InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC reports on mortgage performance
On December 10, the OCC reported that 95.6 percent of first-lien mortgages were current and performing at the end of the third quarter of 2021—an increase from 92.5 percent at the end of the third quarter of 2020. According to the report, seriously delinquent mortgages declined from 3.8 percent in the prior quarter (5.8 percent a year ago) to 3.1 percent. In the third quarter of 2021, servicers initiated 925 new foreclosures, which is a 56.3 percent increase from the previous quarter and an increase of 150.7 percent compared to a year ago. The OCC noted that events related to the pandemic, such as foreclosure moratoriums, “significantly affected these metrics.” Additionally, mortgage modifications decreased 14.8 percent from the prior quarter. Of the reported 33,721 mortgage modifications, 59.6 percent reduced borrowers’ pre-modification monthly payments, while 98.3 percent were “combination modifications” that “included multiple actions affecting affordability and sustainability of the loan, such as an interest rate reduction and a term extension.”
CFPB supervisory highlights cover wide range of violations
On December 8, the CFPB released its fall 2021 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage servicing, payday lending, prepaid accounts, and remittance transfers. The report’s findings cover examinations that were completed between January and June of 2021 in addition to prior supervisory findings that led to public enforcement actions in the first half of 2021. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Credit Card Account Management. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation Z related to billing error resolution, including instances where creditors failed to (i) resolve disputes within two complete billing cycles after receiving a billing error notice; (ii) reimburse late fees after determining a missed payment was not credited to a consumer’s account; and (iii) conduct reasonable investigations into billing error notices concerning missed payments and unauthorized transactions. Examiners also identified deceptive acts or practices related to credit card issuers’ advertising practices.
- Debt Collection. The Bureau found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors represented to consumers that their creditworthiness would improve upon final payment under a repayment plan and the deletion of the tradeline. Because credit worthiness is impacted by numerous factors, examiners found “that such representations could lead the least sophisticated consumer to conclude that deleting derogatory information would result in improved creditworthiness, thereby creating the risk of a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of Section 807(10).”
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed violations related to Regulation E, including error resolution violations related to misdirected payment transfers and failure to investigate error notices where consumers alleged funds were sent via a person-to-person payment network but the intended recipient did not receive the funds.
- Fair Lending. The report noted instances where examiners cited violations of ECOA and Regulation B by lenders "discriminating against African American and female borrowers in the granting of pricing exceptions based upon competitive offers from other institutions,” which led to observed pricing disparities, specifically as compared to similarly situated non-Hispanic white and male borrowers. Among other things, examiners also observed that lenders’ policies and procedures contributed to pricing discrimination, and that lenders improperly inquired about small business applicants’ religion and considered religion in the credit decision process.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau noted that it is prioritizing mortgage servicing supervision attributed to the increase in borrowers needing loss mitigation assistance due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Examiners found violations of Regulations Z and X, as well as unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Unfair acts or practices included those related to (i) charging delinquency-related fees to borrowers in CARES Act forbearances; (ii) failing to terminate preauthorized EFTs; and (iii) assessing fees for services exceeding the actual cost of the performed services. Deceptive acts or practices found by examiners related to mortgage servicers included incorrectly disclosed transaction and payment information in a borrower’s online mortgage loan account. Mortgage servicers also allegedly failed to evaluate complete loss mitigation applications within 30 days, incorrectly handled partial payments, and failed to automatically terminate PMI in a timely manner. The Bureau noted in its press release that it is “actively working to support an inclusive and equitable economic recovery, which means ensuring all mortgage servicers meet their homeowner protection obligations under applicable consumer protection laws,” and will continue to work with the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and state financial regulators to address any compliance failures (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Payday Lending. The report identified unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to payday lenders erroneously debiting consumers’ loan balances after a consumer applied and received confirmation for a loan extension, misrepresenting that consumers would only pay extension fees on the original due dates of their loans, and failing to honor loan extensions. Examiners also found instances where lenders debited or attempted one or more duplicate unauthorized debits from a consumer’s bank account. Lenders also violated Regulation E by failing “to retain, for a period of not less than two years, evidence of compliance with the requirements imposed by EFTA.”
- Prepaid Accounts. Bureau examiners found violations of Regulation E and EFTA related to stop-payment waivers at financial institutions, which, among other things, failed to honor stop-payment requests received at least three business days before the scheduled date of the transfer. Examiners also observed instances where service providers improperly required consumers to contact the merchant before processing a stop-payment request or failed to process stop-payment requests due to system limitations even if a consumer had contacted the merchant. The report cited additional findings where financial institutions failed to properly conduct error investigations.
