InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
HUD Publishes Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Limiting FHA Insurance Claim Period
On October 16, HUD’s FHA published a notice of partial withdrawal of its July 6 proposed rule to limit the time frame in which FHA-approved lenders must file insurance claims for benefits. The July 6 proposal would have required mortgagees to file claims (i) within three months from when marketable title to the property was obtained; or (ii) when the property was sold to a third party. In addition, the proposal sought to terminate the FHA’s insurance contract as a penalty for missing the proposed filing deadlines. Based on feedback that HUD received through its notice and comment process, HUD withdrew the proposed provisions to limit the FHA insurance claim period and its proposed amendment to the penalty provisions.
HUD Charges Colorado Landlords with Violations of the Fair Housing Act
On October 7, HUD announced a September 24 Charge of Discrimination against a group of Colorado landlords for allegedly “steering” families with children to apartments located at the rear end of the apartment building, an alleged violation of the FHA. According to HUD, from September 2013 to February 2014, Complainant DMFHC, a Colorado non-profit organization dedicated to promoting equal housing opportunities throughout the Denver, Colorado area, conducted various tests to show that respondents discriminated against families with children by making units in the front of the apartment building unavailable to them. HUD alleges that, “Respondents violated the Act by restricting the housing choices of families with children and perpetuating segregated housing patterns within the Subject Property by assigning families with children to the rear building.” The charge, which assesses a $16,000 civil money penalty fee for each violation of the FHA, will be heard by a United States Administrative Law Judge, unless a party elects to have the case heard in federal district court.
HUD, FDIC, and U.S. Attorney File Suit Against Mortgage Lending Companies
On September 28, HUD, the FDIC, and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York filed suit against a non-profit housing counseling corporation and certain mortgage lenders for allegedly running a scheme to defraud the United States and various banks out of over $5,000,000 in false claims. Filed in the Eastern District of New York, the complaint alleges that, in order to remain in HUD’s Direct Endorsement Program, a federal program that insures mortgage loans through the FHA, the mortgage lenders sought to fraudulently conceal the high default rates of their loans by funneling money through the corporation to pay their borrowers’ payments, in direct violation of FHA regulations. The mortgage lenders would then sell the federally-insured loans to FDIC-insured banks. Once either a bank’s indemnification or repurchase rights, or the period during which HUD monitored loans for early payment defaults, lapsed, the mortgage lenders would stop making payments, resulting in the ultimate default of the borrowers. The complaint seeks treble damages under the FCA, the FIRREA, and under common law theories of gross negligence, breach of fiduciary trust, and unjust enrichment.
U.S. Attorney General Lynch: "More Determined Than Ever to Vigorously Enforce the Fair Housing Act"
On September 2, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch delivered remarks at HUD’s Fair Housing Policy Conference. In her remarks, Lynch stressed the importance of fair housing as being a primary driver “to access to employment, to education, to credit, to transportation, to safety and to a whole range of institutions and opportunities.” Lynch stated that she is “more determined than ever to vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act (FHA).” Among other things, Lynch provided an overview on how the DOJ is implementing new programs, technology, and research to conduct electronic testing, allowing the DOJ to expand the reach of its Fair Housing Testing Program. The Attorney General also expressed her support of HUD’s recently issued “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” rule, and signaled that the DOJ intends to “vigorously enforce” the FHA using every available tool, including the disparate impact theory, which the Supreme Court ruled recently as a valid enforcement tool to challenge unfair mortgage lending practices.
District Court Applies Supreme Court's Inclusive Communities Decision in Rejecting Disparate Impact Claim
On July 17, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo in a Fair Housing Act (FHA) case brought by the City of Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 2:13-cv-09007-ODW (RZx) (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2015). The City alleged that the bank engaged in mortgage lending practices that had a disparate impact on minority borrowers. In rejecting the City’s claims, the court’s opinion heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., which imposed limitations on the disparate impact theory of liability under the FHA, despite holding that the theory remains cognizable. 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015). Citing Inclusive Communities, the district court warned that disparate impact claims may only seek to “remove policies that are artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers and not valid governmental and private priorities.” The court further held that the City failed to point to a specific defendant policy that caused the disparate impact and failed to show “robust causality” between any of defendant’s policies and the alleged statistical disparity, as Inclusive Communities requires. The court also rejected the notion that disparate impact claims could be used to impose new policies on lenders, and said that the City’s argument that lenders should adopt policies to avoid disproportionate lending was a “roundabout way of arguing for a racial quota,” which Inclusive Communities also warns against. Finally, the court was sharply critical of the City’s argument that Federal Housing Administration loans are harmful to minority borrowers, and that, in any event, any disparate impact from these loans would be a result of the federal government’s policies, not the defendant’s policies.
