InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Special Alert: CFPB issues Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to end GSE patch
On July 25, the CFPB issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that is intended as a first step in an orderly expiration of the so-called GSE patch, which confers Qualified Mortgage status for loans purchased or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while those entities operate under FHFA conservatorship. The patch expires in January 2021, or when Fannie and Freddie exit their conservatorships, whichever comes first. The ANPR solicits feedback on amending Regulation Z and the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule) to minimize disruption from the patch’s expiration. Comments are due 45 days after the ANPR’s publication in the Federal Register, which has not occurred as of the publication of this Special Alert.
The Bureau has previously solicited comments on the ATR/QM Rule, including the GSE Patch — first through a request for information relating to its adopted regulations in March 2018, and then in its ATR/QM Rule Assessment Report in January 2019.
* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
If you have questions about the GSE Patch and potential changes to the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule, please visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.CFPB seeks comments on “QM patch” ahead of expiration
On July 25, the CFPB issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking feedback on potential revisions to the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage (ATR/QM) Rule related to the expiration in 2021 of the “GSE patch,” a temporary provision granting Qualified Mortgage status to mortgages that are eligible for purchase or guarantee by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including loans with higher debt-to-income (DTI) ratios than are allowed under the general QM requirements. The GSE patch (also referred to as the “QM patch”) is set to expire no later than January 10, 2021, or when Fannie and Freddie exit their government conservatorship, whichever comes first, with the Bureau stating that it currently plans to allow the GSE patch to expire as scheduled or “after a short extension” to facilitate a smooth transition. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued an assessment report on the ATR/QM Rule, in which it reported, among other things, that the GSEs have persistently maintained a high share of the market.
The ANPR requests comments on several potential amendments, including (i) whether the “qualified mortgage” definition should be revised in light of the upcoming expiration (currently, loans under the GSE patch generally qualify for safe harbor from legal liability under the ATR/QM Rule even if their DTI ratio exceeds 43 percent); (ii) whether the DTI ratio limit should remain at 43 percent or be increased or decreased, along with whether loans above the DTI ratio should be granted QM status if they have “certain compensating factors,” (iii) whether the QM definition should take into account possible alternatives to the DTI ratio for assessing a borrower’s ability-to-repay; and (iv) whether Appendix Q—which sets standards for calculating and verifying debt and income to determine the borrower’s DTI ratio—should be replaced, changed, or supplemented. Comments on the ANPR are due 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.
CFPB releases TRID FAQs for construction loans
On May 31, the CFPB released FAQs to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID) compliance. The two new FAQs relate to the application of TRID to construction loans. Highlights include:
- Most construction-only and construction-permanent loans are covered by TRID as long as such a loan: (i) is made by a creditor as defined in Regulation Z; (ii) is a closed-end, consumer credit transaction; (iii) is secured in full or in part by real property or cooperative unit; (iii) is not a reverse mortgage; and (iv) is not exempt for any reason under Regulation Z.
- There are three special disclosure provisions for construction-only or construction-permanent loans under TRID: (i) Section 1026.17(c)(6) permits a creditor to issue separate or combined disclosures for construction-permanent loans based on whether each phase is treated as a separate transaction; (ii) Appendix D provides methods that may be used for estimating construction phase financing disclosures; and (iii) Section 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(F) permits creditors, in certain instances involving new construction, to use a revised estimate of a charge for good faith tolerance purposes when settlement will occur more than 60 days after the original Loan Estimate. The Bureau notes that these provisions apply “even if the creditor does not necessarily label the product as construction-only or construction-permanent, so long as the product meets the requirements discussed in each provision.”
FDIC releases interagency exam procedures for CFPB’s Prepaid Rule
On February 22, the FDIC issued FIL-9-2019, which announces revisions to interagency examination procedures for evaluating compliance with the CFPB’s Prepaid Accounts Rule. The Rule was originally finalized in October 2016 and expands coverage under Regulation E to provide consumers, among other things, additional federal protections on prepaid financial products, person-to-person payment products, and other electronic accounts with the ability to store funds. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In January 2018, the CFPB finalized updates to the Rule and delayed the effective date until April 1, 2019. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The FIL contains a link to the interagency procedures listed in the FDIC Compliance Examination Manual and confirms that after April 1 the examination staff will begin supervising institutions for compliance with the rule.
CFPB releases 2019 lists of rural or underserved counties
On February 12, the CFPB released its annual list of rural counties and rural or underserved counties for lenders to use when determining qualified exemptions to certain TILA regulatory requirements. In connection with the release of the lists, the Bureau also directed lenders to use its web-based Rural or Underserved Areas Tool to assess whether a rural or underserved area qualifies for a safe harbor under TILA’s Regulation Z.
CFPB announces settlement with payday lending operation
On February 6, the CFPB announced a settlement with an Indiana-based payday retail lender and affiliates (companies) in seven states to resolve alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) privacy protections. The CFPB alleges that the companies engaged in unfair acts or practices, failed to properly disclose annual percentage rates, and failed to provide consumers with required initial privacy notices.
Specifically, the Bureau alleges that the companies violated CFPA’s UDAAP provisions by, among other things, (i) failing to implement processes to prevent unauthorized charges, including those resulting from unauthorized draws on borrowers’ bank accounts; (ii) requiring loan applicants to provide contact information for their employers, supervisors, and four personal references, and then repeatedly calling employers to seek payments when borrowers became delinquent; (iii) disclosing the borrower’s financial information during those calls and, in certain instances, asking the third party to make payments on the loan; (iv) misusing personal references for marketing purposes; and (v) advertising check-cashing and telephone reconnection services they were no longer providing.
