InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FHFA extends Covid-19 multifamily forbearance
On September 24, FHFA announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) will continue to offer Covid-19 forbearance to qualified multifamily property owners. The forbearance options for GSE-backed multifamily mortgages were set to expire September 30, but have been extended for the fourth time. Eligible multifamily property owners that enter into new or modified forbearance agreements are required to (i) “[i]nform tenants in writing about tenant protections available during the property owner’s forbearance and repayment periods”; and (ii) “[a]gree not to evict tenants solely for the nonpayment of rent while the property is in forbearance.” Additionally, property owners must also provide a tenant at least 30-days’ notice to vacate, may not charge a tenant late fees or penalties for nonpayment of rent, and must allow a tenant flexibility to repay back rent over time and not in a lump sum.
Virginia announces consent judgment against investment firm
On August 24, the Virginia attorney general announced a consent judgment entered on August 16 against a Virginia-based investment company and its managing member (collectively, "defendants") to resolve allegations that they violated Virginia’s consumer finance statutes. The consent judgment settled a lawsuit in which the AG alleged that defendants “made loans to distressed homeowners and charged interest or other compensation greatly exceeding an effective annual interest rate of 12 percent, without being licensed as a consumer finance company or coming within another exemption to Virginia’s usury laws.” According to the AG, the complaint alleged that a representative of the defendant investment company approached a Virginia Beach homeowner facing foreclosure and presented her with an agreement in which the defendants would provide the amount needed to stop the foreclosure in exchange for permission to list and sell the homeowner’s separate Virginia Beach property at an above-market commission rate or, if the sale did not occur, to purchase that property at a significantly below market price. Under the terms of the consent judgment, the defendants, among other things are: (i) permanently enjoined from violating specific consumer finance statutes, including by “making any loan requiring a collateral sale and/or purchase to Virginia consumers”; (ii) required to pay $11,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs; and (iii) required to provide certain restitution and/or forbearance relief to consumers identified by the defendants pursuant to the consent judgment as well as “to any Virginia consumer who comes forward within two (2) years after entry of the Consent Judgment with evidence establishing that he or she received a loan requiring a collateral sale and/or purchase from [defendants]” during the period from January 1, 2018 to the present.
5th Circuit orders plaintiff to pay outstanding loan
On August 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court decision to require the plaintiff CEO of several petrochemical companies, who defaulted on a revolving line of credit that he guaranteed, to repay national lenders (defendants) an outstanding amount, rejecting the CEO’s argument that the agreements were fraudulently induced. The plaintiff allegedly withdrew a $90 million revolving line of credit from the defendants. His personal liability arose after his companies began breaching some of the loans’ financial covenants. To avoid acceleration, the CEO himself guaranteed the companies’ outstanding debt. Because his companies continued breaching their loan obligations and the defendants were “concerned about the borrowers’ cash burn, ‘collateral deterioration,’ and ‘poor accounting controls,’” the parties modified the total debt to $72 million. In addition, the defendants and the companies amended their credit agreement and the plaintiff “executed a personal guaranty of the debt his companies assumed.” At the defendants’ recommendation—or, as the CEO maintains—“the borrowers also brought on a chief restructuring officer (CRO) to help turn the companies around.” When the companies continued to default on the loan obligations, the CEO and the borrowers entered into two forbearance agreements with the defendants that imposed financial, operational, and reporting obligations on the borrowers. After the second agreement expired and the borrowers' defaults remained, the company sued the defendants for over $1.5 billion in damages for negligence, fraud, conversion, among other things, in which the defendants “counterclaimed and impleaded [the CEO] and the remaining borrowers and guarantors, alleging breach of contract and breach of guaranty.” According to the opinion, “[t]hose third-party defendants then counterclaimed against the lenders, asserting the same tort claims initially lodged by the company.” Furthermore, the CEO asserted the following four defenses: fraudulent inducement, duress, unclean hands, and equitable estoppel. The district court rejected each of the plaintiff’s arguments, ordering him to pay the defendants, plus interest and attorney fees, noting “that the underlying breach of guaranty was ‘not contested.’” The district court held that the waivers and releases the plaintiff signed as part of the two forbearance agreements “foreclosed any claim that he was fraudulently induced into signing the earlier Guaranty,” and determined that his allegations of intense business pressure fell short of establishing duress.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit agreed with the district court, affirming that the plaintiff failed to prove that he signed onto the agreements under duress. According to the 5th Circuit, “[t]he district court detected a glaring problem with this theory: the timeline of events refutes it,” and the plaintiff “learned of the purported fraud—the supposed scheme to replace him with the CRO—before he ratified the Guaranty.”
