InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Mortgage servicer must face TCPA allegations after court dismisses other claims
On May 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a mortgage loan owner and mortgage loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a consumer’s lawsuit alleging various violations of TILA, RESPA, FDCPA, TCPA and certain New York state laws. The court’s decision explains that the mortgage loan owner first initiated foreclosure proceedings against the consumer in 2009, but in August 2013 that action was dismissed and the parties executed a modification agreement. The consumer argues in the amended complaint that the mortgage debt is time-barred based on the six year statute of limitations to enforce the mortgage note, starting the clock with the 2009 foreclosure filing. The consumer alleges that after the statute of limitations expired, the mortgage servicer contacted the consumer by mail and by telephone to collect the mortgage debt, totaling over 600 calls placed by an autodialer and up to four threatening collection letters per month since 2015. The court, however, agreed with the mortgage companies that the execution of the 2013 modification agreement restarted the statute of limitations and therefore, the consumer’s alleged violations of New York state laws and the FDCPA failed because the mortgage debt was not time-barred. The court also held that the consumer failed to plead sufficient facts to support the alleged violations of TILA, RESPA, and New York’s General Business Law. In contrast, the court denied the mortgage servicer’s motion to dismiss the consumer’s claim under the TCPA, holding that the mortgage application signed by the consumer did not clearly consent to contact by an autodialer on his cell phone.
CFPB finalizes KBYO amendment to address “black hole”
On April 26, the CFPB issued a final amendment to its “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rule to address when mortgage lenders with a valid changed circumstance or other justification are permitted to reset tolerances and pass on increased closing costs to consumers using the Closing Disclosure. Last summer, as previously covered in a Buckley Sandler Special Alert, the Bureau published a proposal seeking public comment on whether to close the “black hole” that prohibited creditors from passing on cost increases (particularly rate lock extension fees) when closing was significantly delayed after the Closing Disclosure. After considering comments, the Bureau finalized the proposed amendment. The final amendment will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Federal Reserve releases updates to interagency examination procedures for Regulations X and Z
On April 19, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued a consumer affairs letter (CA 18-3) announcing revised interagency examination procedures for Regulation X (RESPA) and Regulation Z (TILA) that supersede procedures previously issued in September 2015. The updated procedures account for amendments to mortgage servicing rules under Regulations X and Z that took effect October 19, 2017 (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), as well as amendments to Regulation Z published by the CFPB through April 2016, including rules concerning small creditors’ mortgage lending to rural and underserved areas. However, the Fed stated in its letter that, at this time, the updated procedures do not incorporate Regulation Z amendments concerning the CFPB’s TILA-RESPA integrated disclosure rule or those regarding prepaid accounts. These amendments will be addressed in a future update.
8th Circuit reverses district court’s decision, rules plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual damages under RESPA
On April 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed a district court’s decision, which granted summary judgement in favor of a consumer (plaintiff) who claimed a mortgage loan servicer violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (RESPA) and the Minnesota Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act when it failed to adequately respond to his qualified written requests concerning erroneous delinquency allegations. The district court ruled that the plaintiff suffered actual damages of $80 under his RESPA claims when the loan servicer “made minimal effort to investigate the error” and failed to provide the plaintiff with requested information about his loan history since origination. The “pattern or practice” of non-compliance also, in the district court’s view, justified $2000 in statutory damages. The plaintiff also received a separate damage award, attorney’s fees and costs under the Minnesota statute. However, under RESPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate proof of actual damages resulting from a loan servicer’s failure, and the three-judge panel argued that the plaintiff “failed to prove actual damages” because the loan servicer’s “failure to comply with RESPA did not cause [the plaintiff’s] alleged harm.” The panel opined that while the loan servicer failed to (i) conduct an adequate investigation following the plaintiff’s request as to why there was a delinquency for his account, and (ii) failed to provide a complete loan payment history when requested, its failure to comply with RESPA involved pre-2011 payment history for which the plaintiff eventually requested and received the relevant loan payment records at no cost. In fact, the panel stated, the only evidence of actual damages was the $80 the plaintiff spent for bank account records, but that expense concerned a separate dispute about whether the plaintiff missed two payments in 2012 and 2013, which the plaintiff eventually acknowledged that he did, in fact, fail to make. Since the loan servicer did not commit an error with respect to the missed payments, the court concluded that the $80 spent by plaintiff were not the result of the loan servicer’s failure to investigate and provide information related to the pre-2011 payment history. To the contrary, with respect to responding to the plaintiff’s inquiries regarding the missing payments, the loan servicer had “complied with its duties under RESPA.”
