InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Kansas updates GAP waiver guidance
On May 19, the Office of the State Bank Commissioner of Kansas published in the Kansas Register an amended Administrative Interpretation No. 1004 covering Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP). In general, the interpretation provides guidance for creditors to follow to exclude the cost of GAP waiver agreements from the calculation of the finance charge with consumer credit sales and closed-end consumer loans pursuant to the Uniform Consumer Credit Code. The revision amends paragraph 3(g) of the interpretation, which requires clear disclosure on how to contact the GAP provider in connection with claims for GAP coverage. Paragraph 3(g) states that the information must be written in bold font and the word “claims” must be bolded and underlined. Additionally, the form must also advise Kansas consumers that they can contact the Kansas Office of State Bank Commissioner with complaints about their GAP waiver agreement. The revised interpretation was effective on May 15.
Vermont streamlines mortgage licensing
On May 14, the Vermont governor signed S.154, which, among other things, amends the state’s mortgage licensing statute. Specifically, the legislation repeals various provisions of the state’s licensing process for mortgage lenders and servicers and replaces the provisions with a new chapter (8 V.S.A. Chapter 72) intended to streamline the law and bring more clarity and cohesion to the licensing process. The bill is effective July 1.
11th Circuit continues flood insurance action against mortgage servicer
On May 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of a consumer’s putative class action against her reverse mortgage servicer for the alleged improper placement of flood insurance on her home. The consumer claimed violations of the FDCPA and multiple Florida laws, including the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), based on allegations that the mortgage servicer improperly executed lender-placed flood insurance on her property, even though the condo association had flood insurance covering the property. The lender-placed flood insurance resulted in $5,200 in premiums added to the balance of the loan, and an increase in financing costs on the mortgage. The district court dismissed the action, concluding the mortgage servicer was required by federal law to purchase the flood insurance and the monthly account statements were not collection letters under the FDCPA or state law.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit agreed with the district court that the monthly account statements of the reverse mortgage, which prominently stated “this is not a bill” in bold, uppercase letters, and did not request or demand payment, were not an attempt to collect a debt under the FDCPA. Additionally, the appellate court concluded that the consumer failed to allege the mortgage servicer was a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA because the complaint does not allege that the debt was in default. The appellate court also affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the state debt collection claims for similar reasons. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the consumer’s FDUTPA claims, noting that the mortgage servicer failed to cite to a state or federal law requiring it to purchase flood insurance “when it has reason to know that the borrower is maintaining adequate coverage” in the form a condo association insurance.
OCC updates RESPA booklet in Comptroller’s Handbook
On May 7, the OCC announced an update to the RESPA booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. Among other things, the revisions to the booklet reflect updates to Regulation X made by the CFPB in recent years, including (i) the establishment and implementation of a definition of “successor in interest;” (ii) compliance with certain servicing requirements when a person is a debtor in bankruptcy; and (iii) clarifications and revisions to the provisions regarding force-placed insurance notices, policy and procedure requirements, and early intervention and loss mitigation requirements.
HUD proposes changes to FHA lender certification
On May 9, HUD announced several proposed revisions to the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) lender certification requirements in an effort to provide lenders and servicers “greater certainty in how to satisfy the agency’s compliance requirements.” HUD stated that the revisions are in response to the White House’s March Memorandum on Federal Housing Finance Reform, which included a directive that FHA work to diversify the network of FHA-approved lenders. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The proposed changes include:
- Loan-Level Certifications. FHA released proposed changes to the Addendum to the Uniform Residential Loan Application (Form 92900-A), reorganizing the Form in a “logical, easy to read, and understandable format” and eliminating “duplicative information collected elsewhere.”
- Annual Lender Certification Statements. FHA released proposed changes to the Annual Lender Certification Statements, including a side-by-side comparison of the current and proposed changes. The changes are intended to “better align [the certifications] with National Housing Act standards while continuing to hold lenders accountable for compliance with HUD eligibility requirements.” The proposed changes include deleting redundancies and replacing handbook references with a general certification to compliance with the requirements of 24 CFR § 202.5.
