InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Legislation Introduced to Reduce Mortgage Appraisal Requirements in Rural Communities
On July 13, Representative David Kustoff (R-Tenn.) introduced legislation intended to decrease costs and delays when obtaining a mortgage by reducing appraisal requirements. As set forth in a July 13 press release issued by Rep. Kustoff’s office, the Securing Access to Affordable Mortgage Act of 2017 (H.R. 3221) would (i) ease “unfair” appraisal requirements, which would benefit rural communities where there is a demonstrated lack of qualified appraisers, and (ii) assist prospective homebuyers by decreasing costs and delays. H.R. 3221 would increase access to affordable mortgages by excluding loans of $250,000 or less from property appraisal requirements through new exemptions under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 and the Truth in Lending Act.
As previously discussed in InfoBytes, earlier this year several financial agencies jointly issued an Interagency Advisory to address concerns regarding the shortage of certified and licensed appraisers, particularly in rural areas.
Senate Banking Committee to Host July 20 Hearing on Mortgage Reform
On July 20, the Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on mortgage reform for small lenders. The hearing, entitled “Housing Finance Reform: Maintaining Access for Small Lenders,” will feature witnesses from the American Bankers Association, the Credit Union National Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, the Community Mortgage Lenders of America, and the Community Home Lenders Association.
Judge Issues Ruling that Federal Safe Harbor Provision Applies in RESPA Case
On July 13, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky issued an opinion holding 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. (See CFPB v. Borders and Borders, Plc, No. 3:13-cv-01047-CRS-DW (W.D. Ky. July 13, 2017)). In 2013, the CFPB alleged the firm violated RESPA by paying kickbacks for real estate settlement referrals through a network of joint ventures with the principals of nine title insurance companies. (See previous InfoBytes summary here.) The judge granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment on only one safe harbor question, stating that the firm’s agreements with the title insurance agencies qualified as “affiliated business arrangements” because it “disclosed the relationship…, the customers could reject the referral, and the Bureau failed to show that the [title insurance companies] received anything of value beyond their ownership interests.”
The judge rejected the firm's claim that the CFPB cannot seek disgorgement as a remedy and further declined to address the firm’s ultra vires argument that the CFPB is an unconstitutional agency and therefore lacks legal authority to bring suit, stating that the en banc decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB has not yet been issued.
Notably, however, the judge appeared to suggest that case could be appealed because the firm’s other arguments fail to qualify for RESPA safe harbors under Sections 8(c)(1) and 8(c)(2).
Connecticut Governor Enacts Law Regarding Compliance Requirements for Mortgage Licensees
On July 11, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law Public Act No. 17-233 (H.B. 7141), which makes various revisions to the state’s banking laws. Among other things, the law (i) applies certain mortgage servicers’ and student loan servicers’ prohibited acts to other licensees; (ii) requires non-depository licensees to maintain and enforce compliance policies and procedures; (iii) allows the banking commissioner to require the use of electronic bonds for licensed or registered individuals to participate in the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System; (iv) reduces pre-licensing education requirements for mortgage loan originators, loan processors, and underwriters; and (v) sets limits for money transmitters regarding virtual currency transactions and timeframes for transmitting money. The law takes effect October 1, 2017, with provisions relating to compliance policies and procedures taking effect July 1, 2018, and pre-licensing education requirements taking effect January 1, 2019.
ABA, State Banking Associations Request HMDA Implementation Delay
Following up on comments submitted to the CFPB on its proposal to amend the 2015 HMDA rule (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), the American Bankers Association (ABA)—along with state banking associations representing all 50 states and Puerto Rico—sent a letter on July 12 to the Bureau requesting that the new “complex” and “substantive” requirements scheduled to take effect January 1, 2018 be delayed to allow banks time to comply. The associations claim the Bureau (i) failed to sufficiently conduct industry research to identify and address questions and proposed solutions concerning the proposed changes, and (ii) inadequately addressed issues related to the protection of borrower data. The ABA also stresses that the software systems banks need to incorporate into their platforms to ensure compliant data collection will not be available in time “because the industry and systems vendors are still awaiting rule changes that will necessitate system adaptations.” The Bureau has been asked to announce its intention for a delay within the next month.
Special Alert: CFPB Finalizes Amendments to Know Before You Owe/TRID Rule and Proposes Additional Changes to Address “Black Hole”
On July 7, the CFPB issued amendments to the KBYO/TRID rule. The Bureau billed the changes as clarifying and technical in nature but stated that the final rule “also makes a limited number of additional substantive changes where the Bureau has identified discrete solutions to specific implementation challenges.” The rule becomes effective 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register, but compliance is not mandatory until October 1, 2018.
Importantly, however, instead of finalizing proposed amendments to address the “black hole” that prevents creditors from resetting tolerances using the Closing Disclosure except in very limited circumstances, the Bureau issued a concurrent proposal to address the issue. The proposal would close the black hole by allowing creditors to reset tolerances using the Closing Disclosure regardless of when closing is scheduled to occur, although the Bureau sought comment on whether doing so would have unintended consequences. Comments on the proposal must be received 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the rule or other related issues, please visit our TRID Resource Center, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
PHH v. CFPB Update: PHH Counters CFPB’s Statute of Limitations Interpretation
On June 13, PHH Corporation sent a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit responding to a June 7 letter from the CFPB that stated RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations is not applicable in its enforcement action against the company. In its letter, the CFPB cited a decision in Kokesh v. SEC where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a five-year limit applies to civil penalties, and that, furthermore, “[d]isgorgement in the securities-enforcement context is a ‘penalty’ within the meaning of §2462, and so disgorgement actions must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrues.” The Bureau further supported its argument for a five-year limit by claiming that RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations provision applies only to “actions” brought in a “United States district court or any other court of competent jurisdiction,” and its administrative proceeding against the company for alleged mortgage kickbacks was not an “action” under RESPA.