Furthermore, the panel stated that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the loan servicer engaged in a “pattern or practice of noncompliance.” The 8th Circuit remanded the case back to the district court with directions to enter judgment in favor of the loan servicer on the RESPA claims and for further proceedings on claims under the Minnesota statute.
Court denies CFPB motion to reconsider, applies new RESPA safe harbor
On March 22, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied the CFPB’s motion to reconsider an opinion issued in July 2017, which held that a safe harbor provision for affiliated business arrangements under Section 8(c)(4) of RESPA protects a Louisville law firm's relationship with a string of now-closed title insurance agencies (previously covered by InfoBytes here). In denying the request, the court clarified its previous reasoning and found that the transactions did not violate Section 8(a) because the law firm did not give the title insurance agencies a “thing of value,” and even assuming a violation, the safe harbor under Section 8(c)(2)—even though the court previously relied on Section 8(c)(4)—applied. The court relied on the D.C. Circuit’s 2016 interpretation of Section 8(c)(2) in PHH Corporation v. CFPB, which found that payments made in exchange for a service “actually received” is not the same as payments made for referrals and a payment is bona fide if it amounts to “reasonable market value” for the service. In applying the PHH holding to the present facts, the court concluded that the payments consumers made to the title agencies, which were subsequently distributed as profits to corresponding partners, were made in exchange for title insurance that was actually received by the consumer. Moreover, the court noted that there was no evidence that the payments were above market value, and therefore determined they were bona fide. Lastly, the opinion emphasized that the purpose of RESPA is to prevent unnecessary increases in costs of certain settlement services for consumers, and the payments resulting from the relationship between the law firm and the title agencies not only were for services actually received but were not found to increase the cost of those services at settlement.
Florida judge rules borrower failed to establish RESPA private right of action
On February 20, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an opinion and order against a borrower after a two-day bench trial, finding that the borrower failed to establish a private right of action for any of her alleged RESPA violations. According to the opinion, one of the defendants, a mortgage company, initiated foreclosure proceedings against the borrower for failing to pay required insurance and tax associated with her reverse mortgage. During this period, the mortgage company purchased force-placed insurance through an insurance intermediary company to protect its collateral for the reverse mortgage. When the borrower later brought the account current, the mortgage company dismissed the foreclosure complaint. However, the borrower filed a suit against the mortgage company for failing to “advance insurance premiums on her behalf through an escrow account” and against the second defendant, an insurance company, for procuring a policy that “tortiously interfered” with her business relationship with the mortgage company. Specifically, the borrower alleged the procedure used to obtain the force-placed rates violated Florida Insurance Code Section 626.916, and were, therefore, “not bona fide and reasonable under RESPA.”
However, the judge ruled that none of the borrower’s claims created a private right of action under RESPA, and furthermore, the borrower could not “bootstrap Section 626.916 through another cause of action.” Additionally, the judge noted that counsel for the borrower was unable to provide case law authority to support the “proposition that [the borrower’s] RESPA claim could be premised on a Florida statue which lacked a private right of action.” Concerning the borrower’s allegations of tortious interference against the insurance company, the judge concluded that the claim failed to show that the insurance company “intentionally or unjustifiably” interfered with her relationship with the mortgage company.