CFPB finds varying pandemic response among servicers
On August 10, the CFPB released an overview report of Covid-19 pandemic responses from 16 large mortgage servicers (servicers). The CFPB used supervisory data from the servicers to understand how they are interacting with homeowners throughout the pandemic and if those interactions are effective. The CFPB’s observations include the following:
- According to the report, most servicers reported abandonment rates, a measure of how many borrowers disconnected from servicing calls before completion, of less than 5 percent during the reporting period, while others exceeded 20 percent, and one peaked at 34 percent.
- Many servicers saw increased rates of borrowers who were delinquent upon exiting pandemic hardship forbearance programs in March and April 2021 compared to previous months. According to the report, these borrowers “may be at risk of harm from advanced delinquency, foreclosure and foreclosure-related costs, and negative credit reporting.”
- Delinquency rates ranged from about 1 percent to 26 percent for federally-backed and private loans. According to the report, “[d]elinquency rates increased sharply around March 2020 and remain elevated.”
- According to the CFPB, “[n]early half of servicers in the report clearly stated that they did not collect or maintain information about borrowers’ LEP [limited English proficiency] status, which may lead to borrowers not receiving needed language assistance. Some of the servicers also reported not maintaining data on borrowers’ race, which may raise the risk of fair lending violations.”
- The report found that denial rates for Covid-19 hardship forbearance requests were consistently low for both federally-backed loans and private loan forbearance programs.
According to the CFPB, the Bureau “will continue its oversight work through examinations and enforcement, and it will hold servicers accountable for complying with existing regulatory requirements, as well as the amended Mortgage Servicing Rules that take effect August 31, 2021.”
Agencies announce additional actions to prevent Covid-19 foreclosures
On July 23, President Biden announced additional actions taken by HUD, the VA, and USDA, which are intended to ensure stable and equitable recovery from disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and prepare homeowners to exit mortgage forbearance. According to the Biden administration, the goal of these new measures is to bring homeowners with HUD-, VA-, and USDA-backed mortgages closer in alignment with options provided for homeowners with Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed mortgages (covered by InfoBytes here). Specifically, mortgage servicers will be required or encouraged to offer new payment reduction offers to assist borrowers.
- HUD. FHA announced enhanced Covid-19 recovery loss mitigation options to help homeowners with FHA-insured mortgages who have been financially impacted by the pandemic. Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2021-18 supersedes previously issued FHA-loss mitigation options, and will, among other things, require mortgage servicers to offer a zero-interest subordinate lien option to eligible homeowners who can resume their existing mortgage payments under the “COVID-19 Recovery Standalone Partial Claim” option. For borrowers that are unable to resume their monthly mortgage payments, FHA established the “COVID-19 Recovery Modification” option, which extends the term of a mortgage to 360 months at market rate and targets a 25 percent principal and interest (P&I) reduction for all eligible borrowers. Servicers may start offering the options as soon as operationally feasible but must begin using the new options within 90 days. These additional options supplement FHA Covid-19 protections published last June (covered by InfoBytes here), which extended the foreclosure and eviction moratorium, expanded the Covid-19 forbearance and home equity conversion mortgage extension, and established the Covid-19 advance loan modification.
- VA. The VA also announced it will offer a new “COVID-19 Refund Modification” option to assist veterans impacted by the pandemic who need a significant reduction in their monthly mortgage payments. Under the plan, the VA will be able to purchase a veteran’s past-due payments and unpaid principal—subject to certain limits—“depending on how much assistance is necessary,” and, in certain circumstances, veterans will be able to receive a 20 percent payment reduction (certain borrowers may be eligible to receive a larger reduction). Mortgage servicers will modify the loan to ensure veterans can afford future mortgage payments. Similar to the VA’s “COVID–19 Veterans Assistance Partial Claim Payment” (covered by InfoBytes here), the deferred indebtedness will be established as a junior lien, which will not accrue interest, will not require monthly payments, and will only become due once the property is sold or the guaranteed loan is paid off or refinanced. The option is available through September 30, 2021.
