InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fed announces flood insurance violations
On August 3, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against a Tennessee-based bank for alleged violations of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H. The consent order assesses a $26,500 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,252 per violation.
2nd Circuit: Bankruptcy rule on post-petition mortgage fee notices does not authorize punitive sanctions
On August 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a sanctions order imposed on a mortgage servicer in three chapter 13 cases. According to the opinion, the servicer sent the debtors monthly mortgage statements listing fees that allegedly had not been properly disclosed in the three bankruptcy cases. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Vermont then sanctioned the mortgage servicer $225,000 for violating court orders issued in two of the debtors’ cases, which had declared the debtors current on their mortgages and enjoined the servicer from challenging that fact in any other proceeding. The bankruptcy court also sanctioned the servicer $75,000 for violating Bankruptcy Rule of Procedure 3002.1, which requires creditors to provide formal notice to a debtor and trustee of new post-petition fees and charges and authorizes the bankruptcy court to impose sanctions for non-compliance.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit held that Rule 3002.1 “does not authorize punitive monetary sanctions,” and that the servicer “did not, as a matter of law, violate the court orders.” The appellate court added that “[a] broad authorization of punitive sanctions is a poor fit with Rule 3002.1’s tailored enforcement mechanism and limited purpose,” noting that the bankruptcy court in this case is “apparently the first and only one to impose punitive monetary sanctions under the rule.” While the bankruptcy court raised “serious concerns” about whether the servicer “is making a good faith effort to comply with Rule 3002.1,” the appellate court concluded that “[a] concern, even a serious concern, is not a finding.” Concluding that the $225,000 sanction was based on an improper finding of contempt, the appellate court vacated and reversed the order.
FDIC releases June enforcement actions
On July 30, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in June. During the month, the FDIC issued 14 orders and one decision, consisting of “four Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalties, one Section 19 Application, two Orders Terminating Consent Orders, four Orders of Termination of Insurance, and six Orders of Prohibition from Further Participation.” Among the orders is a civil money penalty imposed against a South Dakota-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank “[m]ade, increased, extended or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance.” The order requires the payment of a $30,000 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also imposed a civil money penalty against a Missouri-based bank concerning alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank “made, increased, extended or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without providing timely notice to the borrower and/or the servicer as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral.” The order requires the payment of a $1,000 civil money penalty.
DFPI releases report on CRMLA
On August 2, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation released a report examining residential mortgage lending, rates, consumer complaints, foreclosures, and other data elements during 2020. The DFPI compiled data submitted by licensed non-bank mortgage lenders under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA). According to the report, “nonbank residential mortgage loans doubled from 2019 to 2020 as more Californians refinanced or obtained new loans in response to lower interest rates despite the economic downturn that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic.” The report also noted that there was an approximate 68 percent decrease in foreclosures in response to Covid-19 moratoriums meant to protect consumers and an almost 19 percent decline in complaints. Other key findings include that (i) the number of mortgage loans originated increased by 100.5 percent; (ii) the number of loans brokered increased by 52.7 percent; and (iii) the aggregate average amount of loans serviced by licensees each month increased by 12.4 percent compared to 2019.
CFPB, FHFA release updated data on borrowers’ mortgage experiences
On July 29, the CFPB and FHFA released updated loan-level data for public use, which provides insights into borrowers’ experiences during the process of obtaining residential mortgages, as well as their perceptions of the mortgage market and future expectations. The data, collected through the National Survey of Mortgage Originations, adds mortgage data from 2018 through 2019. Key highlights include: (i) the percentage of respondents who reported not being concerned about qualifying for a mortgage during the application process increased from 48 to 51 percent for home purchase mortgages and 57 to 66 percent for refinances; (ii) having an option for a paperless online mortgage process continued to remain relatively high in terms of importance (40 percent for home purchase mortgages and 44 percent for refinances); and (iii) the percentage of respondents who applied for a mortgage through a mortgage broker increased from 42 to 46 percent for home purchase mortgages and 30 to 38 percent for refinances, whereas the percentage of respondents who applied directly through a bank or credit union decreased from 54 to 49 for home purchase mortgages and 67 to 61 for refinances.