Virginia district judge holds RESPA early intervention requirements confer private right of action
On February 20, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia ruled that the early intervention requirements of RESPA allow for a private right of action to pursue claims against loan servicers. According to the opinion, consumers filed a complaint against a mortgage servicer for allegedly violating RESPA’s early intervention requirements under Regulation X, Section 1024.39, which require the servicer to “establish or make good faith efforts to establish live contact with a delinquent borrower not later than the 36th day of the borrower’s delinquency” and promptly inform the borrower of potential loss mitigation options. The servicer filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim, arguing that Section 1024.39 does not provide a private right of action. In denying the motion to dismiss, the court concluded that the CFPB adopted Section 1024.39 pursuant to Section 6 of RESPA, which expressly provides a private right of action and therefore, Section 1024.39 had been intended to convey a private right of action as well.
House passes bill that would effectively overturn Madden; others amend RESPA disclosure requirements and adjust points and fees definitions under TILA
On February 14, in a bipartisan vote of 245-171, the House passed H.R. 3299, the “Protecting Consumers Access to Credit Act of 2017,” to codify the “valid-when-made” doctrine and ensure that a bank loan that was valid as to its maximum rate of interest in accordance with federal law at the time the loan was made shall remain valid with respect to that rate, regardless of whether the bank subsequently sells or assigns the loan to a third party. As previously covered in InfoBytes, this regulatory reform bill would effectively overturn the 2015 decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, which ruled that debt buyers cannot use their relationship with a national bank to preempt state usury limits. Relatedly, the Senate Banking Committee is considering a separate measure, S. 1642.
The same day, in a separate bipartisan vote of 271-145, the House approved H.R. 3978, the “TRID Improvement Act of 2017,” which would amend the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA) to modify disclosure requirements applicable to mortgage loan transactions. Specifically, the bill states that “disclosed charges for any title insurance premium shall be equal to the amount charged for each individual title insurance policy, subject to any discounts as required by either state regulation or the title company rate filings.”
Finally, last week on February 8, the House voted 280-131 to pass H.R. 1153, the “Mortgage Choice Act of 2017,” to adjust definitions of points and fees in connection with mortgage transactions under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Specifically, the bill states that “neither escrow charges for insurance nor affiliated title charges shall be considered ‘points and fees’ for purposes of determining whether a mortgage is a ‘high-cost mortgage.’” On February 12, the bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
CFPB Updates Guide to TRID Forms
On December 6, the CFPB published an updated version of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Guide to the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure Forms. The updated guide reflects the amendments issued by the CFPB on July 7 of this year (previously covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert). These include changes resolving a number of significant ambiguities that generated concerns about the liability of lenders and purchasers of mortgage loans.
Senate Banking Committee Approves Financial Regulatory Relief Bill
On December 5, the Senate Banking Committee approved bill S. 2155, Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which would alter certain financial regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. While not as sweeping as previous legislative relief proposals (see previous InfoBytes coverage on House Financial CHOICE Act of 2017), the bill was introduced and passed the Committee with bipartisan support. The bill’s highlights include, among other things:
- Consumer Access to Credit. The bill deems mortgage loans held in portfolios by insured institutions with less than $10 billion in assets to be “qualified mortgages” under TILA, and removes the three-day waiting period for TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures if the second credit offer is a lower rate. The bill also instructs the CFPB to provide “clearer, authoritative guidance” on certain issues such as the applicability of TRID to mortgage assumptions and construction-to-permanent loans. Additionally, the bill eases appraisal requirements on certain mortgage loans and exempts small depository institutions with low mortgage originations from certain HMDA disclosure requirements.
- Regulatory Relief for Certain Institutions. The bill exempts community banks from Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act if they have, “[i] less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, and [ii] total trading assets and trading liabilities that are not more than five percent of total consolidated assets” – effectively allowing for exempt banks to engage in the trading of, or holding ownership interests in, hedge funds or private equity funds. Additionally, the bill raises the threshold of the Federal Reserve’s Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement and the qualification for certain banks to have an 18-month examination cycle from $1 billion to $3 billion.
- Protections for Consumers. Included in an adopted “manager’s amendment,” the bill requires credit bureaus to provide consumers unlimited free security freezes and unfreezes. The bill also limits certain medical debt information that can be included on veterans’ credit reports.
- Changes for Bank Holding Companies. The bill raises the threshold for applying enhanced prudential standards from $50 billion to $250 billion.
The bill now moves to the Senate, which is not expected to take up the package before the end of this year.