InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Special Alert: CFPB Director Opines on TRID Liability
On December 29, 2015, CFPB Director Richard Cordray issued a letter in response to concerns raised by the Mortgage Bankers Association regarding violations of the CFPB’s new TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) rule, also known as the Know Before You Owe rule. In an effort to address concerns that technical TRID violations are resulting in extraordinarily high rejection rates by secondary market purchasers of mortgage loans, Director Cordray acknowledged that, “despite best efforts, there inevitably will be inadvertent errors in the early days.” However, he suggested that rejections based on “formatting and other minor errors” are “an overreaction to the initial implementation of the new rule” and that the risk to private investors from “good-faith formatting errors and the like” is “negligible.” He expressed hope that this issue “will dissipate as the industry gains experience with closings, loan purchases, and examinations.”
Click here to view the full Special Alert.
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
- Amanda Raines Lawrence, (202) 349-8089
- Melissa Klimkiewicz, (202) 349-8098
- Steven vonBerg, (202) 524-7893
CFPB Responds to MBA Letter, Clarifies TRID Implementation Expectations
On December 29, the CFPB responded to a December 21, 2015 letter from the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) regarding “lingering misperceptions and technical ambiguities” in TRID regulations that went into effect on October 3. The CFPB’s letter notes that, given inevitable yet unintentional errors in the early stages of the mortgage industry’s implementation of the regulations, regulators’ initial examinations will focus on industry members’ good faith efforts to ensure compliance with the rule. The CFPB further emphasized that examinations will be “corrective and diagnostic, rather than punitive.” Regarding cure provisions for violations of the rule, the letter states that TRID allows for corrections of specific post-closing errors, such as correcting non-numerical clerical errors and curing violations of monetary tolerance limits, if they exist. Moreover, TILA provisions regarding the corrections of errors will continue to apply to integrated disclosures: “TILA has long permitted creditors to cure violations, provided the creditor notifies the borrower of the error and makes appropriate adjustments to the account before the creditor receives notice of the violation from the borrower. 15 U.S.C. 1640(b).” The CFPB’s letter further advises the MBA that while TRID integrates disclosure requirements under RESPA and TILA, it does not “change the prior, fundamental principles of liability under either TILA or RESPA.”
The CFPB's Mortgage Originations Agenda in 2016
Now more than ever, financial services firms need to proactively focus on issues of concern identified by the CFPB and ensure that they are engaged in industry best practices that are clearly identified and carefully monitored. In the mortgage originations sphere, the new TRID/ KBYO rule, MSAs, LO compensation, UDAAP, and fair lending are all issues for companies to focus on in the coming year.TRID/KBYO
Compliance with the new TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure/Know Before You Owe (TRID/KBYO) rule will likely be an area of Bureau concern in 2016. The rule took effect on October 3, 2015 and does not include a “hold harmless” period for errors as lenders implement the new disclosure requirements, although letters from the OCC, FDIC, and CFPB have clarified that regulators will focus in the beginning on institutions’ implementation plans, training, and handling of early technical problems. It is likely that the CFPB will require remediation back to the rule’s compliance date when it identifies tangible consumer harm, but it is unlikely that the Bureau will bring enforcement actions initially based on technical issues where there is no tangible consumer harm.
GSEs have also issued letters stating they will not perform TRID/KBYO compliance file reviews at the beginning of the implementation period. The GSEs further stated that it will not exercise its repurchase and other remedies unless (1) a required form is not used or (2) a practice would impair its enforcement of its rights against borrowers. In contrast, the FHA has stated that it expects lenders to comply with “all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and requirements applicable to the mortgage transaction as outlined in [the] FHA Handbook….”
MSAs and RESPA Enforcement
The CFPB set forth a strong position in October 2015 regarding Section 8 of RESPA, which generally prohibits kickbacks in connection with the referral of settlement services. Through enforcement actions, the CFPB has taken a broad interpretation of the term “thing of value,” finding that the opportunity to participate in a business—even if market rates are paid for services—can itself constitute a thing of value sufficient to create Section 8 liability for kickbacks.