District Court approves supplemental $22 million class action foreclosure settlement
On July 26, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of a proposed supplemental class settlement, adding new class members who were not part of the list of borrowers included in the court’s October 2020 original settlement order. The supplemental settlement provides more than $21.8 million for additional class members who lost their homes after allegedly being denied loan modifications from a national bank. Class members include borrowers who allegedly should have qualified for loan modifications but were not offered a home loan modification or repayment plan “due to excessive attorney’s fees being included in the loan modification decisioning” and “whose home[s] [the bank] sold in foreclosure.” According to the court’s order granting class certification, a software glitch allegedly caused a calculation error, which resulted in certain fees being misstated and led to incorrect mortgage modification denials. The original settlement set aside $1 million to compensate borrowers who endured “severe emotional distress” as a result of the error, and the supplemental settlement will provide new class members the same opportunity to apply for additional settlement amounts.
CSBS releases regulatory prudential standards for nonbank mortgage servicers
On July 26, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) released model state regulatory prudential standards for nonbank mortgage servicers. The prudential standards provide states with “a consistent framework that ensures covered nonbank servicers maintain the financial capacity to serve consumers and investors with heightened transparency, accountability and risk management standards.” According to CSBS, in the past 10 years, the nonbank mortgage servicer market has grown from 6 percent to 60 percent of the government agency mortgage market, representing at least 45 percent of the servicing market overall, with “[n]onbank mortgage servicers currently administer[ing] roughly three-quarters of the servicing for loans in Ginnie Mae mortgage backed-securities” (encompassing loans to veterans, first-time homebuyers, and low-to-moderate income borrowers). In response to concerns raised by state regulators about the lack of state standards to address servicers’ capital and liquidity levels, as well as inadequate corporate governance and board oversight identified by state and federal examiners, state regulators approved the prudential standards, which focus on two main areas: financial condition and corporate governance. The prudential standards—which “align with existing federal minimum eligibility requirements, wherever practical, to minimize regulatory burden for servicers”—cover both agency and non-agency servicing, and apply to servicers that service at least 2,000 loans and operate in at least two states. Exempt are small servicers that do not meet the minimum requirements, reverse mortgage loan servicers, not-for-profit mortgage servicers, and housing agencies. State agency commissioners are also given the authority to “increase requirements for high-risk servicers or even suspend the requirements in times of economic, societal or environmental volatility.” The prudential standards are part of CSBS’s eight Networked Supervision 2021 priorities, which are intended to advance its “strategy to streamline nonbank licensing and supervision and generate new data for risk analysis through expanded use of technology platforms.”
7th Circuit vacates $59 million CFPB penalty against mortgage-assistance relief companies
On July 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated a 2019 restitution award in an action brought by the CFPB against two former mortgage-assistance relief companies and their principals (collectively, “defendants”) for violations of Regulation O. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2014, the CFPB, FTC, and 15 state authorities took action against several foreclosure relief companies and associated individuals, including the defendants, alleging they made misrepresentations about their services, failed to make mandatory disclosures, and collected unlawful advance fees. The district court’s 2019 order (covered by InfoBytes here) held one company and its principals jointly and severally liable for over $18 million in restitution, while another company and its same principals were held jointly and severally liable for nearly $3 million in restitution. Additionally, the court ordered civil penalties totaling over $37 million against company two and four principals.
In 2021, the principals urged the 7th Circuit to vacate the judgment, arguing, among other things, that the restitution order used the company’s net revenues instead of net profits in determining restitution and that they were exempt from liability because Regulation O exempts properly licensed attorneys engaged in providing mortgage-assistance relief services as part of the practice of law, provided they comply with state law and regulations. The principals also disagreed with the district court’s finding that they acted recklessly in calculating the civil penalty amount, contending that “they were not aware of a risk that their conduct was illegal.”
The 7th Circuit reviewed 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 (covered by InfoBytes here). While the Bureau argued that Liu focused on disgorgement and not restitution, the appellate court held that the Bureau’s interpretation was “too narrow a reading of Liu.” According to the appellate court, “Liu’s reasoning is not limited to disgorgement; instead, the opinion purports to set forth a rule applicable to all categories of equitable relief, including restitution.” The appellate court vacated the restitution award and remanded the suit for recalculation based on net profits.
With respect to the alleged violations of Regulation O, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling, concluding 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 of the 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.” The appellate court ordered the district court to apply the penalty structure for strict-liability violations. Additionally, the 7th Circuit remanded an injunction which permanently banned the principals from providing “debt relief services,” finding that the injunction requires “some tailoring” as the violations at issue involved mortgage-relief services and not debt-relief services.
