InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Mortgage sellers, servicers reminded of relief options for borrowers impacted by Covid-19
On March 10, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria released a statement reminding mortgage servicers that borrowers impacted by Covid-19 and experiencing payment hardship would be eligible for hardship forbearance options set forth in the relevant Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac servicing guidelines. Calabria directed sellers and servicers to guidance issued the same day by Freddie Mac, which also reminds sellers and servicers that business continuity plans must be in place in order to conduct business operations in the event of an interruption. Fannie Mae has provided similar guidance to its seller/servicers.
Separately, on March 9, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) issued a notice to all FHA-approved mortgagees and servicers reminding entities of loss mitigation program options that should be offered to distressed borrowers, including those impacted by Covid-19, to prevent foreclosures. These options, FHA noted, are available in the Single Family Housing Policy Handbook, 4000.1 Section III.A.2.
West Virginia amends Safe Mortgage Licensing Act for MLOs
On March 5, the governor of West Virginia signed HB 4353, which, among other things, amends the state’s Safe Mortgage Licensing Act as it relates to the issuance of mortgage loan originator (MLO) licenses. HB 4353 creates “a rational nexus requirement between prior criminal conduct and initial licensure decision making,” to guide commissioners or commissions with licensing authority. The law also details the consideration of past criminal conduct in the initial licensing of an MLO and eliminates offenses of “moral turpitude” from disqualifying an applicant from receiving a license, provided the crime does not have a “rational nexus” to MLO licensure.
New provisions added to the license issuance section of the Safe Mortgage Licensing Act address disqualification from license issuance. Under the new law, the commissioner may not disqualify an applicant from initial licensure because of a prior criminal conviction unless the crime bears a rational nexus to MLO licensure, as determined by consideration of (i) the nature and seriousness of the crime; (ii) the passage of time since the commission of the crime; (iii) the “relationship of the crime to the ability, capacity, and fitness required to perform the duties and discharge the responsibilities of the profession or occupation”; and (iv) any evidence of the applicant’s rehabilitation. In addition, the law permits an individual with a criminal record who has not previously applied for licensure to “petition the commissioner at any time for a determination of whether the individual’s criminal record will disqualify the individual from obtaining a license.” The amendments take effect on May 19.
Massachusetts DOB reminds licensees of requirement for pandemic planning
On March 11, the Massachusetts Division of Banks issued a reminder to licensees to have business continuity plans that address the circumstances of a pandemic outbreak. The Division further advised licensees that it does not require an MLO’s home to be licensed as a branch so long as they do not advertise it as an office or meet consumers there and that it would permit other licensees to work from home, if feasible, subject to the same requirements.
CFPB releases TRID FAQs
On February 26, the CFPB released 10 new lender credit FAQs to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID Rule) compliance. Highlights from the FAQs are listed below:
- “[L]ender credits include [(i)] payments, such as credits, rebates, and reimbursements, that a creditor provides to a consumer to offset” a consumer’s closing costs paid “as part of the mortgage loan transaction”; and (ii) “premiums in the form of cash” provided by a creditor “to a consumer in exchange for specific acts, such as for accepting a specific interest rate, or as an incentive, such as to attract consumers away from competing creditors.”
- Lender credits can be specific or non-specific. Non-specific lender credits are also known as “general lender credits.” The FAQs provide examples of both types of lender credit, and note that the distinction is important, as the two types of lender credits are disclosed differently on the Closing Disclosure.
- Creditors are not required to disclose “a closing cost and a related lender credit on the Loan Estimate if the creditor” absorbs the cost, but will be required to disclose these costs if they are “offsetting a cost charged to the consumer.”
- Creditors are required to disclose a closing cost and a related lender credit on a Closing Disclosure if they absorb the cost, “even if the consumer will not be charged for the closing cost.”
- To disclose lender credits on a Loan Estimate, creditors must calculate the sum “of all general and specific lender credits.”
- The nature of how lender credits are disclosed on a Closing Disclosure varies based on whether it is a general lender credit or a specific lender credit.
- The nature of how lender credits for a “no-cost loan” are disclosed varies based “on whether [a] creditor is absorbing closing costs as well as whether [it] is offsetting costs for specific settlement services.”
