InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court stays fee action against bank during pendency of RMBS action
On November 30, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed to stay proceedings covering an investment company’s challenge to a bank’s practice of billing the legal fees incurred in defending a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts lawsuit to the RMBS trusts. According to the opinion, in 2014, an investment company filed a lawsuit against the national bank alleging breach of contract and other common law duties in the bank’s role as trustee for multiple RMBS trusts. In 2017, the investment company filed a separate lawsuit in the same court, challenging the bank’s practice of billing the RMBS trusts for the legal fees incurred by defending the original lawsuit. The two lawsuits were consolidated and the bank moved to dismiss the second lawsuit or stay the proceedings during the pendency of the original lawsuit. Upon review, the court agreed to stay the proceedings, noting the “claims at issue in the fees complaint may well turn on determinations made in the underlying suit.” The investment company argued that while the trusts’ agreements contain fee indemnity clauses, the clauses are not applicable to the bank’s alleged “willful misfeasance, bad faith, or gross negligence.” The court noted that whether the bank acted grossly negligent in its duties as trustee for the RMBS trusts is a “central factual question” in the original lawsuit and therefore, staying the proceedings “could avoid a possible waste of both the parties’ and the court’s resources.”
Additionally, in the same order, the court denied NCUA’s request to intervene in the fees action, holding the agency did not establish it could meet the higher burden of demonstrating inadequate representation by the investment company, which shares the same interests as NCUA.
CFPB publishes quarterly report examining how natural disasters affect credit reporting
On November 21, the CFPB released the latest quarterly consumer credit trends report, which examines how natural disasters affect consumers’ credit reports based on a sample of approximately 5 million credit records. The report notes that while financial institutions are not required to report natural disaster assistance information, in 2017, about 8.3 percent of consumer credit reports included information in a special comment code labeled “affected by natural or declared disasters,” which the CFPB states is similar to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s estimate that roughly 8 percent of U.S. residents were affected by natural disasters in 2017. Additionally, the report summarizes the natural disaster reporting trends for consumers in the Greater Houston area affected by Hurricane Harvey. Highlights of the report include (i) almost 40 percent of consumers with a credit report in the Greater Houston area received a comment code regarding the hurricane after it hit; (ii) the most common type of tradeline to receive a natural disaster comment code are mortgage loans; and (iii) accounts that received the natural disaster comment code are associated with higher rates of delinquency prior to Hurricane Harvey.
FHFA increases conforming loan limits for 2019
On November 27, the FHFA announced that it will raise the maximum conforming loan limits for mortgages purchased in 2019 by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from $453,100 to $484,350. The announcement marks the third consecutive year FHFA has increased the baseline loan limit. In high-cost areas, such as Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., the maximum loan limit will be $726,525. For a county-specific list of the maximum loan limits in the U.S., click here.
Agencies increase threshold for appraisal exemption under TILA for HPMLs
On November 23, the CFPB, OCC, and the Federal Reserve Board published a final rule in the Federal Register, which increases the smaller loan exemption threshold for the special appraisal requirements for higher-priced mortgage loans (HPMLs) under TILA. TILA requires creditors to obtain a written appraisal based on a physical visit to the home’s interior before making a HPML, unless the loan meets or is less than the threshold exemption. Each year the threshold must be readjusted based on the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. The exemption threshold for 2019 is $26,700, up from $26,000. This final rule is effective January 1, 2019.
Agencies propose $400,000 threshold for residential appraisal requirement
On November 20, the OCC announced a joint notice of proposed rulemaking with the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, which raises the threshold for residential real estate transactions requiring an appraisal to $400,000 from its current level of $250,000. According to the OCC, the proposal is in response to feedback that the current exemption threshold has not increased to keep pace with the price appreciation in the residential real estate market. The proposal includes the rural residential appraisal exemption included in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (previously covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, among other things, the proposal implements the Dodd-Frank Act mandate that institutions appropriately review appraisals for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
VA encourages loan holders to extend relief to borrowers impacted by California wildfires
On November 15, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-18-26, requesting relief for homeowners impacted by the California wildfires. Among other things, the Circular encourages loan holders to (i) extend forbearance to borrowers in distress because of the wildfires; (ii) establish a 90-day moratorium from the date of the disaster on initiating new foreclosures on affected loans; (iii) waive late charges on affected loans; and (iv) suspend reporting affected loans to credit bureaus. The Circular is effective until October 1, 2019. Mortgage servicers and veteran borrowers are also encouraged to review the VA’s Guidance on Natural Disasters.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
Supreme Court will not hear 9th Circuit interest on escrow preemption decision
On November 19, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s March decision, which held that a California law requiring banks to pay interest on mortgage escrow funds is not preempted by federal law. As previously covered by InfoBytes, a national bank petitioned for writ of certiorari in August, arguing the 9th Circuit’s decision—holding that the Dodd-Frank Act of 2011 codified the existing National Bank Act preemption standard from the 1996 Supreme Court decision in Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson—warranted further review “because it creates significant uncertainty about whether national banks must comply with similar laws in other states” and whether other state banking laws also apply to national banks. Additionally, the petition argued the uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact that the appellate court “disregarded and refused to enforce longstanding OCC regulations” and that the court interpreted the Barnett decision incorrectly.