Agencies announce additional actions to prevent Covid-19 foreclosures
On July 23, President Biden announced additional actions taken by HUD, the VA, and USDA, which are intended to ensure stable and equitable recovery from disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and prepare homeowners to exit mortgage forbearance. According to the Biden administration, the goal of these new measures is to bring homeowners with HUD-, VA-, and USDA-backed mortgages closer in alignment with options provided for homeowners with Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed mortgages (covered by InfoBytes here). Specifically, mortgage servicers will be required or encouraged to offer new payment reduction offers to assist borrowers.
- HUD. FHA announced enhanced Covid-19 recovery loss mitigation options to help homeowners with FHA-insured mortgages who have been financially impacted by the pandemic. Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2021-18 supersedes previously issued FHA-loss mitigation options, and will, among other things, require mortgage servicers to offer a zero-interest subordinate lien option to eligible homeowners who can resume their existing mortgage payments under the “COVID-19 Recovery Standalone Partial Claim” option. For borrowers that are unable to resume their monthly mortgage payments, FHA established the “COVID-19 Recovery Modification” option, which extends the term of a mortgage to 360 months at market rate and targets a 25 percent principal and interest (P&I) reduction for all eligible borrowers. Servicers may start offering the options as soon as operationally feasible but must begin using the new options within 90 days. These additional options supplement FHA Covid-19 protections published last June (covered by InfoBytes here), which extended the foreclosure and eviction moratorium, expanded the Covid-19 forbearance and home equity conversion mortgage extension, and established the Covid-19 advance loan modification.
- VA. The VA also announced it will offer a new “COVID-19 Refund Modification” option to assist veterans impacted by the pandemic who need a significant reduction in their monthly mortgage payments. Under the plan, the VA will be able to purchase a veteran’s past-due payments and unpaid principal—subject to certain limits—“depending on how much assistance is necessary,” and, in certain circumstances, veterans will be able to receive a 20 percent payment reduction (certain borrowers may be eligible to receive a larger reduction). Mortgage servicers will modify the loan to ensure veterans can afford future mortgage payments. Similar to the VA’s “COVID–19 Veterans Assistance Partial Claim Payment” (covered by InfoBytes here), the deferred indebtedness will be established as a junior lien, which will not accrue interest, will not require monthly payments, and will only become due once the property is sold or the guaranteed loan is paid off or refinanced. The option is available through September 30, 2021.
- USDA. The agency announced new Covid-19 special relief measures, as well as clarifications to existing policies, for servicing borrowers impacted by the pandemic. USDA noted that Chapter 18 Section 5 of Handbook-1-3555 will be expanded to include “COVID-19 Special Relief Alternatives,” which includes an option that targets a 20 percent reduction in a borrower’s monthly P&I payments and offers “a combination of interest rate reduction, term extension and mortgage recovery advance.” These measures are immediately available and will be effective through December 31, 2022. Eligible borrowers must occupy the property, must not be more than 120 days past due on March 1, 2020, and must have received an initial forbearance due to a pandemic-related hardship before September 30, 2021.
CFPB: Credit applications rebound to pre-pandemic levels
On July 27, the CFPB published a special issue brief finding that consumer applications for auto loans, new mortgages, and revolving credit cards had, for the most part, returned to pre-pandemic levels by May 2021. The brief compares the number of applications made in these categories before the pandemic to the number being made now and provides a state-by-state analysis of the change in applications. Highlights of the brief include: (i) sub-prime borrower credit applications increased in conjunction with federal stimulus payments; (ii) auto loan inquiries dropped 52 percent by the end of March 2020 but returned to their usual pre-pandemic trend by January 2021; however, the Bureau reports wide geographic variability in the demand for auto loans while changes in credit card applications were generally uniform; (iii) new mortgage credit inquiries experienced a smaller drop in March 2020 compared to other credit types but later saw a surge, with inquiries exceeding the usual, seasonally adjusted volume by 10 to 30 percent—a reflection of unusually high activity seen throughout the pandemic; (iv) revolving credit card inquiries declined by over 40 percent and took the longest to rebound, not returning to normal levels until March 2021; and (v) consumers with deep subprime credit scores represented the largest decline in auto loan inquiries compared to prior years, followed by inquiries from consumers with subprime credit scores, with both categories of consumers also showing declines in new mortgage and revolving credit card inquiries. “While consumer credit applications have generally recovered to pre-pandemic levels in the aggregate, we see important differences across consumers,” acting CFPB Director David Uejio stated. “Both borrowers with superprime and subprime credit scores are still not applying for credit as much as they were pre-pandemic. We will continue to keep a close watch on the marketplace as the economic recovery continues, to help ensure all consumers have access to financial products and services that are fair, transparent, and competitive.”