In response, PHH countered that Section 2462 contains a “catch-all limitations period ‘[e]xcept as otherwise provided’ by Congress.” Thus, the D.C. Circuit panel was correct when it held that Congress “otherwise provided” a three-year statute of limitations under RESPA that applies to enforcement proceedings because in the “second part of Section 2614, the term ‘actions’ is not limited to actions brought in court.” PHH further asserts that Dodd-Frank “repeatedly uses the term ‘action’ to encompass court actions and administrative proceedings.”
As previously covered in InfoBytes, on May 24, the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of the CFPB. It did not indicate that it was inclined to revisit the panel’s determination that the Bureau misinterpreted RESPA when applying it to PHH’s practices.
Bipartisan HOME Act Introduced to Protect Access to Affordable Housing
On June 13, Representatives Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) and Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) introduced legislation to strengthen the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) System by ensuring access to mortgage credit and affordable housing assistance for millions of consumers. As set forth in a June 15 press release issued by Rep. Hultgren’s office, the Housing Opportunity Mortgage Expansion (HOME) Act (H.R. 2890) would allow lenders to regain membership in the FHLB System provided they (i) joined before the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) proposed its recently finalized membership rule, and (i) are able to “demonstrate a commitment to residential mortgage activities.”
As previously discussed in InfoBytes, FHFA’s final rule added a revision intended to help streamline membership applications. However, Hultgren asserts that the rule “restricts FHLB membership eligibility” by excluding “captive insurers” under its definition of an “insurance company” thereby prohibiting membership. The HOME Act, Hultgren states, “would clarify that companies with a history and mission of supporting residential housing should be able to continue to serve our communities.”
Industry Groups Submit Comments on FHFA’s Proposed Evaluation Guidance for “Duty to Serve” Provisions
As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) published a final rule last December implementing certain “Duty to Serve” provisions of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. Among other things, the rule requires that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Enterprises) adopt formal plans to improve the availability of mortgage financing in a “safe and sound manner” for residential properties that serve “very low-, low-, and moderate-income families” in three specified underserved markets: manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural markets. The FHFA also published a Proposed Evaluation Guidance to outline the following: (i) FHFA's expectations regarding the development of such Underserved Markets Plans, and (ii) the process by which FHFA will evaluate annually Fannie’s and Freddie’s achievements under their Plans. The deadline to submit comments was June 7.
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) Letter. In its June 7 comment letter, the MBA stated that it commends efforts undertaken by the FHFA to develop a framework of requirements for the Enterprises to follow when preparing their Underserved Market Plans, as well as an evaluation system to rate implementation progress. Particularly, the MBA noted that, based on its data, the U.S. “will see 15.9 million additional households formed over the decade ending in 2024 . . . [which] will increase the need for all types of housing, including already limited affordable housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income borrowers.” Furthermore, “manufactured home financing, affordable housing preservation, and additional rural housing opportunities can play a key role in providing both first-time home-buying opportunities and affordable rental options for consumers in these underserved markets.” With respect to the Proposed Evaluation Guidance, the MBA stressed the importance of flexibility so adjustments can be made for “unanticipated obstacles or opportunities caused by significant changes in market conditions that arise.”
Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) Letter. Also on June 7, CRL issued a comment letter to the Proposed Guidance in which it offered recommendations concerning “public input and transparency, assessing the contents of the plants to ensure meaningful objectives, and the evaluation and scoring process.” Specifically, CRL noted that while the Enterprises have taken measures such as reinstating lower down payment programs and creating pilot programs to address the underserved markets, it believes a “robust duty to serve process will further access credit initiatives by promoting and incentivizing responsible and sustainable lending to lower wealth households.” However, the CRL also raised several issues over the Proposed Evaluation Guidance, specifically in terms of the proposed scoring system. Under current FHFA guidance, Enterprises’ plans are scored on three factors: progress, impact, and effort/implementation. Conversely, under the proposed scoring system, failure only occurs due to a lack of progress because the impact and effort criteria are assessed only after the Enterprise receives a pass/fail determination. In reaction, CRL raised the following concerns: (i) “What guards against Enterprises putting only low impact objectives in the plan?” (ii) “What incentives do Enterprises have to score highly (above minimally passing)?” and (iii) “What guards against only proposing easily achievable objectives?” In addition to scoring methodology changes, CRL recommended that the FHFA implement a more rigorous loan product and loan purchase evaluation process and increase transparency.
Connecticut Law Expands Credit Card Fraud Statutes, Addresses Penalties for Rent Collections on Foreclosed Property
On June 6, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed into law Public Act No. 17-26, which expands the statutes on credit card fraud to cover crimes involving debit cards—including payroll and ATM cards—and outlines larceny penalties for collecting rent on foreclosed property. Paper and electronic checks or drafts are excluded from the definition of debit card under revised measure. Additionally, the law specifies changes pertaining to how “notice of a card’s revocation must be sent for purposes of these crimes and expands certain credit card crimes to cover falsely loading payment cards (credit or debit cards) into digital wallets.” Regarding larceny penalties, the law provides that a “previous mortgagor of real property against whom a final judgment of foreclosure has been entered” cannot continue to collect rent after the final judgment if there is no lawful right to do so. Penalties vary from a class C misdemeanor to a class B felony depending on the amount involved. The law takes effect October 1.