InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
3rd Circuit vacates TILA/RESPA judgment in favor of mortgage lender
On January 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an order granting summary judgment in favor of a mortgage lender (defendant) for alleged violations of TILA and RESPA, among other claims. The plaintiff, a retired disabled military veteran, contracted with a home builder to purchase a home and used the defendant to obtain mortgage financing, which was later transferred to a servicing company. The plaintiff contended that the defendant allegedly (i) provided outdated TILA and RESPA disclosures; (ii) misrepresented that the plaintiff would not have to pay property taxes; (iii) failed to make a reasonable and good faith determination of the plaintiff’s ability to pay; and (iv) failed to provide notice of the transfer of servicing rights. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit determined that the defendant did not meet the initial burden to show no genuine dispute as to any material fact related to the plaintiff’s claims, and remanded the action. Without assessing the evidentiary value of the testimonies and materials submitted by each party in support of their own version of events, the appellate court reasoned that “these materials do not foreclose a reasonable jury from crediting [the plaintiff’s] testimony over [the defendant’s] account and finding [the defendant] liable.”
5th Circuit says bank and mortgage servicer did not engage in “dual tracking”
On December 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action. According to the opinion, after the plaintiff fell behind on his mortgage payments, the defendant bank’s mortgage servicer approved him for a trial loan modification plan that required timely reduced payments for a period of three months. The plaintiff stated that he complied with the trial plan but that the defendant bank nevertheless foreclosed on his property and sold the property to a third defendant. The plaintiff further claimed that he did not learn about the sale of his property until two months after it happened when the third defendant sought to evict him. The plaintiff sued the bank and mortgage servicer for violating RESPA and the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), and sued the purchaser of the property “asserting claims to quiet title and for trespass to try title.” All defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted based on evidence that refuted each allegation. The plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit first reviewed, among other claims, the plaintiff’s RESPA claim, which alleged the bank and mortgage servicer engaged in “dual tracking” by initiating foreclosure proceedings while the plaintiff’s trial modification plan was purportedly still active. According to the court, dual tracking occurs when “the lender actively pursues foreclosure while simultaneously considering the borrower for loss mitigation options.” The appellate court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff did not submit his first payment by the deadline established under the trial modification plan, and thus “did not timely accept the Trial Modification Plan.” As such, the bank and mortgage servicer did not engage in “dual tracking” because there was no obligation to notify the plaintiff of any denial of a permanent loan modification or to provide an opportunity to appeal, and accordingly was not considering the plaintiff for loss mitigation options. The court also found deficiencies in the plaintiff’s Texas law and TDCA claims.
CFPB publishes fall 2021 rulemaking agenda
On December 13, the Office of Information And Regulatory Affairs released the CFPB’s fall 2021 rulemaking agenda. According to a Bureau announcement, the information released represents regulatory matters the Bureau plans to pursue during the period from November 2, 2021 to October 31, 2022. Additionally, the Bureau stated that the latest agenda reflects continued rulemakings intended to further its consumer financial protection mission and help advance the country’s economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Promoting racial and economic equity and supporting underserved and marginalized communities’ access to fair and affordable credit continue to be Bureau priorities.
Key rulemaking initiatives include:
- Small Business Rulemaking. This fall, the Bureau issued its long-awaited proposed rule (NPRM) for Section 1071 regulations, which would require a broad swath of lenders to collect data on loans they make to small businesses, including information about the loans themselves, the characteristics of the borrower, and demographic information regarding the borrower’s principal owners. (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.) The NPRM comment period goes through January 6, 2022, after which point the Bureau will review comments as it moves to develop a final rule. Find continuing Section 1071 coverage here.
- Consumer Access to Financial Records. The Bureau noted that it is working on rulemaking to implement Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank in order to address the availability of electronic consumer financial account data. The Bureau is currently reviewing comments received in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) issued fall 2020 regarding consumer data access (covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, the Bureau stated it is monitoring the market to consider potential next steps, “including whether a Small Business Review Panel is required pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.”
- Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau published an ANPR in March 2019 seeking feedback on the unique features of PACE financing and the general implications of regulating PACE financing under TILA (as required by Section 307 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which amended TILA to mandate that the Bureau issue certain regulations relating to PACE financing). The Bureau noted that it continues “to engage with stakeholders and collect information for the rulemaking, including by pursuing quantitative data on the effect of PACE on consumers’ financial outcomes.”