Mortgage Company Owner and Others Plead Guilty to Mortgage Fraud Scheme Involving FHA-Insured Loans
On July 14, the DOJ, in coordination with HUD’s Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, announced that a Miami-area real estate developer and mortgage company owner, his business partner, and a senior underwriter with the mortgage company each pleaded guilty to a mortgage fraud scheme that resulted in $64 million in losses to the FHA. According to the August 2014 indictment, the three defendants knowingly participated in a scheme to alter important information contained in potential borrowers’ loan applications so that they appeared qualified for FHA-insured loans when, in reality, they were not qualified. According to the DOJ, the developer/owner and his business partner “admitted to pressuring their employees to approve and close loans using earnings statements and verification of employment forms that made it appear as if the borrowers had higher incomes and more favorable work histories than they actually did, and documents falsely improving or explaining borrowers’ credit histories.” The senior underwriter admitted to providing false information to her co-workers and endorsing borrowers’ applications when she knew that they did not qualify for the loans. Eventually, many of the loans went into foreclosure and HUD was obligated to pay the outstanding loan balances to the financial institution investors. To date, 25 individuals have pleaded guilty to offenses related to this mortgage fraud scheme.
HUD Issues Guidance Based On Equal Access Rule
On July 13, HUD announced guidance regarding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status. The guidance on Multifamily Assisted and Insured Housing Programs was intended to clarify the 2012 Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity Rule (“Equal Access Rule”). HUD clarified that, in addition to individual program eligibility requirements established by HUD, a determination of eligibility for housing that is assisted by HUD or subject to a mortgage insured by the FHA “will be made available without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.” The guidance also clarifies that owners, administrators, and other recipients and sub-recipients of HUD funds associated with HUD-assisted housing or housing whose financing is insured by HUD may not inquire about the sexual orientation or gender identity of an applicant for, or occupant of, such housing, and notes that the rule is applicable whether such housing is renter or owner occupied. HUD noted that future Management and Occupancy Reviews may include a review for compliance with the Equal Access Rule. The guidance was coordinated with the July 13 White House Conference on Aging, with the White House emphasizing that the Equal Access Rule also applies to Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly.
Special Alert: Disparate Impact Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act After Inclusive Communities
On June 25, the Supreme Court in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. held that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Court, in a 5-4 decision, concluded that the FHA permits disparate-impact claims based on its interpretation of the FHA’s language, the amendment history of the FHA, and the purpose of the FHA.
Applicability to ECOA
When certiorari was granted in Inclusive Communities, senior officials from the CFPB and DOJ made clear that they would continue to enforce the disparate impact theory under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) even if the Supreme Court held that disparate-impact claims were not cognizable under the FHA. It is reasonable to expect that the Court’s decision will embolden the agencies, as well as private litigants, to assert even more aggressively the disparate impact theory under ECOA.
But just as the federal officials had stated that they would continue to assert disparate impact under ECOA if Inclusive Communities invalidated disparate impact under the FHA, lenders still have a number of arguments that the Inclusive Communities Court’s analysis does not apply to ECOA, given the material differences between the text and history of the FHA and ECOA. First, the Court principally based its textual arguments on the use of “otherwise make unavailable” in Section 804 of the FHA—a section that applies to the sale and rental of housing but not to lending. The Court stated that this effects-based language “is of central importance” to its analysis. Although the Court also stated that it had construed statutory language similar to FHA Section 805—which applies to lending—the discussion of Section 805 is so brief as to suggest it was merely an afterthought. The Court repeatedly states its textual analysis focused on the text “otherwise make unavailable.” But ECOA contains no similar effects-based language.
Second, the Court’s analysis of the FHA’s amendment history is inapplicable to ECOA. The Court focused principally on three provisions which it characterized as “exemptions” from disparate-impact liability, and concluded that such exemptions made sense only if Congress were acknowledging the validity of disparate impact claims. But ECOA contains no similar “exemptions” from disparate-impact liability that might otherwise lead to the conclusion disparate impact is cognizable under ECOA.