- Defect Taxonomy. FHA released proposed changes to the Defect Taxonomy. The draft of the Defect Taxonomy Version 2 includes (i) changes to the Severity Tier definitions; (ii) potential remedies that align with each Severity Tier; (iii) revised sources and causes in certain defect areas; (iv) new defect areas for servicing loan reviews; and (v) HUD policy references.
All proposals are posted on the FHA’s Drafting Table for 30-day feedback through June 8.
11th Circuit: City of Miami sufficiently alleged Fair Housing Act violations
On May 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that the City of Miami plausibly alleged that two national banks’ lending practices violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and led to defaults, foreclosures, and vacancies, and eventually reduced property values and corresponding property tax revenues. The court did so by finding “some direct relation” between the City’s tax revenue injuries and the Bank’s alleged violations of the FHA. The case returned to the 11th Circuit after having been appealed to and resolved in part in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017, where the Court held that municipal plaintiffs may be “aggrieved persons” authorized to bring suit under the FHA against lenders for injuries allegedly flowing from discriminatory lending practices (previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert). According to the appellate court opinion, the Court “declined to ‘draw the precise boundaries of proximate cause under the FHA and to determine on which side of the line the City’s financial injuries fall,’” leaving to the lower courts the issue of how the principles of proximate cause function when applied to the FHA and the facts of the complaints.
The appellate court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the City’s claims against the banks in their entirety, with the 11th Circuit finding “a logical and direct bond between discriminatory lending as a pattern and practice applied to neighborhoods throughout the City and the reduction in property values.” However, the appellate court concluded that the City’s allegations fell short of establishing a direct relationship between the alleged misconduct and the City’s purported increase in its municipal services expenditures, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court “has told us that foreseeability alone is not enough.” The appellate court emphasized that at the motion to dismiss stage it was only addressing the plausibility that the alleged conduct violated the FHA, and remanded the case back to the district court.
Ginnie Mae seeks feedback on changing standards for VA loan securitization
On May 3, Ginnie Mae published a Request for Input (RFI) soliciting feedback on potential changes to the parameters governing loan eligibility for pooling into its mortgage-backed securities (MBS). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in May 2018, Ginnie Mae announced changes to pooling eligibility requirements for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) loans “to address abnormal prepayment patterns in some mortgages pooled in Ginnie Mae MBS that negatively affect MBS pricing, to the detriment of home mortgage loan affordability.” In the RFI, Ginnie Mae notes its focus on adverse trends in the trading of some Ginnie Mae MBS relative to securities issued by Fannie Mae, and cites published commentary and analysis that its MBS are “believed to be susceptible to refinance activity out of proportion to what should be expected from prevailing economic conditions.” The RFI now seeks feedback on, among other things, the propensity of high-LTV VA cash-out refinances to prepay in comparison with those of other loan type categories, any related impact on MBS pricing, and whether a loan-to-value ceiling of 90 percent for cash-out refinance loans “is an appropriate threshold for identifying the loan type category that would be subject to an alternative securitization path.” Ginnie Mae is considering such an alternative securitization path to provide liquidity for excluded (or restricted) loan type categories, highlighting (i) single-issuer custom securities; (ii) securities that are restricted based on a de minimis standard; and (iii) shorter duration loan types as logical possibilities. Comments on the RFI must be received by May 22.
New Jersey approves mortgage lending bill package
On April 29, the New Jersey governor approved several bills related to mortgage lending in the state. According to a press release issued by the governor, the package of nine bills addresses the state’s foreclosure crisis and includes the following:
- A 4997, known as the Mortgage Services Licensing Act, requires persons who act as mortgage servicers—either directly or indirectly—to obtain a license from the New Jersey Commissioner of Banking and Insurance for each office where business is conducted. The Act provides certain licensing exemptions, including federally insured banks and credit unions and their wholly-owned subsidiaries, those already licensed under the state’s Residential Mortgage Lending Act (the Act) who meet certain criteria, and the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency. However, the Act stipulates that sections 9 – 12, which discuss, among other things, record-keeping requirements, late fee restrictions, and required disclosures, apply to all persons, including exempt persons, acting as mortgage servicers in the state. Among other provisions, the Act (i) outlines licensing application requirements, procedures, and expiration terms; (ii) requires licensed mortgage servicers to file annual reports about loan servicing in the state; (iii) stipulates that licenses are non-transferable; (iv) mandates mortgage servicers to file a surety bond, fidelity bond, and evidence of coverage with the Commissioner; (v) requires compliance with all applicable federal laws including RESPA and TILA; (vi) requires mortgage servicers to keep a current schedule of service-related activity fees; and (vii) prohibits mortgage servicers from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in connection with loan servicing. Moreover, the Act grants the Commission with supervision, investigation, and examination authority. The Act takes effect in 90 days.