- Automated Valuation Models (AVM). Interagency rulemaking is currently being pursued by the Bureau, Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA to develop regulations for AVM quality control standards as required by Dodd-Frank amendments to FIRREA. The standards are designed to, among other things, “ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by the valuation models, protect against the manipulation of data, seek to avoid conflicts of interest, require random sample testing and reviews,” and account for any other appropriate factors. An NPRM is anticipated for June 2022.
- Amendments to Regulation Z to Facilitate LIBOR Transition. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued a final rule on December 7 to facilitate the transition from LIBOR for consumer financial products, including “adjustable-rate mortgages, credit cards, student loans, reverse mortgages, [and] home equity lines of credit,” among others. The final rule amended Regulation Z, which implements TILA, to generally address LIBOR’s eventual cessation for most U.S. dollar settings in June 2023, and establish requirements for how creditors must select replacement indices for existing LIBOR-linked consumer loans. The final rule generally takes effect April 1, 2022.
- Reviewing Existing Regulations. The Bureau noted in its announcement that it decided to conduct an assessment of a rule implementing HMDA (most of which took effect January 2018), and referred to a notice and request for comments issued last month (covered by InfoBytes here), which solicited public comments on its plans to assess the effectiveness of the HMDA Rule. Additionally, the Bureau stated that it finished a review of Regulation Z rules implementing the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, and that “[a]fter considering the statutory review factors and public comments,” it “determined that the CARD Act rules should continue without change.”
Notably, there are 14 rulemaking activities that are listed as inactive on the fall 2021 agenda, including rulemakings on overdraft services, consumer reporting, student loan servicing, Regulation E modernization, abusive acts and practices, loan originator compensation, and TILA/RESPA mortgage disclosure integration.
FDIC releases September enforcement actions
On October 29, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in September. During the month, the FDIC made public six orders consisting of “one Consent Order, two terminations of Consent Orders, one Order to Pay Civil Money Penalty, one Order Terminating Decision and Order to Cease and Desist, and one Order of Termination of Insurance.” Among the orders is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Nebraska-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank “[m]ade, increased, extended, or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance,” and also allegedly “[f]ailed to comply with proper procedures for force-placing flood insurance in instances where the collateral was not covered by flood insurance at some time during the term of the loan.” The order requires the payment of a $24,000 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also issued a consent order to a Utah-based bank, which requires the bank to take measures to correct current alleged violations (and prevent future violations) of TILA, RESPA, E-Sign Act, ECOA, CRA, and TISA, as well as the statutes’ implementing regulations. The bank neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to, among other things, develop a sound risk-based compliance program and implement an effective training program to ensure compliance.
District Court approves RESPA class action settlement
On August 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement claiming a mortgage company engaged in an allegedly illegal kickback scheme with a title company. According to the memorandum in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval, the title company paid, and the mortgage company received and accepted, kickbacks in exchange for the mortgage company’s “assignment and referral of residential mortgage loans, refinances, and reverse mortgages to [the title company] for title and settlement services.” This conduct, the plaintiffs contended, violated RESPA and RICO. While the mortgage company denied all substantive allegations and liability, the parties reached a proposed settlement, in which class members (defined as borrowers with federal mortgage loans originated by the mortgage company for which the title company provided settlement services) will each receive approximately $3,200 from a $990,000 settlement fund. The preliminarily approved settlement also provides for class counsel fees and expenses and class representative service awards for a total not to exceed roughly $1.27 million.
CFPB publishes rulemaking agenda
On June 11, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the CFPB’s spring 2021 rulemaking agenda. According to a Bureau announcement, the information released represents regulatory matters the Bureau is “currently pursuing under interim leadership pending the appointment and confirmation of a permanent Director.” Any changes made by the new permanent director will be reflected in the fall 2021 rulemaking agenda. Additionally, the Bureau indicates that it plans to continue to focus resources on actions addressing the adverse impacts to consumers due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, and highlighted an interim final rule issued in April that addresses certain debt collector conduct associated with the CDC’s temporary eviction moratorium order (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau will also continue to take concrete steps toward furthering the agency’s “commitment to promoting racial and economic equity.”
Key rulemaking initiatives include:
- Small Business Rulemaking. Last September, the Bureau released a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) outline of proposals under consideration, convened an SBREFA panel last October, and released the panel’s final report last December (covered by InfoBytes here and here). The Bureau reports that it anticipates releasing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Section 1071 regulations this September to “facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws as well as enable communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.”
