers $28 Million, Claims Failure to Provide Foreclosure Relief
On January 23, the CFPB announced that it had entered consent orders (2017-CFPB-0004 , 2017-CFPB-0005), against two affiliated mortgage servicers, claiming the companies had misled homeowners seeking foreclosure relief. One of the respondent companies is alleged to have, among other things, burdened consumers with excessive and unnecessary paperwork demands in response to foreclosure relief applications thereby violating both RESPA and the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. The Bureau is therefore requiring the company to pay an estimated $17 million to compensate affected consumers and to pay a civil penalty of $3 million.
As for the second respondent, the CFPB alleged that it failed to consider payment deferment applicants for foreclosure relief options, misled consumers about the impact of deferring payments, charged certain borrowers for credit insurance that should have been cancelled, prematurely cancelled credit insurance for other borrowers, provided inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies, and failed to investigate consumer disputes. Finding violations under RESPA, FCRA, and various “deceptive acts or practices,” the Bureau is requiring the second company to refund approximately $4.4 million to consumers and to pay a civil penalty of $4.4 million.
State Attorneys General Seek to Intervene in PHH v. CFPB Case
On January 23, the Attorneys General of 16 states and the District of Columbia (the State Attorneys General) filed a motion requesting the permission of the D.C. Circuit to intervene in the CFPB’s petition for en banc reconsideration in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. In the motion, the State Attorneys General argue that they have a vital interest in the matter because the October 2016 panel decision subjecting the CFPB Director to “at will” removal by the President “threatens to undermine the ability of the State Attorneys General [to work with the CFPB] to bring effective civil enforcement and coordinated regulatory actions free from political influence and interference.”
Noting the possibility that President Trump may seek to remove CFPB Director Cordray before the petition for rehearing is resolved or refuse to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court if the panel decision stands, the State Attorneys General raise the concern that “[t]he incoming administration … may not continue an effective defense of the statutory for-cause protection of the CFPB director.” Therefore, because “[a] significant probability exists that the pending petition for rehearing will be withdrawn, or the case otherwise rendered moot,” the State Attorneys General argue that the D.C. Circuit should allow them to intervene to protect their interests.
In addition to the District of Columbia, the motion was filed on behalf of the Attorneys General for the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The filing of the motion was announced by Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, whose office prepared the initial draft.
D.C. Circuit Grants PHH Request to Respond to Solicitor General's Brief
Over the objections of the CFPB, the D.C. Circuit today granted the request of PHH Corp. to file a supplemental brief responding to arguments in support of en banc review that were raised for the first time in a brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General on the December 22, 2016. PHH’s supplemental brief is due on or before January 27, 2017. For additional background, please see our summaries of the panel decision, the CFPB’s petition for rehearing, and the D.C. Circuit’s order directing PHH to respond and the Solicitor General to provide views.
Two GOP Senators Urge Incoming Administration to Remove Director Cordray
On January 9, two GOP lawmakers sent a letter to Vice President-elect Mike Pence urging the incoming administration to remove CFPB Director Richard Cordray “promptly after [President Trump’s] inauguration.” Stating that “[i]t’s time to fire King Richard,” Sen. Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, and Sen. Mike Lee cited the D.C. Circuit’s October 2016 decision in CFPB v. PHH to argue that, once in office, President Trump has the constitutional authority to remove Director Cordray immediately. In pushing for Director Cordray’s ouster, the Senators noted, among other things, the CFPB’s decision to move ahead in the lame-duck session with regulations of arbitration clauses and payday loans, which they consider costly and “radically opposed to the Trump administration’s pro-growth agenda.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, a majority of a panel of U.S. Circuit Court for District of Columbia concluded in October 2016 that the CFPB’s governance structure was unconstitutional, and, as a corrective measure, authorized the President to fire the Bureau’s sole Director at will—a ruling for which the Bureau now seeks rehearing en banc. In addressing this pending appeal, the Senators’ January 9 letter suggests in a footnote that, if the rehearing moves forward, the Justice Department should refrain from defending the CFPB.
CFPB Releases Annual Report to Congress on Transparency, Accountability in 2016
On January 3, the CFPB announced the release of its annual report to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations for 2016. The report—which covers October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016—identifies the specific responsibilities that the Dodd-Frank Act tasked to the CFPB and explains how the Bureau has attempted to meet those responsibilities. Among other things, the report describes Bureau regulations and guidance related to the Dodd-Frank Act including, but not limited to: (i) a proposed rule on arbitration; (ii) a proposed rule related to payday loans, vehicle title loans, and other similar credit products; (iii) a final rule to amend various provisions of the mortgage servicing rules implementing the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act; and (iv) a final rule amending Regulation C, implementing the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. The report also includes descriptions of the Bureau’s supervisory activities and enforcement actions undertaken by in the 2016 fiscal year.