- A 5001 “reduces the statute of limitations in residential mortgage foreclosures from 20 years to six years from the date on which the debtor defaulted, in situations in which the date of default is used as the method to determine when the statute of limitations has expired.” A 5001 takes effect immediately and applies to all residential mortgages executed on or after the effective date.
- S 3416 states that provisions of the New Jersey Residential Mortgage Lending Act now apply to certain out-of-state persons involved in residential mortgage lending in the state “provided they are otherwise required to be licensed pursuant to the provisions of the [A]ct. . . .” S 3416 takes effect immediately.
- S 3411, among other things, (i) requires a notice of intention to foreclose on a residential mortgage to be filed within 180 days prior to commencing foreclosure, stating that if a foreclosure proceeding has not yet commenced, “the lender shall send a new written notice at least 30 days, but not more than 180 days, in advance of that action”; and (ii) limits the number of permitted reinstatements of dismissed mortgage foreclosure actions to three, with certain exceptions. S 3411 takes effect August 1, which is the first day of the fourth month following enactment.
CFPB issues fact sheet on TRID disclosures with assumption transactions
On May 1, the CFPB released a factsheet addressing when loan estimates and closing disclosures are required for assumption transactions under the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID Rule). The factsheet includes a flowchart and a narrative summary to demonstrate when the disclosures would be required. According to the factsheet, as a threshold matter, the new transaction must be within the TRID Rule’s scope of coverage (e.g., the transaction is a closed-end consumer credit transaction secured by real property or a cooperative unit and is not a reverse mortgage subject to § 1026.33). The creditor must then determine if the transaction is an “assumption” as defined in Regulation Z (under § 1026.20(b) an assumption “occurs when a creditor expressly agrees in writing to accept a new consumer as a primary obligor on an existing residential mortgage transaction.”) The factsheet includes three elements the transaction must meet in order to qualify as an assumption under Regulation Z: (i) the creditor must expressly accept the new consumer as a primary obligor; (ii) a written agreement must be executed, which includes the creditor’s express acceptance of the new customer; and (iii) it must be a “residential mortgage transaction” as to the new customer—specifically, the new customer must be financing the acquisition or initial construction of his or her principal dwelling. If the creditor determines the transaction is an assumption, based on the outlined factors, it must provide a loan estimate and closing disclosure required by the TRID Rule, unless the transaction is otherwise exempt from the requirements.
CFPB proposes permanent HMDA thresholds
On May 2, the CFPB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would permanently raise coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under the HMDA rules. Specifically, the proposal would permanently raise the reporting threshold for closed-end mortgage loans from 25 loans in each of the two preceding calendar years to either 50 or 100 closed-end loans in each of the preceding two calendar years. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB temporarily increased the threshold for open-end lines of credit from 100 loans to 500 loans for calendar years 2018 and 2019. The current proposal would extend that temporary threshold to January 1, 2022, and then permanently lower the threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit after that date. Lastly, the proposal incorporates, with minor adjustments, the interpretive and procedural rule issued in August 2018 (2018 Rule), which implemented and clarified the HMDA amendments included in Section 104(a) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The proposal includes additional interpretive information related to the partial exemptions in the 2018 Rule, including how the partial exemption rules apply after a merger or acquisition. The Bureau is proposing that these changes take effect January 1, 2020. Comments on the NPRM must be received within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.
The Bureau also issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking information on the costs and benefits of reporting certain data points under HMDA. Additionally, the ANPR also seeks information about the requirement that institutions report certain commercial-purpose loans made to a non-natural person and secured by a multifamily dwelling. Comments on the ANPR must be received within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register.