InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Florida enacts legislation prohibiting the misrepresentation of a residential mortgage loan as a business purpose loan
On March 21, the Florida governor signed HB 935, which prohibits the misrepresentation of a residential mortgage loan as a business purpose loan. HB 935 defines “business purpose loan” and requires that “a person must refer to the official interpretation” of the CFPB under 12 C.F. R. Section 1026.3(a) to determine if a loan is for a “business purpose.” It also provides penalties for knowingly or willfully misrepresenting a residential mortgage loan as a business purpose loan. Additionally, HB 935 defines the phrase “hold himself or herself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business” to include representing to the public through advertisements or solicitations that the individual or business is a licensed mortgage lender. The law is effective July 1.
Nebraska enacts legislation amending certain provisions related to the recording of real property interests
On March 21, the Nebraska governor signed Legislative Bill 750 (LB 750), which amends and clarifies provisions related to the rights and responsibilities of secured creditors and the recording of real property interests. Among other things, LB 750 addresses (i) recording requirements for licensed mortgage bankers and (ii) the liability of a secured creditor that fails to timely record a deed of reconveyance or a release of mortgage when the obligation has been satisfied and a written request to record it has been received from the trustor, mortgagor or grantor. It also provides that “the transfer of any debt secured by a mortgage shall also operate as a transfer of a security of such debt.” The bill takes effect July 18.
Court denies CFPB motion to reconsider, applies new RESPA safe harbor
On March 22, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied the CFPB’s motion to reconsider an opinion issued in July 2017, which held that a safe harbor provision for affiliated business arrangements under Section 8(c)(4) of RESPA protects a Louisville law firm's relationship with a string of now-closed title insurance agencies (previously covered by InfoBytes here). In denying the request, the court clarified its previous reasoning and found that the transactions did not violate Section 8(a) because the law firm did not give the title insurance agencies a “thing of value,” and even assuming a violation, the safe harbor under Section 8(c)(2)—even though the court previously relied on Section 8(c)(4)—applied. The court relied on the D.C. Circuit’s 2016 interpretation of Section 8(c)(2) in PHH Corporation v. CFPB, which found that payments made in exchange for a service “actually received” is not the same as payments made for referrals and a payment is bona fide if it amounts to “reasonable market value” for the service. In applying the PHH holding to the present facts, the court concluded that the payments consumers made to the title agencies, which were subsequently distributed as profits to corresponding partners, were made in exchange for title insurance that was actually received by the consumer. Moreover, the court noted that there was no evidence that the payments were above market value, and therefore determined they were bona fide. Lastly, the opinion emphasized that the purpose of RESPA is to prevent unnecessary increases in costs of certain settlement services for consumers, and the payments resulting from the relationship between the law firm and the title agencies not only were for services actually received but were not found to increase the cost of those services at settlement.
New York Attorney General reaches $230 million settlement for international company’s RMBS misconduct
On March 21, the New York Attorney General announced a $230 million settlement with two divisions of an international financial services company to resolve allegations that the company made misrepresentations in the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) in violation of New York’s Martin Act and Section 63(12) of New York’s Executive Law. According to the settlement agreement, the investigation focused on 15 securitizations sold by the company between 2006 and 2007. In addition to the alleged misrepresentations in each of the securitizations’ prospectus and prospectus supplements, the company also included loans in the sales portfolio that diligence reports flagged for underwriting and valuation issues. The $230 million settlement includes $41 million to New York State and $189 million to consumer relief programs.
Fannie Mae updates Servicing Guide with HomeStyle Renovation policy changes
On March 14, Fannie Mae updated its Servicing Guide to include industry best practices for servicing HomeStyle Renovation Mortgage Loans (Renovation Loans). According to Fannie Mae SVC-2018-02, the updates to the Servicing Guide include, among other changes, new requirements to: (i) conduct property inspections for all Renovation Loans before escrow draw requests may be approved; (ii) ensure that all subcontractors are licensed in jurisdictions where licensing applies; (iii) perform updated appraisals when repairs deviate materially from the original plan; and (iv) provide a certificate of occupancy upon completion. Additional changes to the requirements for Renovation Loans may also be found in Fannie Mae’s recently updated Selling Guide, covered by InfoBytes here.
The updates to the Servicing Guide also include an update to the Allowable Foreclosure Attorney Fees Exhibit, which changes the maximum allowable fees for loans secured by properties in certain states. The Servicing Guide requirements for determining the modified terms under the Fannie Mae Cap and Extend Modification for Disaster Relief have also been updated.
Senate passes bipartisan financial regulatory reform bill
On March 14, by a vote of 67-31, the Senate passed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) (the bill)—a bipartisan regulatory reform bill crafted by Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho—that would repeal or modify provisions of Dodd-Frank and ease regulations on all but the biggest banks. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The bill’s highlights include:
- Improving consumer access to mortgage credit. The bill’s provisions state, among other things, that: (i) banks with less than $10 billion in assets are exempt from ability-to-repay requirements for certain qualified residential mortgage loans; (ii) appraisals will not be required for certain transactions valued at less than $400,000 in rural areas; (iii) banks and credit unions that originate fewer than 500 open-end and 500 closed-end mortgages are exempt from HMDA’s expanded data disclosures (the provision would not apply to nonbanks and would not exempt institutions from HMDA reporting altogether); (iv) amendments to the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act will provide registered mortgage loan originators in good standing with 120 days of transitional authority to originate loans when moving from a federal depository institution to a non-depository institution or across state lines; and (v) the CFPB must clarify how TRID applies to mortgage assumption transactions and construction-to-permanent home loans, as well as outline certain liabilities related to model disclosure use.
