InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Issues Consent Order for Steering to Real Estate Settlement Services Provider
On September 27, the CFPB issued a consent order against a real estate settlement services provider for allegedly steering consumers to a title insurer owned in part by three of its executives without disclosing its affiliated business interests, as required by RESPA. According to the consent order, the company received money “beyond the commission it would normally have been entitled to collect” due to an agreement or understanding that it would refer its business to the title insurer, but it did not make the disclosures of the affiliate relationships required by RESPA to over 7,000 consumers. The CFPB’s order requires the company to pay up to $1.25 million in redress to affected consumers and to implement policies and procedures to ensure proper disclosure of applicable referrals to consumers in the future.
Illinois Governor Enacts Amendments to Predatory Lending Database Article
On September 15, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law amendments to the state’s Residential Real Property Disclosure Act to change provisions under its Predatory Lending Database Article. Public Act 100-0509 sets forth the following changes, among others: (i) certificates of compliance or certificates of exemption must now contain at least “one of the borrower’s names on the mortgage loan and the property index number for the subject property”; (ii) amends the definitions of “counseling” by removing the reference to “telephone counseling” and “originator” to reference “mortgage loan originator”; (iii) eliminates the requirement that originators shall provide information regarding affiliated or third party service providers or monies received from a broker or originator for inclusion in the predatory lending database; and (iv) provides additions to the information that must be collected and submitted by the title insurance company or closing agent for inclusion in the predatory lending database, such as a detailed list of all notices provided to the borrower at closing, including information in connection with the Integrated Closing Disclosure and the Integrated Loan Estimate Disclosure required under TILA-RESPA. The amendments took effect September 15, 2017.
CFPB Issues Summary of Changes and Clarifications to 2017 TILA-RESPA Rule
On August 30, the CFPB released “2017 TILA-RESPA Rule: Detailed Summary of Changes and Clarifications” to assist the mortgage industry in implementing the disclosure requirements of the CFPB’s recently finalized TILA-RESPA Rule. The summary provides an in-depth outline of modifications to the rule, and explains and corrects certain provisions.
Topics covered by the summary include:
- “Effective date and mandatory compliance date”;
- “Coverage,” specifically with respect to cooperative units, trusts, and housing assistance loans;
- “Good faith requirement (i.e., tolerances) and revised disclosures”;
- “Shopping for settlement services”;
- “Disclosure of principal reductions (also known as principal curtailments)”;
- “Total of payments disclosure”;
- “Simultaneous subordinate lien loans”;
- “Construction loans”;
- “Use of positive and negative numbers for certain disclosures in the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure”;
- “Rounding”;
- “Calculating cash to close”;
- “Disclosure of payoffs of existing liens, and unsecured debt”;
- “Disclosure of estimated value when no sales price or appraised value”;
- “Separation of consumer and seller information on Closing Disclosures”;
- “Other disclosures in the Loan Estimate”;
- “Other disclosures in the Closing Disclosure”; and
- “Other minor changes” (including correcting typographical errors).
In addition to the summary, the CFPB also provided additional reference materials to help industry participants to comply with the rule. The rule becomes effective on October 10.
Mortgage Company, Real Estate Services Companies Reach $17 Million Class Action Settlement for Alleged RESPA Violations
On August 25, a national mortgage company and a real estate services family of companies (Defendants) together entered into a $17 million settlement to end a putative class action lawsuit accusing them of arranging kickbacks for unlawful referrals of title services in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The complaint, filed in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accused Defendants—along with various affiliates—of violating RESPA by allegedly facilitating the exchange of unlawful referral fees and kickbacks through an affiliated business arrangement, while also directing various banks to refer title insurance and other settlement services to a subsidiary in the real estate services family of companies without informing customers of the relationship between the entities. According to a memorandum in support of the motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, the real estate services family of companies was “obligated to refer their customers exclusively to [the mortgage company] for mortgage loans, and, in return, [the mortgage company] was required to refer all settlement services back to [the real estate services enterprise’s] subsidiaries.” While a federal judge dismissed the first and second amended complaints “on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts for equitable tolling of RESPA’s one-year statute of limitations,” the same judge denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss a third amended complaint because “Defendants’ contention regarding equitable tolling for the statute of limitations was ‘better resolved in either a motion for summary judgment or trial.’” A fourth amended complaint, filed in July 2017, amended certain claims and added additional class plaintiffs, well after settlement discussions had started.