- USDA. The agency announced new Covid-19 special relief measures, as well as clarifications to existing policies, for servicing borrowers impacted by the pandemic. USDA noted that Chapter 18 Section 5 of Handbook-1-3555 will be expanded to include “COVID-19 Special Relief Alternatives,” which includes an option that targets a 20 percent reduction in a borrower’s monthly P&I payments and offers “a combination of interest rate reduction, term extension and mortgage recovery advance.” These measures are immediately available and will be effective through December 31, 2022. Eligible borrowers must occupy the property, must not be more than 120 days past due on March 1, 2020, and must have received an initial forbearance due to a pandemic-related hardship before September 30, 2021.
DFPI reports significant decline in payday lending during pandemic
On July 22, DFPI reported that California payday lenders made fewer than 6.1 million loans during the Covid-19 pandemic—a 40 percent decline from 2019. Key findings in the 2020 Annual Report of Payday Lending Activity Under the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, include: (i) nearly 61.8 percent of licensees reported serving consumers who received government assistance; (ii) borrowers who take out subsequent loans accounted for 69 percent of payday loans in 2020; (iii) licensees collected $250.8 million in payday loan fees, of which 68 percent came from borrowers who made at least seven transactions during the year; (iii) 49 percent of borrowers had average annual incomes of $30,000 or less, and 30 percent had average annual incomes of $20,000 or less; (iv) online payday loans made up one-third of all payday loans (41 percent of borrowers took out payday loans over the internet); and (v) cash disbursement continued to decrease in 2020, while other forms of disbursement, such as wire transfers, bank cards, and debit cards increased. DFPI also noted that during this time period the number of payday loan borrowers referred by lead generators declined by 69 percent, and that the number of licensed payday lending locations also dropped by 27.7 percent. DFPI acting Commissioner Christopher S. Shultz commented that the decrease in payday loans during the pandemic may be attributable to several factors, “such as stimulus checks, loan forbearances, and growth in alternative financing options,” adding that DFPI continues to closely monitor financial products marketed to consumer in desperate financial need.
CFPB issues summer supervisory highlights
On June 29, the CFPB released its summer 2021 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of auto loan servicing, consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage origination and servicing, payday lending, private education loan origination, and student loan servicing. The findings of the report, which are published to assist entities in complying with applicable consumer laws, cover examinations that generally were completed between January and December of 2020. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Auto Loan Servicing. Bureau examiners identified unfair acts or practices related to lender-placed collateral protection insurance (CPI), including instances where servicers charged unnecessary CPI or charged for CPI after repossession. Examiners also identified unfair acts or practices related to payoff amounts where consumers had ancillary product rebates due, and also found unfair or deceptive acts or practices related to payment application.
- Consumer Reporting. The Bureau found deficiencies in consumer reporting companies’ (CRCs) FCRA compliance related to the following requirements: (i) accuracy; (ii) security freezes applicable to certain CRCs; and (iii) ID theft block requests. Specifically, examiners found that CRCs continued to include information from furnishers despite receiving furnisher dispute responses that “suggested that the furnishers were no longer sources of reliable, verifiable information about consumers.” Additionally, the report noted instances where furnishers failed to update and correct information or conduct reasonable investigations of direct disputes.
- Debt Collection. The report found that examiners found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors (i) made calls to a consumer’s workplace; (ii) communicated with third parties; (iii) failed to stop communications after receiving a written request or a refusal to pay; (iv) harassed consumers regarding their inability to pay; (v) communicated, and threatened to communicate, false credit information to CRCs; (vi) made false representations or used deceptive collection means; (vii) entered inaccurate information regarding state interest rate caps into an automated system; (viii) unlawfully initiated wage garnishments; and (ix) failed to send complete validation notices.
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed violations related to Regulation E and Regulation DD, including error resolution violations, issues with provisional credits, failure to investigate, failure to remediate errors, and overdraft opt-in and disclosure violations.
