InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Key Takeaways from the CFPB’s First Public Enforcement Action Alleging Violations of RESPA Section 8 Since 2017
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued a consent order to a residential mortgage loan originator to resolve allegations that it provided illegal incentives to real estate brokers and agents in exchange for mortgage loan referrals. This is the CFPB’s first public enforcement action alleging violations of RESPA Section 8 since 2017.
The CFPB issued a parallel consent order against a real estate brokerage firm for accepting the incentives in exchange for referrals.
Allegations Against the Lender
The consent order against the lender alleges that the lender paid for several subscription services – for example, to a service that provided information concerning property reports, comparable sales and foreclosure data – and then provided free access to such services to real estate agents and brokers, which the CFPB determined to be a thing of value. According to the consent order, the agents and brokers who received access to the subscription services also referred mortgage business to the lender, which the CFPB alleges was in exchange for the free services and therefore violated RESPA Section 8(a).
The consent order also alleges that the lender hosted and subsidized events, including paying for food, beverages and entertainment, for the benefit of real estate agents and brokers. The consent order further alleges that the lender gave real estate agents and brokers free tickets to sporting events, charity galas and other events where the real estate agents and brokers would have otherwise needed to pay for their own admission, food, and alcohol. The CFPB alleges that these events frequently cost the lender several thousand dollars or more. The CFPB asserts that the lender’s contributions to these events constituted a thing of value to the real estate agents and brokers and were given to create, maintain and strengthen mortgage referral relationships, in violation of RESPA Section 8(a).
Finally, the CFPB alleges that the lender had marketing services agreements (“MSAs”) with numerous real estate brokerages, and that many of the compensable services were either performed by the lender itself rather than the brokerages or, based on the Bureau’s allegations against the broker, were not performed by the brokerages.
Also, the consent order noted that the MSAs required the real estate brokers to promote the lender to the broker’s own agents rather than to consumers. The lender also encouraged its MSA partners to use a third-party smartphone app. The real estate agents shared the app with their clients. The app featured a photo of the lender’s loan officer and the lender’s logo and included buttons where consumers could contact the lender’s loan officer for assistance. As a result, the CFPB alleges that the payments the lender made to the brokerages were structured and implemented to generate referrals, rather than to compensate the brokerages for any marketing services they actually performed.
Allegations Against the Real Estate Broker
The consent order against the broker alleges that the broker’s real estate agents and brokers accepted the subscription services and subsidized events. It also alleges that the broker received payments in connection with an MSA that was primarily focused on the lender getting referrals from the broker’s brokers and agents rather than the broker marketing the lender to the public, and that the broker failed to perform many of the marketing tasks required by the MSA but received payments anyway. For example, the consent order alleges that the MSA required the broker to send 15,000 marketing emails a month while allocating 50% of the content to the lender, display video advertisements for the lender at its physical locations and create a number of property websites displaying the lender’s content. However, the broker allegedly failed to perform any of these marketing services.
Takeaways
We note several key takeaways from these consent orders:
- Taken at face value, none of the conduct alleged to violate RESPA Section 8(a) is novel or particularly notable. The crux of the alleged violations involved paying for obvious things of value in exchange for referrals and entering into MSAs where the contemplated marketing services were either not provided or directed to potential referral sources and not consumers. The consent orders, therefore, are largely consistent with prior RESPA enforcement actions involving lenders and real estate brokers.
- This is the first public CFPB enforcement action alleging violations of RESPA Section 8 since 2017, which makes clear that although the CFPB’s focus on RESPA Section 8 may have waned somewhat from the Cordray era, it is still monitoring for RESPA Section 8 violations and will bring public enforcement actions when violations are discovered. Coupled with February’s Advisory Opinion on Digital Mortgage Comparison Shopping Platforms, the CFPB is clearly still engaged in RESPA compliance.
- The reference to the mobile app with a loan officer’s photo and the lender’s logo, and the ability for the consumer to reach out to the lender directly, is in accord with longstanding CFPB and HUD guidance that exclusivity is indicative of a referral to the extent that it “affirmatively influences” a consumer to select a particular provider of settlement services. This viewpoint was recently espoused in the CFPB’s Advisory Opinion on Digital Mortgage Comparison Shopping Platforms, and it appears that the CFPB views this principle as generally applicable.
Penalties
In addition to agreeing to cease engaging in the conduct alleged, the lender was ordered to pay a civil monetary penalty of $1.75 million and also agreed to implement a compliance program designed to prevent any future violations should the lender resume retail mortgage operations. The lender also agreed to meet certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
In addition to agreeing to cease engaging in the conduct alleged, the broker was ordered to pay a civil monetary penalty of $200,000 and meet certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
In agreeing to enter into the consent orders, the lender and broker did not admit or deny any findings of fact or conclusions of law related to the violations alleged by the CFPB.