A stipulation of settlement was filed alongside the motion for preliminary approval, in which Defendants continued “to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged in the [a]ction . . . [but] have concluded that the further conduct of the [a]ction against them would be protracted and expensive.” Furthermore, the stipulation noted that “substantial amounts of time, energy and resources have been and, unless this [s]ettlement is made, will continue to be devoted to the defense of the claims asserted in the [a]ction.” The proposed settlement class consists of more than 32,000 transactions related to borrowers who closed on mortgage loans originated by the mortgage company between approximately November 2014 through November 2015, and who paid any title, escrow or closing related charges to the real estate services companies. The proposed settlement stipulates that Defendants must pay $17 million into a settlement fund to be used to provide cash payments to class members, as well as a portion that will go towards class counsel attorney fees and litigation expenses pending court approval.
Amendments and Proposal to TRID Rule Published in Federal Register, Comments Due October 10
As previously reported in a Special Alert, the CFPB issued amendments to its TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule, which importantly included a concurrent proposal to address the “black hole” issue that prevents creditors from resetting tolerances using the Closing Disclosure except in very limited circumstances. On August 11, the Bureau published the amendments in a final rule and the proposal in the Federal Register. The final rule takes effect October 10, 2017 with mandatory compliance by October 1, 2018. Comments on the proposal are due October 10, 2017.
Judge Issues Ruling that Federal Safe Harbor Provision Applies in RESPA Case
On July 13, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky issued an opinion holding 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. (See CFPB v. Borders and Borders, Plc, No. 3:13-cv-01047-CRS-DW (W.D. Ky. July 13, 2017)). In 2013, the CFPB alleged the firm violated RESPA by paying kickbacks for real estate settlement referrals through a network of joint ventures with the principals of nine title insurance companies. (See previous InfoBytes summary here.) The judge granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment on only one safe harbor question, stating that the firm’s agreements with the title insurance agencies qualified as “affiliated business arrangements” because it “disclosed the relationship…, the customers could reject the referral, and the Bureau failed to show that the [title insurance companies] received anything of value beyond their ownership interests.”
The judge rejected the firm's claim that the CFPB cannot seek disgorgement as a remedy and further declined to address the firm’s ultra vires argument that the CFPB is an unconstitutional agency and therefore lacks legal authority to bring suit, stating that the en banc decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB has not yet been issued.
Notably, however, the judge appeared to suggest that case could be appealed because the firm’s other arguments fail to qualify for RESPA safe harbors under Sections 8(c)(1) and 8(c)(2).
PHH v. CFPB Update: PHH Counters CFPB’s Statute of Limitations Interpretation
On June 13, PHH Corporation sent a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit responding to a June 7 letter from the CFPB that stated RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations is not applicable in its enforcement action against the company. In its letter, the CFPB cited a decision in Kokesh v. SEC where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a five-year limit applies to civil penalties, and that, furthermore, “[d]isgorgement in the securities-enforcement context is a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of §2462, and so disgorgement actions must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrues.” The Bureau further supported its argument for a five-year limit by claiming that RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations provision applies only to “actions” brought in a “United States district court or any other court of competent jurisdiction,” and its administrative proceeding against the company for alleged mortgage kickbacks was not an “action” under RESPA.
In response, PHH countered that Section 2462 contains a “catch-all limitations period ‘[e]xcept as otherwise provided’ by Congress.” Thus, the D.C. Circuit panel was correct when it held that Congress “otherwise provided” a three-year statute of limitations under RESPA that applies to enforcement proceedings because in the “second part of Section 2614, the term ‘actions’ is not limited to actions brought in court.” PHH further asserts that Dodd-Frank “repeatedly uses the term ‘action’ to encompass court actions and administrative proceedings.”