This calls into question the legality of marketing services agreements (MSAs) generally. While the CFPB has stated that it does not view MSAs as per se illegal and has acknowledged that it does not have the authority to declare them per se illegal without a formal rulemaking process, it is possible that the Bureau may pursue further public enforcement actions regarding MSAs if it does not see institutions pulling back from using them. State examiners are also aware of the issue and may refer nonbank entities that they supervise to the CFPB if they see issues with MSA usage. Courts are getting the opportunity to weigh in on these RESPA issues, through the appeal to the D.C. Circuit of the PHH enforcement action and the 9th Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s refusal to certify the class in Edwards v. FAC.
LO Compensation Rule
The CFPB has been aggressive in applying the Federal Reserve Board’s LO Compensation rule, as amended by the CPFB. While the rule was passed to avoid steering of borrowers into certain products, the CFPB does not need to establish steering to prove a violation and instead tends to build cases based on technical non-compliance with the rule. In bringing cases under the rule, the CFPB often names individuals as well as companies. It should be noted that the CFPB views payments to LLCs controlled by producing branch managers based on mortgage profits as illegal compensation under the rule. In examinations, the CFPB typically looks for a written compensation plan and cites institutions that do not reflect their compensation practices in their plan, even if those practices are legal.
Examination Enforcement Trends and UDAAP
The CFPB has heighted its focus on vendor management, scrutinizing vendor products and services during examinations (including the marketing of these products and services as well as the value they add), and will bring enforcement actions or court cases where it finds issues. Biweekly payments are one area of heighted scrutiny, as the CFPB has been skeptical of the value added by this service. The Bureau has also focused on loss mitigation contracts that suggest that a borrower has waived rights in connection with receiving the modification.
Fair Lending
“What’s old is new again” in 2016 fair lending – issues such as pricing, discretion, and the charging or waiving of fees remain important. Regulators will remain focused on redlining and access to credit. The September 24, 2015 Hudson City Savings Bank enforcement action, requiring the bank to pay $27 million, focused on the role of brokers in redlining. The CFPB’s Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity is a hybrid examination and enforcement division, which provides insight into the CFPB’s approach to fair lending. The CFPB also will look at nonbanks’ fair lending and bring enforcement actions against these institutions to the extent it finds problems.
U.S. House of Representatives Passes Several Financial Regulatory Relief Bills, Including TRID Safe Harbor
On October 7, the U.S. House of Representatives (U.S. House) passed several pieces of bipartisan legislation aimed at providing regulatory relief to lenders and strengthening consumer protection. This legislation included H.R. 3192, the Homebuyers Assistance Act, which was approved by a 303-121 vote, which seeks to provide a formal four-month safe harbor for lenders who in “good faith” work to comply with the CFPB’s new TRID Rule, which went into effect on October 3. The U.S. House also unanimously approved H.R. 1553, the Small Bank Exam Cycle Reform Act, and H.R. 1839, the Reforming Access for Investments in Startup Enterprises (RAISE) Act. The Small Bank Exam Cycle Reform Act would allow well-managed banks with assets under $1 billion to qualify for an 18-month examination cycle, rather than the current 12-month cycle. The RAISE Act is intended to promote a liquid secondary market for shareholders seeking to sell private securities and encourage startups and private companies to raise capital to grow their businesses. This legislation will now go to the U.S. Senate for consideration.
CFPB Issues TRID FAQs to Help Borrowers Understand the New Mortgage Process
On October 5, the CFPB posted on its blog six FAQs to assist borrowers in understanding the TRID rule and how the new process attempts to make the mortgage process easier. The post comes in light of the TRID rule becoming effective on October 3 and addresses the new required federal disclosures for most mortgages, along with lenders’ requirement to provide a Closing Disclosure at least three business days before consummation. The FAQs also clarify instances where a second three-day review period is required once a Closing Disclosure is received.