- Remittance Transfers. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation E related to the Remittance Rule, in which providers “received notices of errors alleging that remitted funds had not been made available to the designated recipient by the disclosed date of availability” and then failed to “investigate whether a deduction imposed by a foreign recipient bank constituted a fee that the institutions were required to refund to the sender, and subsequently did not refund that fee to the sender.”
The report also highlights recent supervisory program developments and enforcement actions.
FHA extends partial waiver of face-to-face borrower interviews
On December 2, FHA announced an extension to its temporary partial waiver of the face-to-face borrower interviews with borrowers as part of FHA’s early default intervention requirements under 24 C.F.R. § 203.604. The waiver was first published in March 2020 in response to the Covid-19 pandemic (covered by InfoBytes here). The temporary waiver, now effective through December 31, 2022, allows mortgagees to establish contact with borrowers by alternative methods, such as phone, email, or video calling services.
FHFA announces 2022 confirming loan limits
On November 30, FHFA announced that it will raise the maximum conforming loan limits (CLL) for mortgages purchased in 2022 by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from $548,250 to $647,200 (the 2021 CLL limits were covered previously by InfoBytes here). In most high-cost areas, the maximum loan limit for one-unit properties will be $970,800. According to FHFA, due to generally rising home values, “the CLLs will be higher in all but four U.S. counties or county equivalents.” A county-specific list of 2022 conforming loan limits for all counties and county-equivalent areas in the U.S. can be accessed here.
HUD issues 2022 mortgage and HECM limits
On November 30, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2021-28, which provides the 2022 nationwide forward mortgage limits. According to HUD, FHA calculates forward mortgage limits based on the median house prices in accordance with the National Housing Act (NHA). Additionally, FHA sets these limits at or between the low-cost area and high-cost area limits based on the median house prices for the area and publishes the updated limits each calendar year. Among other things, HUD noted that the FHA national low-cost area mortgage limits are set at 65 percent of the national conforming limit of $647,200 for a one-unit property, and, for high-cost area mortgage limits, the FHA national high-cost area mortgage limits are set at 150 percent of the national conforming limit of $647,200 for a one-unit property. Forward mortgage limits for 2022 are effective for case numbers assigned on or after January 1, 2022.
The same day, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2021-29, which provides the 2022 home equity conversion mortgage (HECM) limits. According to the letter, the HECM maximum claim amount limits for traditional HECM, HECM for purchase, and HECM-to-HECM refinances are governed by the maximum claim amount limitation in the NHA. For the period of January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022, the maximum claim amount for FHA-insured HECMs is $970,800 (150 percent of Freddie Mac’s national conforming limit of $647,200).
Freddie says cryptocurrency can’t be used for mortgage qualification
On December 1, Freddie Mac released Bulletin 2021-36 to Freddie Mac sellers to provide guidance on selling updates. The bulletin provides guidance on, among other things: (i) 2022 conforming loan limits; (ii) extension of the guarantee fee obligation; (iii) affordable lending; (iv) credit underwriting; and (v) document custody. In order to address uncertainty regarding the treatment of cryptocurrency in mortgage underwriting, the bulletin specifically addresses requirements related to cryptocurrency’s use in the mortgage qualification process. These requirements include, among other things, that income paid to the borrower in cryptocurrency cannot be utilized to qualify for a mortgage and that “[c]ryptocurrency may not be included in the calculation of assets as a basis for repayment of [the] obligation.” Unless otherwise noted, the changes issues in the bulletin are effective immediately.
Fed provides guidance on LIBOR transition
On November 19, the Federal Reserve Board announced answers to “Supervision FAQs on the Transition away from LIBOR.” The Fed’s announcement follows an October 2021 joint statement by the CFPB, Fed, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC, in conjunction with the state bank and state credit union regulators, regarding the transition away from LIBOR. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Among other things, the FAQs included statements regarding what qualifies as a “new contract” under the previously issued guidance, specifically regarding: (i) modifications to adjustable-rate mortgages; (ii) loans that “automatically renew” after December 31, 2021; and (iii) physical settlement of a contract that existed before December 31, 2021. The FAQs also discussed: (i) Board-supervised institutions engaging in secondary trading of LIBOR-linked cash instruments that were issued before December 31, 2021; (ii) the need for fallback language in contracts entered into prior to 2022; and (iii) the approach by examiners in assessing firms’ LIBOR transition plans.