- Fair Lending. The report noted instances where examiners cited violations of HMDA/ Regulation C involving HMDA loan application register inaccuracies, and instances where lenders, among other things, violated ECOA/Regulation B “by engaging in acts or practices directed at prospective applicants that would have discouraged reasonable people in minority neighborhoods in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) from applying for credit.”
- Mortgage Origination. The Bureau cited violations of Regulation Z and the CFPA related to loan originator compensation, title insurance disclosures, and deceptive waivers of borrowers’ rights in security deed riders and loan security agreements.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau cited violations of Regulation X, including those related to dual tracking violations, misrepresentations regarding foreclosure timelines, and PMI terminations.
- Payday Lending. The report discussed violations of the CFPA for payday lenders, including falsely representing an intent to sue or that a credit check would not be run, and presenting deceptive repayment options to borrowers that were contractually eligible for no-cost repayment plans.
- Private Education Loan Origination. Bureau examiners identified deceptive acts or practices related to the marketing of private education loan rates.
- Student Loan Servicing. Bureau examiners found several types of misrepresentations servicers made regarding consumer eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, and identified unfair acts or practices related to a servicer’s “failure to reverse negative consequences of automatic natural disaster forbearances.” Additionally, examiners identified unfair act or practices related to failing to honor consumer payment allocation instructions or providing inaccurate monthly payment amounts to consumers after a loan transfer.
The report also highlights recent supervisory program developments and enforcement actions.
FHA extends Covid-19 flexibilities
Recently, FHA announced the extension of several Covid-19-related flexibilities for single-family lenders and servicers. Specifically, Mortgagee Letter 2021-16 will “allow industry partners additional opportunity to utilize flexible guidance related to” self-employment and rental income verification for case numbers assigned on or before September 30. Both extensions are applicable to Single Family Title II forward and Home Equity Conversion Mortgages. FHA is also extending temporary flexibilities for “the administration of 203(k) Rehabilitation Escrow guidance for borrowers in forbearance” for open escrow accounts through September 30. Additionally, Mortgagee Letter 2021-17 updates Single Family Quality Control (QC) requirements for appraisal field reviews and evaluation of property and appraisal documentation. FHA notes that the updated guidance applies to mortgages selected for Property and Appraisal QC review on or after July 1.
FHFA expands use of interest rate reduction
On June 30, FHFA announced changes to loan modification terms for borrowers impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic with mortgages backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac who need payment reduction. According to FHFA, flex modification terms will be adjusted for Covid-19 hardships, which will make “interest rate reduction possible for eligible borrowers, regardless of the borrower’s loan-to-value ratio.” Previously, only borrowers with mark-to-market loan-to-value ratios (which compare the balance remaining on a mortgage to the current market value of a home) greater than or equal to 80 percent were eligible for an interest rate reduction. FHFA acting Director Sandra L. Thompson noted that more families qualifying for interest rate reduction will “prevent unnecessary foreclosures, help strengthen the Enterprises’ books of business, and make sustainable homeownership a reality for more families currently living with the uncertainty of forbearance.”
FHA extends Covid-19 foreclosure moratorium and other flexibilities
On June 25, FHA announced the extension of several Covid-19-related flexibilities in Mortgagee Letter 2021-15, which extends the foreclosure and eviction moratorium in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic, expands the Covid-19 forbearance and the home equity conversion mortgage (HECM) extension, and establishes the Covid-19 advance loan modification (Covid-19 ALM). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December 2020, FHA first extended its foreclosure and eviction moratorium through February 28. In the most recent extension, FHA further extended its foreclosure and eviction moratorium for all FHA-insured single family mortgages, excluding vacant or abandoned properties, through July 31. For FHA’s Covid-19 forbearance policy, FHA expanded the date to request an initial Covid-19 forbearance from June 30 to September 30 and provided an additional three-month extension to the forbearance for borrowers who began their initial forbearance between July 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020. FHA also established the Covid-19 ALM, which, among other things, “offers borrowers who are currently 90 or more days delinquent, or at the end of their COVID-19 forbearance, the opportunity for a 30-year rate and term mortgage modification that will bring their mortgage current and reduce the principal and interest portion of their monthly mortgage payment by at least 25 percent” and establishes a Default Code. FHA also expanded the HECM Covid-19 extensions by “providing an additional three-month extension to HECM borrowers, where an initial HECM extension period began between July 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020.”