InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie Mae Announces Numerous Servicing Policy Changes
On April 3, Fannie Mae issued Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-07, which outlines policy updates regarding (i) lender-placed property insurance requirements, (ii) military indulgence reporting and reimbursement processes, and (iii) scheduled/schedule remittance payoffs. Effective immediately, the announcement retracts the lender-placed insurance requirements introduced in Announcement SVC-2012-04, but the hazard insurance claims processing requirements in that 2012 announcement remain in effect. Fannie Mae also replaced in its entirety the sections of Part III, Chapter 1, Exhibit 1: Military Indulgence, that relate to reporting to Fannie Mae and requesting reimbursement for advances. The announcement includes an attachment with the new section, and notes that servicers also must retain the servicemember's orders and the completed Request for Military Indulgence (Form 180) in the individual mortgage loan file as long as the military indulgence remains in effect. Finally, also effective immediately, the announcement allows a subservicer greater flexibility in deciding whether it will consider any full payoff received on the first business day of a month as though it was received in the prior calendar month. Subservicers may either select one option for all loans serviced on behalf of Fannie Mae or elect the option based on its individual agreement with the servicer for which is it subservicing Fannie Mae mortgage loans.
New York Obtains Major Lender-Placed Insurance Settlement
On March 21, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that it obtained a settlement from a major lender-placed insurer to resolve an investigation into the company’s practices. According to the DFS, the insurer allegedly drove up the price of lender-placed insurance by effectively offering banks a share in its profits by: (i) paying commissions to insurance agents and brokers affiliated with the banks even though the agents and brokers did not perform the customary tasks that would justify a commission, (ii) paying banks’ “expenses” related to lender-placed insurance, (iii) paying lump sum amounts, such as one bank’s $1 million termination fee for switching its business to another insurer, and (iv) allowing a reinsurance company owned by a bank to take as much as 75 percent of the premium. The DFS cited the insurer’s low loss ratio as evidence of how profitable lender-placed insurance has been for the insurer. The settlement agreement requires the insurer pay restitution to borrowers who were lender-placed after January 1, 2008 and meet certain criteria, as well as a $14 million penalty. The insurer also must (i) take specific steps to lower the cost of non-flood lender-placed insurance, (ii) cease numerous delineated practices, (iii) provide improved disclosures and notices to borrowers; (iv) improve its email retention policy; and (v) ensure that the amount of coverage lender-placed on any homeowner does not exceed the last known amount of coverage.
Fannie Mae Announces Servicing Policy Changes
On February 22, Fannie Mae issued Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-02, reminding servicers that when they deposit undisbursed insurance loss draft funds into an interest-bearing account, the account must be for the borrower’s benefit and, regardless of the mortgage loan’s delinquency status, the servicer must comply with applicable laws regarding the disbursement of interest earned to the borrower. The announcement also introduced a new form for use when referring a borrower to Fannie Mae for the exit option that allows a three-month transition with no rent payment required, and updated the form to be used when referring a borrower for the exit option that allows up to a twelve-month lease with a market rent payment. On February 27, Fannie Mae issued Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-03, describing servicing policy changes and updates to (i) private flood insurance, (ii) termination of applicable force-placed insurance, and (iii) special remittance type codes. The private flood insurance change follows a related announcement, SEL-2013-02, which, among other things, informed sellers that Fannie Mae must accept flood insurance from private providers as an alternative to National Flood Insurance Program policies. The insurance-related policies are effective immediately, and servicers must report using the new codes for applicable special remittances on or after April 1, 2013.
Lender Wins Dismissal of Force-Placed Insurance Class Action
On October 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action alleging that the lender breached certain mortgage contracts and violated state and federal law through its policy and practices requiring borrowers to maintain flood insurance sufficient to cover the replacement value of their homes. McKenzie v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 11-4965, 2012 WL 5372120 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2012). The borrowers claim that the FHA requirement that flood insurance must cover the remaining balance of the mortgage served as a cap on the flood insurance amounts the lender could require. Declining to follow the reasoning of the court in Kolbe v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. 11-2030, 2012 WL 4240298 (1st Cir. Sep. 21, 2012), the McKenzie court held that because the deeds of trust authorized the lender to set the required level of insurance and the FHA requirement is a statutory floor, the lender did not breach the mortgage contracts by requiring coverage above the outstanding principal loan balance. Therefore, the court dismissed those claims with prejudice. For the same reasons, the court dismissed with prejudice the borrowers’ claims that letters sent to the borrowers notifying them of insufficient coverage altered the terms of their loans and required the lender to make additional disclosures under TILA. The court dismissed, with one opportunity to amend, claims that the lender breached the contract by force-placing insurance through an affiliate that charged excessive amounts allegedly in exchange for kickbacks.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4