Finally, while the Court also notes that disparate-impact claims are “consistent with the FHA’s central purpose,” this justification appears merely to support the Court’s textual and historical arguments. The Court has repeatedly cautioned that a statute’s purpose does not trump its text. Whatever similarities may exist between the purpose of the FHA and ECOA, the material textual and historical differences weigh heavily against treating the two statutes the same for disparate-impact purposes.
Burden Shifting Framework
Even if the Inclusive Communities analysis could apply to ECOA, the Court’s emphasis on rigorous application of the three-step burden-shifting framework to analyze disparate impact claims—and protect against “abusive disparate-impact claims” —is likely to impose significant burdens on regulators and plaintiffs seeking to bring disparate impact claims under ECOA. The Court’s articulation of the steps in the burden-shifting framework are materially different—and more friendly to lenders—than those applied by federal agencies (e.g., in HUD’s disparate impact rule). While it is possible that the government and private plaintiffs will argue that the burden shifting framework outlined in Inclusive Communities applies only to the FHA, the Court’s reasoning supports applying the same framework to other civil rights laws—including ECOA.
First, the Court has reaffirmed the significant burden plaintiffs must bear in satisfying the first step of the burden-shifting framework: establishing a prima facie case. The Court noted that a “robust causality requirement” must be satisfied to show that a specific policy caused a statistical disparity to “protect[] defendants from being held liable for racial disparities they did not create.” “[A] disparate-impact claim that relies on a statistical disparity must fail if the plaintiff cannot point to a defendant’s policy or policies causing that disparity.” The Court emphasized that “prompt resolution of these cases [by courts] is important.” This, when taken together with the Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, may make maintaining a disparate impact claim under ECOA particularly difficult when addressing such practices as discretionary pricing (e.g., dealer markup in the auto finance context).
Second, with respect to the second step of the framework, the Court explained that “[g]overnmental or private policies are not contrary to the disparate-impact requirement unless they are ‘artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers.’” The Court noted that this is critical to ensure that defendants “must not be prevented from achieving legitimate objectives.” Specifically, the Court endorsed the importance of considering “practical business choices and profit-related decisions that sustain a vibrant and dynamic free-enterprise system” in determining whether a company’s policy is supported by a legitimate business justification. The Court further explained that “entrepreneurs must be given latitude to consider market factors,” as well as other “objective” and “subjective” factors.
Third, the Court emphasized that before rejecting a “business justification,” a court “must determine that a plaintiff has shown that there is an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the entity’s legitimate needs.” (internal quotations and alterations omitted). Significantly, and in contrast to previous interpretations by federal agencies, the Court clarified that the plaintiff bears the burden of showing a less discriminatory alternative in the third step of the burden-shifting framework.
The Court cautioned that a rigorous application of the burden-shifting framework is necessary to prevent disparate-impact liability from supplanting nondiscriminatory private choice: “Were standards for proceeding with disparate-impact suits not to incorporate at least the safeguards discussed here, then disparate-impact liability might displace valid governmental and private priorities, rather than solely removing artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers. And that, in turn, would set our Nation back in its quest to reduce the salience of race in our social and economic system.” (internal citations and alterations omitted).
Special Alert: Supreme Court Upholds Disparate Impact Under Fair Housing Act, But Emphasizes Limits on Such Claims
Today, the Supreme Court in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. held that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). In a 5-4 decision, the Court concluded that the use of the phrase “otherwise make available” in Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act supports disparate-impact claims. The Court also held that Section 805 of the Fair Housing Act (which applies to lending) permits disparate impact, reasoning that the Court “has construed statutory language similar to § 805(a) to include disparate-impact liability.” The Court also wrote that the 1988 amendments to the Fair Housing Act support its conclusion because (1) all the federal Courts of Appeals to have considered the issue at that time had held that the FHA permits disparate-impact claims; and (2) the substance of the amendments, which the Court characterized as exceptions from disparate impact, “is convincing support for the conclusion that Congress accepted and ratified the unanimous holdings of the Courts of Appeals finding disparate-impact liability.”