- Regulatory relief for certain institutions. Among other things, the bill simplifies capital calculations and exempts community banks from Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act if they have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. The bill also states that banks with less than $10 billion in assets, and total trading assets and liabilities not exceeding more than five percent of their total assets, are exempt from Volcker Rule restrictions on trading with their own capital.
- Protections for consumers. Included in the bill are protections for veterans and active-duty military personnel such as: (i) permanently extending the protection that shields military personnel from foreclosure proceedings after they leave active military service from nine months to one year; and (ii) adding a requirement that credit reporting agencies provide free credit monitoring services and credit freezes to active-duty military personnel. The bill also addresses general consumer protection options such as expanded credit freezes and the creation of an identity theft protection database. Additionally, the bill instructs the CFPB to draft federal rules for the underwriting of Property Assessed Clean Energy loans (PACE loans), which would be subject to TILA consumer protections.
- Changes for bank holding companies. Among other things, the bill raises the threshold for automatic designation as a systemically important financial institution from $50 billion in assets to $250 billion. The bill also subjects banks with $100 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets to periodic stress tests and exempts from stress test requirements entirely banks with under $100 billion in assets. Additionally, certain banks would be allowed to exclude assets they hold in custody for others—provided the assets are held at a central bank—when computing the amount such banks must hold in reserves.
- Protections for student borrowers. The bill’s provisions include measures to prevent creditors from declaring an automatic default or accelerating the debt against a borrower on the sole basis of bankruptcy or cosigner death, and would require the removal of private student loans on credit reports after a default if the borrower completes a loan rehabilitation program and brings payments current.
The bill now advances to the House where both Democrats and Republicans think it is unlikely to pass in its current form.
Fannie and Freddie extend temporary suspension of foreclosure sales
On March 7, Fannie Mae, in Lender Letter LL-2018-01, and Freddie Mac, in Guide Bulletin 2018-04, extended the suspension of foreclosure sales through May 31 of mortgaged properties in FEMA-declared disaster areas in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricanes Irma and Maria.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on Disaster Relief here.
House passes several bills focused on regulatory relief
On March 6, the House passed H.R. 2226, the “Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act,” amending TILA and expanding the safe harbor provisions provided to qualified residential mortgages held in portfolio by banks with less than $10 billion in assets. Under the bill, a mortgage lender would not be subject to civil liability for violating specified ability-to-repay requirements if, among other things, the loan was originated and held continuously in portfolio by a covered institution and complies with certain limitations and requirements related to prepayment penalties and points and fees..
On the same day, the House also passed H.R. 4725, the “Community Bank Reporting Relief Act,” to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to reduce the regulatory reporting burden on community banks. Specifically, federal banking agencies would be required to issue regulations allowing qualified depository institutions with less than $5 billion in assets to submit abbreviated call reports (consolidated reports of condition and income) every other quarter rather than submitting full call reports every quarter.
Finally, by a vote of 264-143, the House passed H.R. 4607, the “Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act,” a measure to amend the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996’s regulatory review process. Among other things, the bill requires federal financial regulators to perform a comprehensive review at least every seven years, instead of every ten years as currently required, to identify regulations that may be tailored to limit burdens on insured depository institutions.International bank settles with New York Attorney General for $500 million for RMBS misconduct
On March 6, the New York Attorney General announced a $500 million settlement with an international bank to resolve allegations of misrepresentations in the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), in violation of New York’s Martin Act and Section 63(12) of New York’s Executive Law. According to the settlement agreement, the investigation focused on 44 securitizations sold by the bank between 2006 and 2007. In addition to the alleged misrepresentations in the offering documents, the bank also included loans in the sales portfolio that due diligence vendors warned did not comply with underwriting guidelines. The $500 million settlement includes $100 million in damages to New York State and $400 million to consumer relief programs.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the bank recently settled with the California Attorney General for misrepresentations while selling RMBS to California’s public employee and teacher pension fund.
9th Circuit holds California's interest on escrow requirements is not preempted by federal law
On March 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a national bank must comply with a California law that requires mortgage lenders to pay interest on the funds held in a consumer’s escrow account because the law does not “prevent or significantly interfere” with the national bank’s exercise of its power. The case results from a 2014 lawsuit in which a consumer sued the national bank for refusing to pay interest on the funds in his mortgage escrow account as required by a California state law. The district court dismissed the action, holding that the California state law interfered with the bank’s ability to perform its business making mortgage loans and therefore, was preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA).
In reversing the district court’s decision, the 9th Circuit held that the Dodd-Frank Act of 2011 (Dodd-Frank) essentially codified the existing NBA preemption standard from the 1996 Supreme Court decision in Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson. The panel cited to Section 1639d(g)(3) of Dodd-Frank (“if prescribed by applicable State or Federal law, each creditor shall pay interest to the consumer on the amount held in any . . . escrow account that is subject to this section in the manner as prescribed by that applicable State or Federal law”), which, according to the opinion, expresses Congress’ view that the type of law at issue does not “prevent or significantly interfere with a national bank’s operations.” Moreover, the panel disagreed with the national bank’s reliance on the OCC’s 2004 preemption regulation, which interpreted the standard more broadly, by concluding that the regulation had no effect on the preemption standard. This decision could have significant implications for the rise of preemption by federally chartered banks.