7th Circuit holds homeowner failed to show harm from servicer’s QWR failing
On November 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a mortgage servicer. The court, noting the District Court had concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a claim the servicer had violated RESPA, affirmed the lower court decision that even if such a violation had occurred, the homeowner plaintiff failed to demonstrate any actual harm from the servicer’s alleged failure to fully respond to his qualified written request (QWR). According to the opinion, in November 2012, a state court entered a judgment of foreclosure against a homeowner who struggled to make payments on his mortgage loan; and after numerous reschedulings due to bankruptcy filings, a sheriff sale was set to be conducted in October 2016. In August 2016, the homeowner sent a letter to his mortgage servicer with “twenty-two wide-ranging questions about his account.” The mortgage servicer treated the letter as a QWR under RESPA, acknowledged receipt of the letter and stated it would provide a substantive response by September 30, the deadline under the statute. Two days prior to the statutory deadline, the homeowner and his wife filed a lawsuit against the mortgage servicer, alleging violations of RESPA and Wisconsin law for failing to respond to the QWR, which they argued, would have provided information to assist in their fight against forthcoming sheriff’s sale. The mortgage servicer mailed a response on September 30, consisting of a three-page letter and 58 pages of attachments, which addressed “most of [the homeowner]’s questions to some degree, but not all of them,” and also invited further information from the homeowner to consider further responses. The district court granted the mortgage servicer’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the homeowner failed to provide evidence the mortgage servicer violated RESPA or state law and failed to show how any alleged failure, even had it occurred, caused harm.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit determined the homeowner had standing to sue the mortgage servicer but his wife did not, as she had no legal interest in the property. As for the alleged RESPA violation, assuming such a violation occurred, the court concluded that the homeowner failed to establish an actual harm that resulted from the mortgage servicer’s alleged violation. Specifically, the appeals court disagreed with the homeowner that the fees paid to an attorney to review the mortgage servicer’s response “could be a cost incurred as a result of an alleged violation” of RESPA. The appeals court also rejected claims of damages for physical and emotional distress because the homeowner’s “stress had essentially nothing to do with any arguable RESPA violations.”
Agencies issue disaster relief guidance for California wildfires
On November 13, the OCC, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and HUD issued disaster relief guidance related to the California wildfires. The OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by wildfires and high winds “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” In issuing the proclamation, the OCC noted that it expects that only those bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions will close and that they should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address the banking needs of their customers. The proclamation directs institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on natural disasters and other emergency conditions.
Fannie Mae reminded servicers of available mortgage assistance options for homeowners impacted by the wildfires: (i) qualifying homeowners are eligible to stop making mortgage payments for up to 12 months without incurring late fees and without having delinquencies reported to the credit bureaus; (ii) servicers may immediately suspend or reduce mortgage payments for up to 90 days without any contact with homeowners believed to have been affected by a disaster; and (iii) servicers must suspend foreclosures and other legal proceedings for homeowners believed to be impacted by a disaster. Freddie Mac similarly reminded servicers of these mortgage relief options.
HUD announced an automatic 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages for covered properties and is further making FHA insurance available to those victims whose homes were destroyed or severely damaged.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
Freddie Mac releases various selling and servicing updates in Guide Bulletin 2018-21
On November 13, Freddie Mac released Guide Bulletin 2018-21 announcing selling and servicing updates, including new requirements for mortgages secured by energy and/or water efficient properties. Effective for mortgages with settlement dates on or after May 1, 2019, Freddie Mac’s GreenCHOICE Mortgages program seeks to improve home affordability by reducing homeowners’ monthly energy or water expenses by facilitating the financing of energy efficient improvements and homes. The bulletin lists specific requirements for the program, including caps for financing the costs of improvements, escrow, and energy reporting requirements. Freddie Mac will apply a $500 credit to help offset transactional costs, provided the seller delivers the requisite Investor Feature Identifier. The Bulletin also includes servicing and transfer of servicing requirements for the program.
Finally, the Bulletin covers property insurance requirements related to flood insurance for condominium projects and revisions to insurance policy premium requirements for condominiums located in Puerto Rico, both of which are effective immediately.