- Consumer Access to Financial Records. The Bureau notes that it is considering rulemaking to implement section 1033 of Dodd-Frank in order to address the availability of electronic consumer financial account data. The Bureau is currently reviewing comments received in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) issued last fall regarding consumer data access (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau published an ANPR in March 2019 seeking feedback on the unique features of PACE financing and the general implications of regulating PACE financing under TILA. The Bureau notes that it continues “to engage with stakeholders and collect information for the rulemaking, including by pursuing quantitative data on the effect of PACE on consumers’ financial outcomes.”
- Automated Valuation Models (AVM). Interagency rulemaking is currently being pursued by the Bureau, Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA to develop regulations for AVM quality control standards as required by Dodd-Frank amendments to FIRREA. The standards are designed to, among other things, “ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by the valuation models, protect against the manipulation of data, [ ] avoid conflicts of interest, require random sample testing and reviews,” and account for any other appropriate factors. An NPRM is anticipated for December.
- Amendments to Regulation Z to Facilitate LIBOR Transition. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued an NPRM in June 2020 to amend Regulation Z to address the sunset of LIBOR, and to facilitate creditors’ transition away from using LIBOR as an index for variable-rate consumer products. A final rule is expected in January 2022.
- Reviewing Existing Regulations. The Bureau notes in its announcement that while it will conduct an assessment of a rule implementing HMDA (most of which took effect January 2018), it will no longer pursue two HMDA proposed rulemakings previously listed in earlier agendas related to the reporting of HMDA data points and public disclosure of HMDA data. Additionally, the Bureau states that it finished a review of Regulation Z rules implementing the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 and plans to publish any resulting changes in the fall 2021 agenda.
The Bureau’s announcement also highlights several completed rulemaking items, including (i) a final rule that formally extended the mandatory compliance date of the General Qualified Mortgage final rule to October 1, 2022 (covered by InfoBytes here); (ii) proposed amendments to the mortgage servicing early intervention and loss mitigation-related provisions under RESPA/Regulation X (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) (the Bureau anticipates issuing a final rule before June 30, when the federal foreclosure moratoria are set to expire); and (iii) a proposed rule (covered by InfoBytes here), which would extend the effective date of two final debt collection rules to allow affected parties additional time to comply due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic (the Bureau plans to issue a final rule in June on whether, and for how long, it will extend the effective date once it reviews comments).
CFPB releases TRID FAQs
On May 14, the CFPB released five new FAQs regarding housing assistance loans to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID Rule) compliance. Highlights from the FAQs are listed below:
- The TRID Rule covers a loan if it: “[i] is made by a creditor as defined in § 1026.2(a)(17); [ii] is secured in full or in part by real property or a cooperative unit; [iii] is a closed-end, consumer credit (as defined in § 1026.2(a)(12)) transaction; [iv] is not exempt for any reason listed in § 1026.3; and [v] is not a reverse mortgage subject to § 1026.33.”
- Regulation Z exempts certain mortgage loans from the TRID disclosure requirements (i.e., providing the LE and CD) (the “Partial Exemption”). This exemption covers certain subordinate housing assistance loans. To qualify, “a transaction must meet all of the following criteria: [i] the transaction is secured by a subordinate-lien; [ii] the transaction is for the purpose of a down payment, closing costs, or other similar home buyer assistance, such as principal or interest subsidies; property rehabilitation assistance; energy efficiency assistance; or foreclosure avoidance or prevention; [iii] the credit contract provides that it does not require the payment of interest; [iv] the credit contract provides that repayment of the amount of credit extended is: forgiven either incrementally or in whole, deferred for at least 20 years after the transaction, or until the sale of the property, or until the property securing the transaction is no longer the consumer’s principal dwelling; [v] the total of costs payable by the consumer in connection with the transaction only include recording fees, transfer taxes, a bona fide and reasonable application fee, and a bona fide and reasonable fee for housing counseling services[;] the application fee and housing counseling services fee must be less than one percent of the loan amount; [and] [iv] the creditor provides either the Truth-in-Lending (TIL) disclosures or the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure[.] Regardless of which disclosures the creditor chooses to provide, the creditor must comply with all Regulation Z requirements pertaining to those disclosures.”
- The BUILD Act includes a partial statutory exemption from the TRID disclosure requirements for similar transactions. To qualify for the Partial Exemption from the TRID disclosure requirements under the BUILD Act, the loan must be a residential mortgage loan, offered at a 0 percent interest rate, have only bona fide and reasonable fees, and be primarily for charitable purposes and be made by an organization described in Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of that Code.