The Court emphasized, however, that “disparate-impact liability has always been properly limited in key respects . . . .” Specifically, the Court explained disparate-impact liability must be limited so companies “are able to make the practical business choices and profit-related decisions that sustain a vibrant and dynamic free-enterprise system.” “Entrepreneurs must be given latitude to consider market factors,” the Court explained. The Court clarified further that a variety of factors, including both “objective” and “subjective” factors, are “legitimate concerns.”
To prevent what the Court characterized as “abusive disparate-impact claims,” the Court emphasized that the three-step burden-shifting framework used to analyze disparate-impact claims must be applied rigorously by courts and government agencies. At the first step in the framework, the Court noted that a “robust causality requirement” must be satisfied to show that a specific policy caused a statistical disparity to “protect[] defendants from being held liable for racial disparities they did not create.” “[A] disparate-impact claim that relies on a statistical disparity must fail if the plaintiff cannot point to a defendant’s policy or policies causing that disparity.” The Court emphasized that “prompt resolution of these cases [by courts] is important.”
With respect to the second step of the framework, the Court, citing the seminal Title VII case of Griggs v. Duke Power, further explained that “[g]overnmental or private policies are not contrary to the disparate-impact requirement unless they are ‘artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers.’” The Court stated that this is critical to ensure that defendants “must not be prevented from achieving legitimate objectives.”
Finally, under the third step of the framework, the Court emphasized that before rejecting a “business justification,” a court “must determine that a plaintiff has shown that there is an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the entity’s legitimate needs.” (internal quotations and alterations omitted). Significantly, the Court clarified that the plaintiff bears the burden of showing a less discriminatory alternative in the third step of the burden-shifting framework.
Without a rigorous application of this burden shifting framework, the Court cautioned that disparate-impact liability could be used to replace nondiscriminatory private choice: “Were standards for proceeding with disparate-impact suits not to incorporate at least the safeguards discussed here, then disparate-impact liability might displace valid governmental and private priorities, rather than solely removing artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers. And that, in turn, would set our Nation back in its quest to reduce the salience of race in our social and economic system.” (internal citations and alterations omitted).
Although the Court did not expressly address whether its decision invalidates HUD’s disparate impact rule with its expansive burden shifting framework, the decision also does not rely on or defer to the discussion of the burden shifting framework contained in HUD’s disparate impact rule, notwithstanding the HUD rule’s extensive treatment of the burden shifting framework for disparate-impact claims under the FHA. The dissenting justices, however, concluded that given what they called “this unusual pattern” regarding the promulgation of the HUD rule, “there is an argument that deference may be unwarranted.”
FHA Announces Updated Defect Taxonomy to Clarify its Plan for Classifying Loan Defects Found in its Single-Family Loan Portfolio
On June 18, the FHA released its Single-Family Housing Loan Quality Assessment Methodology (“Defect Taxonomy”), a framework outlining the agency’s plans to identify and capture information related to loan defects found in Single-Family FHA endorsed loans. The new framework is intended to increase the efficacy of FHA’s Quality Assurance efforts and focuses on three core concepts – (i) identifying defects, (ii) capturing the sources and causes of defects, and (iii) assessing the severity of defects. Once implemented, the Defect Taxonomy will reduce the number of codes that the FHA uses to describe loan defects from 99 to nine. Additionally, the Defect Taxonomy will implement “Basis of Ratings Codes” that will capture both the sources and causes of defects. Finally, the Defect Taxonomy will refine FHA’s process for communicating the severity of defects by subdividing its current categories of “Unacceptable” and “Deficient” findings into four tiers of findings that will describe defects in greater detail. The FHA anticipates that these changes will provide greater transparency to lenders so that they can mitigate their credit risk when originating FHA loans. FHA further hopes that the Defect Taxonomy will help FHA monitor for deficiency trends and enhance its program policies. In its announcement, FHA warns that the Defect Taxonomy “is not a comprehensive statement on all compliance monitoring or enforcement efforts by FHA or the Federal Government and does not establish standards for administrative or civil enforcement action….” FHA also maintains that the Defect Taxonomy does not address how FHA will respond (i) to findings of patterns and practices of loan-level defects in FHA originations or (ii) to findings of fraud or misrepresentation in connection with any FHA-insured loan. FHA has yet to set a date for the Defect Taxonomy to take effect.