Agencies finalize 2022 HPML exemption threshold
On November 30, the CFPB, OCC, and Federal Reserve Board published finalized amendments to the official interpretations for regulations implementing Section 129H of TILA, which establishes special appraisal requirements for “higher-priced mortgage loans” (HPMLs). The final rule increases the TILA smaller loan exemption threshold for the special appraisal requirements for HPMLs. 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 2022 will increase from $27,200 to $28,500 effective January 1.
7th Circuit denies CFPB’s request to reconsider attorney exemption in foreclosures
On November 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the CFPB’s petition for panel or en banc rehearing of its earlier decision in an action taken against several foreclosure relief companies and associated individuals accused of violating Regulation O. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau asked the appellate court to reconsider its determination “that practicing attorneys are categorically exempt from Regulation O,” claiming that the court’s holding strips the Bureau “of the authority given it by Congress to hold attorneys to account for violations not just of Regulation O, but of a host of other federal laws as well.” In July, the 7th Circuit vacated a 2019 district court ruling that ordered $59 million in restitution and disgorgement, civil penalties, and permanent injunctive relief against defendants accused of collecting fees before obtaining loan modifications, and inflating success rates and the likelihood of obtaining a modification, among other allegations (covered by InfoBytes here). The appellate court based its decision on the application of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Liu v. SEC, which held that a disgorgement award cannot exceed a firm’s net profits—a ruling that is “applicable to all categories of equitable relief, including restitution.” The appellate court also concluded that attorneys who are subject to liability for violating consumer laws “cannot escape liability simply by virtue of being an attorney.” However, the appellate court vacated the recklessness finding in the civil penalty calculation pertaining to certain defendants, writing that “[a]lthough we have found that they were not engaged in the practice of law, the question was a legitimate one. We consider it a step too far to say that they were reckless—that is, that they should have been aware of an unjustifiably high or obvious risk of violating Regulation O.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In its appeal, the Bureau did not challenge the vacated restitution award, but rather argued that a rehearing was necessary to ensure that the agency can bring enforcement actions against attorneys who violate federal consumer laws, including Regulation O.
2nd Circuit reverses itself, finding no standing to sue for recording delays
On November 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed its earlier determination that class members had standing to sue a national bank for allegedly violating New York’s mortgage-satisfaction-recording statutes, which require lenders to record borrowers’ repayments within 30 days. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the plaintiffs filed a class action suit alleging the bank’s recordation delay harmed their financial reputations, impaired their credit, and limited their borrowing capacity. While the bank did not dispute that the discharge was untimely filed, it argued that class members lacked Article III standing because they did not suffer actual damages and failed to plead a concrete harm under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins. At the time, the majority determined, among other things, that “state legislatures may create legally protected interests whose violation supports Article III standing, subject to certain federal limitations.” The alleged state law violations in this matter, the majority wrote, constituted “a concrete and particularized harm to the plaintiffs in the form of both reputational injury and limitations in borrowing capacity” during the recordation delay period. The majority further concluded that the bank’s alleged failure to report the plaintiffs’ mortgage discharge “posed a real risk of material harm” because the public record reflected an outstanding debt of over $50,000, which could “reasonably be inferred to have substantially restricted” the plaintiffs’ borrowing capacity.
In withdrawing its earlier opinion, the 2nd Circuit found that the Supreme Court’s June decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez (which clarified what constitutes a concrete injury for the purposes of Article III standing in order to recover statutory damages, and was covered by InfoBytes here) “bears directly on our analysis.” The parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the potential impacts of the TransUnion ruling on the 2nd Circuit’s previous decision. The bank argued that while “New York State Legislature may have implicitly recognized that delayed recording can create [certain] harms,” the plaintiffs cannot allege that they suffered these harms. Class members challenged that “the harms that the Legislature aimed to preclude need not have come to fruition for a plaintiff to have suffered a material risk of real harm sufficient to seek the statutory remedy afforded by the Legislature.” Citing the Supreme Court’s conclusion of “no concrete harm; no standing,” the appellate court concluded, among other things, that class members failed to allege that delayed recording caused a cloud on the property’s title, forced them to pay duplicate filing fees, or resulted in reputational harm. Moreover, while publishing false information can be actionable, the appellate court pointed out that the class “may have suffered a nebulous risk of future harm during the period of delayed recordation—i.e., a risk that someone (a creditor, in all likelihood) might access the record and act upon it—but that risk, which was not alleged to have materialized, cannot not form the basis of Article III standing.” The appellate court further stated that in any event class members may recover a statutory penalty in state court for reporting the bank’s delay in recording the mortgage satisfaction.