PHH v CFPB Update: PHH and U.S. Solicitor General Respond to CFPB's Petition for En Banc Review
On December 22, PHH filed its brief opposing the CFPB’s petition for en banc review of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. PHH argued that the case is not worthy of review by the full D.C. Circuit because, although the majority of the panel determined that the CFPB’s structure violated the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers, that “conclusion, which horrifies the CFPB, simply means that an agency of the Executive Branch will be answerable to the Chief Executive.” With respect to the panel’s unanimous decision that the CFPB incorrectly interpreted RESPA, PHH argued that en banc review is inappropriate because, among other reasons, the D.C. Circuit could not side with the CFPB without “creat[ing] a circuit split with every other court to have considered the proper scope of RESPA.”
At the invitation of the D.C. Circuit, the U.S. Solicitor General also filed its brief later the same day. While the Solicitor General supported the CFPB’s petition for en banc review of the constitutional question, it also suggested that, consistent with Judge Henderson’s dissent from the panel opinion, the full D.C. Circuit could simply vacate the CFPB’s order against PHH on the grounds that the Bureau misinterpreted RESPA. Doing so, the Solicitor General notes, would be consistent with the “well-established principle … that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.” This ruling would vacate the panel majority’s conclusion that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional, although the Solicitor General noted that PHH could renew its constitutional challenge if the CFPB continues to pursue the case on remand.
With respect to the separation of powers question itself, the Solicitor General argued that en banc review is warranted because the majority departed from the analysis used by the Supreme Court to decide such questions. Specifically, the Solicitor General suggests that the panel majority erred by concluding “that an agency with a single head poses a greater threat to individual liberty than an agency headed by a multi-member body that exercises the same powers,” noting that the President’s authority over the multi-member FTC was similarly limited and the FTC enjoyed similar powers at the time the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.
Finally, after the filing of the Solicitor General’s brief, PHH requested permission to file an additional brief on the grounds that the Solicitor General had raised arguments not presented in the CFPB’s petition.
For additional background, please see our summaries of the panel decision, the CFPB's petition for rehearing, and the D.C. Circuit’s order directing PHH to respond and the Solicitor General to provide views.
CFPB Requests Rehearing of Decision Threatening Agency's Structure
Earlier today, the CFPB filed its much-anticipated response in PHH Corp. v. CFPB, requesting reconsideration by the full D.C. Circuit. As discussed in our special alert, on October 11, 2016, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated the CFPB’s $109 million penalty against PHH under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). In addition, a majority of the panel held that, to resolve a constitutional defect in the CFPB’s structure, the Director was removable by the President at will, meaning that President Trump could remove Director Cordray upon taking office. However, the panel’s decision is stayed until seven days after the court rules on the CFPB’s request.
Rather than proceeding directly to the Supreme Court, the CFPB proceeded as expected by requesting rehearing en banc by the full D.C. Circuit, which is generally disfavored and granted only for matters of “exceptional importance.” Perhaps most significantly, the Bureau’s petition does not request rehearing of the panel’s conclusion that RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations applied to administrative as well as judicial actions brought under that statute.
The CFPB’s petition argues that the panel’s constitutional ruling on the CFPB’s structure should be reheard because it “sets up what may be the most important separation-of-powers case in a generation.” Specifically, the Bureau argues that the panel’s determination that a multi-member commission is an essential component of an independent agency runs contrary to Supreme Court precedent and “unduly limits Congress’s flexibility to respond to the various crises of human affairs … by creating independent administrative agencies headed by a single director.” The Bureau further states that the panel’s reasoning “may affect not only the Bureau but also other agencies headed by a single director removable only for cause,” such as the Social Security Administration, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Office of Special Counsel.
The Bureau also asks the D.C. Circuit to rehear the panel’s determination that RESPA permits lenders and mortgage insurers to enter into tying arrangements under which the lender refers mortgage insurance businesses to the insurer in exchange for the insurer purchasing reinsurance from the lender’s affiliate. In support of this request, the Bureau argues that “the panel’s decision misinterpreted [RESPA] in a manner that so fundamentally defeats the statutory purpose [of prohibiting kickbacks] as to warrant rehearing en banc.” Specifically, the Bureau states that “[t]he panel’s reading of the statute would permit any mortgage lender to condition referrals on the purchase of goods or services in any related or unrelated business line. Such schemes flout the core purposes of RESPA.”
Under the D.C. Circuit’s rules, PHH is not permitted to file a response to the CFPB’s petition unless ordered by the court to do so. However, the court will not modify the panel’s opinion without allowing PHH to respond to the petition. There is no deadline for action by the court.