- If a housing assistance loan creditor opts for one of the partial exemptions under either the Regulation Z Partial Exemption or under the BUILD Act, they are excused from the requirement to provide the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure for that transaction. The Partial Exemption under Regulation Z does not excuse the creditor from providing certain other disclosures required by Regulation Z. If the creditor qualifies for the exemption under the BUILD Act, they have the option to provide the GFE, HUD-1 and Truth In Lending disclosures in lieu of the LE and CD at the creditor’s discretion.
11th Circuit affirms dismissal of RESPA suit
On March 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim against a mortgage servicer, agreeing with the district court that the consumer failed to plausibly allege a “causal link” between the alleged RESPA violation and actual damages. According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged he never received notice of a foreclosure sale on his deceased mother’s property, although he was the administrator of her estate. He filed suit, claiming the servicer failed to respond to his qualified written requests within 30 days as required under RESPA, and that as a result of the foreclosure, he allegedly “suffered actual damages from the loss of his mother’s home, loss of her belongings, and his mental anguish.” The servicer countered that the alleged “actual damages” did not result from the servicer’s failure to respond properly to the plaintiff’s letters, but rather were a result of the estate’s failure to pay the mortgage and the resulting foreclosure. In affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, the 11th Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiff never asked the servicer to rescind the foreclosure sale (noting that under RESPA, a borrower is not authorized to request rescission of a foreclosure sale), and that, moreover, the servicer’s failure to do what the plaintiff actually asked it to do—provide information about the mortgage—did not cause his damages.
Court rules incomplete loss mitigation application does not carry foreclosure protections
On March 19, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a mortgage lender’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting allegations that it had violated RESPA and Regulation X in handling plaintiffs’ loss mitigation application. The plaintiffs executed a promissory note and mortgage with the lender in 2017 and then initiated a loss mitigation application the following year. To complete the loss mitigation application process, the lender requested documents and information from the plaintiffs. The lender filed a foreclosure action after informing the plaintiffs that “required documents ‘remain outstanding.’” The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the lender mishandled their loss mitigation application by, among other things, (i) failing to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining documents and information to complete the loss mitigation application; (ii) failing to provide “the correct notices regarding the receipt of documents or with notice of a reasonable date by which Plaintiffs were required to submit additional documents to complete the loss mitigation application”; (iii) failing to evaluate the complete loss mitigation application for all available loss mitigation options within 30 days; (iv) requesting documents already received or impossible to obtain; and (v) filing a foreclosure action against the plaintiffs even though the loss mitigation application was either complete or facially complete.
The court disagreed, ruling that the lender “did not violate RESPA or Regulation X in either the handling of Plaintiffs’ loss mitigation application or in filing foreclosure litigation against Plaintiffs” because, among other things, “[t]here is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiffs did not comply with [the lender’s] request for additional information” and that “a complete, or even facially complete, loss mitigation application was not pending in this matter at the time of the filing of the foreclosure action.” As such, because an incomplete loss mitigation application does not carry foreclosure protections, the filed foreclosure action was not improper, the court wrote.
CFPB, Maryland reduce disgorgement amount in mortgage kickback case
On February 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a motion for entry of monetary remedy filed by the CFPB and the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office (collectively, “Regulators”) in an action concerning the disgorgement calculation for a banker found in contempt of a 2015 consent order. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that while the district court properly determined that the banker violated the terms of the consent order (which previously settled RESPA and state law mortgage-kickback allegations), the court relied on an overbroad interpretation of the consent order and lacked the causal connection between the banker’s profits and a violation when it ordered the banker to pay over $526,000 in disgorged income. The 4th Circuit vacated the disgorgement order and remanded the case to the court to reassess the disgorgement calculation based on the banker’s more limited conduct that did not comply with the order.
On remand, the court reduced the sanctions amount to approximately $270,000, which represents the banker’s earned income (after taxes) “during the period in which he defied the three express provisions of the Consent Order.” Noting that the 4th Circuit rejected the banker’s argument that the Regulators were required to prove a specific monetary harm arising from his violations, the court wrote that in instances “[w]here harm is difficult to calculate, ‘a court is wholly justified in requiring the party in contempt to disgorge any profits it may have received that resulted in whole or in part from the contemptuous conduct,’” particularly where the party engaged in a “pattern or practice” of such conduct.