Read the lender’s consent order.
Read the broker’s consent order.
Read the CFPB’s press release.
Want to learn more? Contact John Kromer or Steve vonBerg.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac annual stress tests results
On August 10, FHFA published the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests Results – Severely Adverse Scenario containing the results of the ninth annual stress tests conducted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Last year, FHFA published orders for the GSEs to conduct a stress test with specific scenarios to determine whether companies have the capital necessary to absorb losses as a result of severely adverse economic conditions (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the report, the total comprehensive income loss is between $8.4 billion and $9.9 billion depending on how deferred tax assets are treated. Notably, compared to last year, the severely adverse scenario includes a larger increase in the unemployment rate due to the lower unemployment rate at the beginning of the planning horizon. FHFA also expanded the scope of entities considered within the primary counterparty default component of the worldwide market shock. This expansion encompasses mortgage insurers, unsecured overnight deposits, providers of multifamily credit enhancements, nonbank servicers, and credit risk transfer reinsurance counterparties.
CFPB sues auto-loan servicer for double-billing practices
On August 2 CFPB filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against an auto-loan servicer alleging a host of illegal practices that harmed individuals with auto loans. The Bureau alleged that the auto-loan servicer engaged in unfair acts and practices in violation of the CFPA, including (i) wrongfully activating nearly 80,000 times starter-interruption devices, which are devices that warn consumers with beeps or disable their car altogether when they are late with a loan payment; (ii) failing to ensure refunds of over millions of dollars of GAP insurance premiums after consumers paid off their loan early or their car was repossessed by the auto-loan servicer; (iii) erroneously billing 34,000 consumers for collateral-protection insurance (CPI) by charging consumers twice each billing cycle, totaling around $1.9 million; (iv) wrongfully applying extra consumer payments first to late fees or CPI instead of accrued interest; and (v) wrongfully repossessing consumers’ cars dozens of times due to errors by the auto-loan servicer or its vendor.
The Bureau seeks, among other things, redress to consumers, civil money penalties, and injunctions to prevent future violations.
HUD and NAREB to educate consumers on appraisal bias
On August 2, HUD announced a partnership with the National Association of Real Estate Brokers to address appraisal bias and discrimination in the housing market. The collaboration, launching in October 2023, will include online training, roundtable discussions, and distribution of educational material designed to promote fairness in the housing market. HUD also referenced its involvement in the PAVE task force (covered by InfoBytes here), which is dedicated to ending bias in home valuation and has made critical progress since its launch in 2022.
CFPB issues Summer ’23 supervisory highlights
On July 26, the CFPB released its Summer 2023 issue of Supervisory Highlights, which covers enforcement actions in areas such as auto origination, auto servicing, consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, information technology, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, payday lending and remittances from June 2022 through March 2023. The Bureau noted significant findings regarding unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices and findings across many consumer financial products, as well as new examinations on nonbanks.
- Auto Origination: The CFPB examined auto finance origination practices of several institutions and found deceptive marketing of auto loans. For example, loan advertisements showcased cars larger and newer than the products for which actual loan offers were available, which misled consumers.
- Auto Servicing: The Bureau’s examiners identified unfair and abusive practices at auto servicers related to charging interest on inflated loan balances resulting from fraudulent inclusion of non-existent options. It also found that servicers collected interest on the artificially inflated amounts without refunding consumers for the excess interest paid. Examiners further reported that auto servicers engaged in unfair and abusive practices by canceling automatic payments without sufficient notice, leading to missed payments and late fee assessments. Additionally, some servicers allegedly engaged in cross-collateralization, requiring consumers to pay other unrelated debts to redeem their repossessed vehicles.
- Consumer Reporting: The Bureau’s examiners found that consumer reporting companies failed to maintain proper procedures to limit furnishing reports to individuals with permissible purposes. They also found that furnishers violated regulations by not reviewing and updating policies, neglecting reasonable investigations of direct disputes, and failing to notify consumers of frivolous disputes or provide accurate address disclosures for consumer notices.
- Debt Collection: The CFPB's examinations of debt collectors (large depository institutions, nonbanks that are larger participants in the consumer debt collection market, and nonbanks that are service providers to certain covered persons) uncovered violations of the FDCPA and CFPA, such as unlawful attempts to collect medical debt and deceptive representations about interest payments.
- Deposits: The CFPB's examinations of financial institutions revealed unfair acts or practices related to the assessment of both nonsufficient funds and line of credit transfer fees on the same transaction. The Bureau reported that this practice resulted in double fees being charged for denied transactions.
- Fair Lending: Recent examinations through the CFPB's fair lending supervision program found violations of ECOA and Regulation B, including pricing discrimination in granting pricing exceptions based on competitive offers and discriminatory lending restrictions related to criminal history and public assistance income.