GSEs Provide Guidance Regarding TRID Compliance
On October 6, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued guidance stating that both GSEs, under the direction of the FHFA, “will not conduct routine post-purchase loan file reviews for technical compliance with the TRID Rule,” providing a “transitional period” for lenders to update their operational systems to adhere to the Rule’s requirements. However, the GSEs cautioned lenders that they “expect lenders to make good faith efforts to comply with TRID” and will evaluate whether lenders issued the new required disclosure during the mortgage origination process. Moreover, the guidance explains that “failure to use a TRID-required form” will be viewed as a violation, subjecting the loan to all contractual remedies, including repurchase.
Director Cordray Submits Letter to Trade Associations Regarding TRID Compliance
On October 1, CFPB Director Richard Cordray, on behalf of the FFIEC, responded to correspondence from the American Bankers Association and other trade associations seeking guidance as to their compliance with the Bureau’s Know Before You Owe TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule, which will become effective on October 3, 2015. Per Director Cordray’s letter, the FFIEC’s member agencies’ examiners “will expect supervised entities to make good faith efforts to comply with the Rule’s requirements in a timely manner.” Moreover, examiners will take a number of factors into consideration in determining compliance with the Rule, including (i) an institution’s implementation plan; (ii) an institution’s training of its staff; and (iii) how an institution handles any early technical problems or other implementation challenges.
Buckley Hosts Webinar on TRID for Investors
On September 15, Buckley hosted a webinar, "TRID for Investors" presented by Buckley. The webinar addressed what purchasers of mortgage loans need to know about the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule (TRID rule) that goes live on October 3, 2015. Specifically, evolving assignee liability, identifying risks, correcting errors, and identifying apparent errors. They also discussed ambiguous liabilities and common misconceptions, and focused on information that will help investors develop instructions and procedures that reduce litigation risk without unnecessarily limiting the pool of loans meeting those standards. For additional information and resources on the TRID rule, please visit our TRID Resource Center.
CSBS Announcement: Arizona Department of Financial Institutions Becomes Latest State Agency to Adopt National SAFE MLO Test
On July 29, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions began using the National SAFE Mortgage Loan Originator (MLO) Test, making it the 47th state banking agency to adopt the SAFE MLO Test containing Uniform State Content. Combining both the national and state testing requirements of the SAFE Act and the CSBS/AARMR model state law, the test with Uniform State Content was first made available to state banking agencies on April 1, 2013 to help streamline the application process for MLOs seeking to obtain licensure in more than one state. Since April 1, 2013, according to the CSBS, over 58,000 MLOs have taken the National SAFE MLO Test with Uniform State Content. Notably, applicants who take the test on or after October 3, 2015, will be expected to understand requirements of the TRID Rule as promulgated by the CFPB.
Special Alert: CFPB Officially Delays TRID Rule Until October 3
The CFPB finalized a rule today that delays the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) rule, including all amendments, from August 1 to October 3, 2015. This is consistent with the proposed rule issued last month, which we wrote about here.
The CFPB considered implementing a “dual compliance period” that would have permitted creditors to voluntarily comply with the TRID rule early, but it ultimately declined to do so, citing concerns that “dual compliance could be confusing to consumers and complicated for industry, including vendors, the secondary market, and institutions who act both as correspondent lenders and originators.”
In addition, although the CFPB declined to create a “hold harmless” or “safe harbor” period following the effective date, it stated that it “continues to believe that the approach expressed in Director Cordray’s letter to members of Congress on June 3, 2015,” which we wrote about, remains fitting:
[O]ur oversight of the implementation of the Rule will be sensitive to the progress made by those entities that have squarely focused on making good-faith efforts to come into compliance with the Rule on time. My statement . . . is consistent with the approach we took to implementation of the Title XIV mortgage rules in the early months after the effective dates in January 2014, which has worked out well.
The rule also implements two technical corrections to the requirements governing the “Calculating Cash to Close” and “Summaries of Transactions” tables in the Closing Disclosure. Specifically, the instructions for the “Adjustments and Other Credits” line are being amended to include the cost of any personal property excluded from the contract sales price. In addition, the instructions for calculating the “Closing Costs Paid at Closing” disclosure in the “Summaries of Transactions” table are being amended to account for general lender credits applied at closing.
For additional information and resources on the TRID rule, please visit our TRID Resource Center.
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
- Melissa Klimkiewicz, (202) 349-8098