As previously covered in InfoBytes, on May 24, the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of the CFPB. It did not indicate that it was inclined to revisit the panel’s determination that the Bureau misinterpreted RESPA when applying it to PHH’s practices.
CFPB Fines Mortgage Servicer for RESPA Violations
On June 7, the CFPB ordered a mortgage servicer to pay up to $1.15 million in restitution for failing to provide borrowers with required foreclosure protections when handling loss-mitigation applications. The consent order alleges the servicer violated RESPA by failing to send critical information to consumers who were applying for foreclosure relief, and, in some circumstances, beginning foreclosure proceedings on borrowers who had submitted completed applications. Pursuant to the consent order, in addition to restitution, the servicer is required to provide borrowers the opportunity to pursue foreclosure relief, must cease its illegal practices, and develop policies and procedures to ensure compliance with mortgage servicing rules.
FDIC Releases List of Enforcement Actions Taken Against Banks and Individuals in April 2017
On May 26, the FDIC released its list of 18 administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in April. Among the consent orders on the list are civil money penalties for violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and its flood insurance requirements. Also on the list are a cease and desist order and a civil money penalty assessment issued to a Louisiana-based bank (Bank) for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), EFTA, RESPA, TILA, HMDA, and the National Flood Insurance Program. According to the cease and desist order, the FDIC Board of Directors agreed with the Administrative Law Judge’s recommended decision that the Bank engaged in unsafe or unsound practices, which warranted a cease and desist order and civil money penalty. The order also addressed a number of shortcomings identified by the Bank’s examiners, including the following: (i) the Bank’s BSA program lacked adequate internal controls to ensure compliance; (ii) it failed to provide correct and compete electronic funds transfer disclosures to consumers; (iii) borrowers were provided “untimely and improperly completed” good faith estimates; and (iv) the Bank repeatedly failed to accurately report required HMDA information to federal agencies.
An additional eight actions listed by the FDIC related to unsafe or unsound banking practices and breaches of fiduciary duty, including five removal and prohibition orders. There are no administrative hearings scheduled for June 2017. The FDIC database containing all of its enforcement decisions and orders may be accessed here.
PHH v. CFPB Update: D.C. Circuit Hears Oral Arguments Before En Banc Court
On May 24, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the matter of PHH Corp. v. CFPB. The parties and the Department of Justice generally presented their arguments as expected based on their briefs. However, questions from some members of the court indicated doubts about the conclusion by a panel of the court in October 2016 that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional. In particular, multiple members of the court repeatedly pressed PHH’s counsel on whether prior Supreme Court decisions upholding the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies led by presidential appointees who could only be removed “for cause” prevented the D.C. Circuit from concluding that the president lacked sufficient authority over the CFPB’s Director.
Notably, however, in response to statements by PHH that current CFPB Director Richard Cordray could remain in his position after the expiration of his term in July 2018 until a successor was confirmed by the Senate, the CFPB’s counsel stated that, in the Bureau’s view, the “for cause” removal limitation no longer applied once the Director’s term expired, and the president could then remove the Director “at will.”
In contrast to the constitutional issue, the questioning on other aspects of the case was minimal and did not indicate that the en banc court was inclined to revisit the panel’s determination that the CFPB misinterpreted the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when applying it to PHH’s practices, violated due process by failing to give PHH proper notice of its interpretation, and improperly failed to apply RESPA’s statute of limitations in its administrative proceedings.
At the direction of the en banc court, the oral arguments in PHH followed those in Lucia v. SEC, a case addressing whether the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs) violate the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Although this issue was not discussed during the PHH oral arguments, the CFPB originally brought its claims against PHH before an ALJ borrowed from the SEC and the court had previously suggested that a finding that the SEC ALJs were improperly appointed could also justify reversal of the CFPB’s decision against PHH. (See previous Special Alert here.)
A decision from the en banc court is not expected for months. Importantly, while questioning during oral argument is often used as a barometer of the potential outcome of a case, the questions asked by a judge do not necessarily indicate how that judge will vote on a particular issue. Judges often use oral argument to see how the parties and their colleagues will respond to hypotheticals, rather than to share their views of the case.