- Information Technology: Bureau examiners found that certain institutions engaged in unfair acts by lacking adequate information technology security controls, leading to cyberattacks and fraudulent withdrawals from thousands of consumer accounts, causing substantial harm to consumers.
- Mortgage Origination: Examiners found that certain institutions violated Regulation Z by differentiating loan originator compensation based on product types and failing to accurately reflect the terms of the legal obligation on loan disclosures.
- Mortgage Servicing: Examiners identified UDAAP and regulatory violations at mortgage servicers, including violations related to loss mitigation timing, misrepresenting loss mitigation application response times, continuity of contact procedures, Spanish-language acknowledgment notices, and failure to provide critical loss mitigation information. Additionally, some servicers reportedly failed to credit payments sent to prior servicers after a transfer and did not maintain policies to identify missing information after a transfer.
- Payday Lending: The CFPB identified unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, including unreasonable limitations on collection communications, false collection threats, unauthorized wage deductions, misrepresentations regarding debt payment impact, and failure to comply with the Military Lending Act. The report also highlighted that lenders reportedly failed to retain evidence of compliance with disclosure requirements under Regulation Z. In response, the Bureau directed lenders to cease deceptive practices, revise contract language, and update compliance procedures to ensure regulatory compliance.
- Remittances: The CFPB evaluated both depository and non-depository institutions for compliance with the EFTA and its Regulation E, including the Remittance Rule. Examiners found that some institutions failed to develop written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Remittance Rule's error resolution requirements, using inadequate substitutes or policies without proper implementation.
FHA proposes to change lender and mortgagee requirements, clarify GSE definition
On July 18, FHA announced a proposed rule for public comment that would revise requirements for investing lenders and mortgagees “to gain or maintain status as an FHA-approved lender or mortgagee.” The proposed rule would also “separately define Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLB) from other governmental entities and align general FHA approval standards with current industry business practices.” The proposed changes are mainly aimed at accommodating more precise language and definitions concerning an investing lender or mortgagee's limited participation in FHA programs. According to FHA, these changes do not represent a significant departure from existing requirements for most lenders and mortgagees involved in originating, endorsing, or servicing FHA-insured loans. Through the proposed rule, HUD proposes to: (i) “separately define the GSEs and their approval requirements from other Federal, State, or municipal governmental agencies and Federal Reserve Banks”; (ii) include Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the FHLBs in the GSE definition; (iii) add language to require investing lenders and mortgagees to comply with applicable audit and financial statement requirements; and (iv) “clarify that investing lenders and mortgagees must comply with FHA’s annual certification requirements.”
Michigan Supreme Court limits applicability of “usury savings clauses”
On June 23, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a circuit court’s decision on a case involving Michigan’s “longstanding prohibition on excessive interest rates for certain loans.” The case involved a “usury savings clause,” which is a term sometimes used in notes, which requires the borrower to pay the maximum legal interest rate if the contractual terms impose an illegal rate. In the case, a nonbank investment group (plaintiff) lent a realty service company (defendant) $1 million to flip tax-foreclosed homes. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and fraud after defendant discontinued payments after paying more than $140,000 in interest on the loan. Defendant argued that plaintiff violated the criminal usury statute by, “knowingly charging an effective interest rate exceeding 25%,” which it alleged barred plaintiff from recovering on the loan under the wrongful-conduct rule.
The circuit court determined that the fees and charges associated with the loan constituted disguised interest, making the total interest the plaintiff was seeking above the legal 25% limit and “criminally usurious.” However, the court agreed with the defendant that the usury savings clause was enforceable and the note was not facially usurious. Nevertheless, “the court agreed that the appropriate remedy is to relieve [defendant] of its obligation to pay the interest on the loan but not its obligation to repay the principal.”
The Michigan Supreme Court held that in determining whether a loan agreement imposes illegal rates of interest, a usury savings clause is ineffective if the loan agreement requires a borrower to pay an illegal interest rate, even if the interest is labeled as a “fee” or something else. Further, the court held that enforcing usury savings clauses would undermine the state’s usury laws because it would nullify the statutory remedies for usury, which would relieve lenders of their obligation to ensure that their loans have a legal interest rate. The court also held that a lender is not criminally liable for seeking to collect on an unlawful interest rate in a lawsuit. The court reasoned that seeking relief through the court of law is generally encouraged over extrajudicial means. According to the opinion, the court held that “[t]he appropriate remedy for a lender’s abusive lawsuit is success for the borrower in that lawsuit and appropriate civil sanctions, not a criminal conviction for usury.”