The Bureau also asserts that the companies violated the GLBA by only providing initial privacy notices when consumers opened their first loan. GLBA requires financial services firms to provide borrowers a privacy policy each time a new customer relationship is established, which in this instance the CFPB claims, occurred each time a borrower paid off an outstanding loan and subsequently took out a new loan. Finally, the Bureau alleges that because the payday loans extended by the companies constitute as closed-end credit under TILA and Regulation Z, the companies were required to disclose a payday loan database fee charged to Kentucky customers in the APR but failed to do so. This resulted in, among other things, inaccurate APR disclosures in advertisements.
While the companies have not admitted to the allegations, they have agreed to pay a $100,000 civil money penalty and are prohibited from continuing the illegal behavior.
CFPB releases TRID FAQs
On January 25, the CFPB released FAQs to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID) compliance. Three of the four FAQs relate to corrected closing disclosures and the three business-day waiting period, while the fourth FAQ relates to the use of model forms. Highlights of the FAQs include:
- Under TRID, a creditor must ensure that a consumer received a corrected Closing Disclosure at least three business days before consummation of the transaction (i) for certain APR changes; (ii) if the loan product information changes; or (iii) if a prepayment penalty has been added to the loan. Any of these changes would trigger a new three business-day waiting period.
- A corrected Closing Disclosure is required under TRID if the APR changes, including if it decreases. If the change in the APR is within applicable tolerances under Regulation Z, the creditor may provide the new Closing Disclosure without triggering a new three business-day waiting period. If the change in the APR is outside applicable tolerances, the creditor must wait three business days before consummation.
- Section 109(a) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act did not change the timing for consummating transactions if a creditor is required to provide a corrected Closing Disclosure under TRID.
- A creditor is deemed in compliance with the disclosure requirements of TRID if it uses the appropriate model forms provided by the Bureau and properly completes them with accurate content.
OCC updates Comptroller’s Handbook with new TILA booklet
On September 26, the OCC issued Bulletin 2018-31, which updates the “Truth in Lending Act” (TILA) booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook, which previously was issued in December 2014. The booklet provides guidance for OCC examiners to be used in connection with the examination and supervision of national banks and federal savings associations, which offer or extend consumer credit products covered by TILA. The updates reflect changes made to Regulation Z, TILA’s implementing regulations, since the booklet’s previous release, and includes procedures implementing the CFPB’s TILA-RESPA integrated disclosure rule (TRID). Additional updates include, among other things, (i) special provisions on certain construction loans; (ii) special provisions relating to small creditors and rural or underserved areas; (iii) changes regarding appraisals for higher-priced mortgage loan exemptions; (iv) updates to mortgage origination examination procedures; and (v) updates to mortgage servicing rules and the small creditor definition.
With the issuance of the new booklet, the OCC rescinds (i) OCC Bulletin 2014-61, “Truth in Lending Act: Revised Comptroller’s Handbook Booklet and Rescissions”; (ii) The TILA sections of OCC Bulletin 2015-27, “Revised Interagency Examination Procedures for Consumer Compliance”; and (iii) OCC Bulletin 2015-42, “Initial Examinations for Compliance With TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule.”
CFPB updates TRID Small Entity Compliance Guide and Guide to Forms
On May 15, the CFPB released the 2018 updated versions of the “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rule Small Entity Compliance Guide (versions 4.1 and 5.2) and Guide to Forms (versions 1.5 and 2.1). Because the optional compliance period with the 2017 TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID) extends through October 1, the CFPB updated both versions of each guide. Additionally, all four versions are updated with the 2018 TRID changes (covered by InfoBytes here), which will become effective prior to the end of the 2017 optional compliance period.
3rd Circuit reverses district court’s decision, rules TILA provisions misapplied to unauthorized-charge suit
On May 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed a district court’s decision, holding that the lower court, among other things, misapplied a TILA provision under Regulation Z that requires cardholders to dispute charges within 60 days of the “first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error.” According to the opinion, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the bank after he was allegedly rebilled for a $657 fraudulent money transfer charge that originally appeared on his statement in July 2015. The charge was originally removed from his account but reappeared in mid-September of that year after the bank claimed the charge was valid after verifying transaction details. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the decision in writing, and later filed a complaint against the bank, alleging he had “timely submitted a written notice of billing error,” and that the bank “had neither credited the charge nor conducted a reasonable investigation” and imposed liability of more than $50. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, which the plaintiff appealed.
At issue, the three-judge panel determined, were two provisions under TILA: (i) the “Fair Credit Billing Act” (FCBA), which stipulates that creditors must “comply with particular obligations when a consumer has asserted that his billing statement contains an error,” and (ii) the “unauthorized-use provision,” which requires certain conditions to be met before a credit card issuer can hold the cardholder liable, up to a limit of $50, for any unauthorized use. The panel first addressed the district court’s finding that the bank’s obligations under FCBA were “never triggered” because his written notice came 63 days after the July statement first included the charge. The panel held that, because the plaintiff-appellant’s August billing statement showed a credit to his account for the charge and that “there was no longer anything to dispute” and no reason to believe his statement contained a billing error, the 60-day time limit should have started when the bank rebilled him in September. In addressing the second issue, the district court held that plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to “reimbursement” under the unauthorized-use claim. However, the panel opined that he was not seeking reimbursement but rather “actual damages,” for which the statute does provide relief. “We conclude that a cardholder incurs ‘liability’ for an allegedly unauthorized charge when the issuer, having reason to know the charge may be unauthorized, bills or rebills the cardholder for that charge,” the panel wrote.