Missouri will regulate lender-placed insurance
On July 7, the Missouri governor signed SB 101 (the “Act”) into law, amending several provisions relating to property and casualty insurance, including requirements for lender-placed insurance. The Act defines “lender-placed insurance” as insurance secured by the lender/servicer when the mortgagor does not have valid or sufficient insurance on a mortgaged real property, and will include “insurance purchased unilaterally by the lender or servicer, who is the named insured, subsequent to the date of the credit transaction, providing coverage against loss, expense, or damage to collateralized property as a result of fire, theft, collision, or other risks of loss” that impairs such lender/servicer’s interest or adversely impacts the collateral, where such purchase is a result of a mortgagor’s failure to obtain required insurance under a mortgage agreement. Among other things, the Act stipulates that lender-placed insurance is not effective until the date a mortgaged real property is not insured, and that individual lender-placed insurance terminates on the earliest date out of listed periods. Also specified is that mortgagors cannot be charged for the policies outside of the scheduled term of the lender-placed insurance. The Act further states that the calculation of the lender-placed insurance premium “should be based upon the replacement cost value of the property,” and outlines how the premium should be determined. All insurers shall have separate rates for lender-placed insurance and voluntary insurance obtained by a mortgage servicer on real estate owned property, as defined in the Act.
Further regarding lender-placed insurance, the Act prohibits: (i) “insurers and insurance producers from issuing lender-placed insurance if they or one of their affiliates owns, performs servicing for, or owns the servicing right to, the mortgaged property;” (ii) “insurers and insurance producers from compensating lenders, insurers, investors, or servicers for lender-placed insurance policies issued by the insurer, and from sharing premiums or risk with the lender, investor, or servicer;” (iii) “payments dependent on profitability or loss ratios from being made in connection with lender-placed insurance;” (iv) [insurers from] provid[ing] free or below-cost services or outsourc[ing] its own functions at an above-cost basis”; and (v) [insurers from] mak[ing] any payments for the purpose of securing lender-placed insurance business or related services.
The Act requires lender-placed insurance policy forms and certificates to be mailed and filed with the Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance and stipulates the requirements for insurers who must report information to the department as well. Lastly, the Act specifies potential penalties for violations of the Act, including monetary penalties and suspension or revocation of an insurer’s license. The Act becomes effective on August 28.
FHA updates HECM procedures for mortgagee default
On July 11, FHA announced modifications to certain FHA home equity conversion mortgage requirements in Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2023-15, entitled “Modifications to FHA Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Requirements Related to Secretary Payment of Borrower Disbursements Due to Mortgagee Default.” The letter updates FHA’s investigation requirements regarding situations where a mortgage lender is unable or unwilling to fulfill a borrower’s payment obligations required under an HECM. Mortgagees that fail to make a necessary payment to a borrower must now furnish specific information to FHA. The modifications provide additional sources where FHA can receive notice of a mortgagee’s anticipated or actual default on borrower payments and are designed to improve FHA’s ability to make prompt payments in the event of mortgagee default to ensure HECM borrowers timely receive scheduled or requested funds. ML 2023-15 is effective immediately.
7th Circuit affirms dismissal of FCRA claims against subservicer
On July 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant data furnisher in an FCRA case, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant provided “patently incorrect or materially misleading information” to a credit reporting agency (CRA). Defendant was the subservicer for plaintiff’s mortgage and was responsible for accepting and tracking payments and providing payment data to the CRAs. After plaintiff failed to make her monthly payments, she resolved the delinquency through a short sale of her home. Several years later, plaintiff noticed that the closed mortgage account appeared on her credit reports as delinquent. She disputed the information to several CRAs. To confirm the accuracy of its records on plaintiff’s mortgage, one of the CRAs sent the defendant data furnisher four automated consumer dispute verification (ACDV) forms. In the ACDV responses, the defendant amended or verified several contested data points, including the pay rate and account history. The CRA reported this amended data to indicate on plaintiff’s credit report that she was currently delinquent on the mortgage with missed payments in the months following the short sale. After plaintiff applied for and was denied a new mortgage based on the credit report, plaintiff sued the defendant data furnisher for alleged violations of the FCRA, alleging that the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of the disputed data and provided false and misleading information to CRAs. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that plaintiff failed to make a threshold showing that the defendant’s data was incomplete or inaccurate.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit disagreed with plaintiff that “completeness or accuracy” under the FCRA “must be judged based, not on the ACDV response the data furnisher provided, but on the credit report generated from it.” The court reasoned that the text of the statute “says nothing about a credit report, let alone a duty of a data furnisher with respect to credit reports produced using its amended data. To the contrary, the statute sets out the data furnisher’s duties to investigate disputes, correct incomplete or inaccurate information, and report results from an investigation” to the CRA. Holding that “context can play a large role in determining completeness or accuracy” in this situation, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the data provided by the defendant to the CRA was “not materially misleading” and that “no reasonable jury could find” that the data meant that plaintiff was currently delinquent on her debt, particularly because of strong “contextual evidence”—specifically, that the disputed data appeared directly beside a status code showing that the account was closed. The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for the data furnisher.