- When disclosing all of the closing costs charged to consumers, creditors must include a corresponding total amount of lender credits.
- Creditors that provide “a lender credit to offset a certain dollar amount of closing costs” without specifying which costs are providing a general lender credit. The FAQs outlines the disclosure process.
- Lender credits can only change in certain circumstances. Regulation Z does not limit increases in lender credits on a Loan Estimate, but a decrease in “lender credits disclosed on [a] Loan Estimate” may “lead to a violation of the good faith disclosure standard” if it is not tied to a triggering event outlined in Regulation Z.
FHFA, CFPB release new dataset from National Survey of Mortgage Originations
On February 20, the FHFA and the CFPB announced the release of a new loan-level dataset collected through the National Survey of Mortgage Originations (NSMO). Since 2014, every quarter the FHFA and the CFPB send the NSMO survey to borrowers who recently obtained a mortgage to gather feedback on their experiences, perceptions, and future expectations of the mortgage market. This is the second public use file release of the compiled NSMO data and includes an additional year of mortgage data (2017) as well as information through the third quarter of 2019. The NSMO is a component of the National Mortgage Database, which the FHFA and the CFPB launched in 2012 to help regulators better understand mortgage market trends. The NSMO supports policymaking and research efforts and fulfills the mortgage survey and mortgage market monitoring requirements of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.
Fed issues enforcement action for flood insurance violations
On February 6, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced an enforcement action against a Virginia-based bank for alleged violations of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H, which implements the NFIA. The consent order assesses a $9,500 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 $2,000 per violation.
Fannie, Freddie to drop LIBOR in favor of SOFR
On February 5, the FHFA announced updated LIBOR transition plans for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) single-family and multi-family mortgage sellers and lenders, providing the next steps in the transition from LIBOR to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) for adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) instruments. The next steps include (i) a “[n]ew language require[ment] for single-family Uniform…ARM instruments closed on or after June 1, 2020”; (ii) a requirement that “[a]ll LIBOR-based single-family and multifamily ARMs…loan application dates [must be] on or before September 30, 2020 to be eligible for acquisition”; and (iii) that “[a]cquisitions of single-family and multifamily LIBOR ARMs will cease on or before December 31, 2020.” The announcement links to information directly from the two GSEs: Fannie Mae Multifamily Mortgage Business Lender Letter 20-02, and Fannie Mae Single-Family Sellers Lender Letter LL-2020-01; and Freddie Mac Selling Updates Bulletin 2020-1 and Freddie Mac Multifamily Update on LIBOR Transition. The FHFA LIBOR Transition page notes that the GSEs have already stopped buying ARMs based on LIBOR that mature after 2021 in preparation for the termination of the benchmark’s use.
Miami voluntarily dismisses FHA suits against banks
On January 30, the city of Miami dismissed fair housing lawsuits against four of the largest banks in the U.S. (see orders here, here, here and here). The suits—filed in 2013—claimed that redlining by the banks led to a high rate of mortgage loan defaults, foreclosures, and property vacancies, causing property values to go down, which resulted in reduced tax revenues to the city. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that Miami made plausible claims that the lending practices of two of the banks violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and eventually reduced property tax revenues. Philadelphia recently reached a settlement with a large bank after making similar allegations regarding discriminatory mortgage lending practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
FHFA updates Fannie, Freddie seller/servicer eligibility
On January 31, the FHFA proposed updated minimum financial requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) single-family mortgage sellers and servicers. The updates are designed to provide transparency and consistency of capital and liquidity requirements for sellers and servicers with different business models. A key improvement to the 2015 minimum financial requirements (covered by InfoBytes here), FHFA stated, is that the updated standards will establish financial requirements for servicing Ginnie Mae mortgages. FHFA further noted that the new minimum liquidity standards will only be applied to non-depository institutions—depository institutions will continue to rely on their existing regulatory standards to meet the GSEs’ capital and liquidity requirements. FHFA will accept comments on the proposal for 60 days, and anticipates finalizing the requirements in the second quarter of 2020, with an expected effective date six months after finalization.
Court certifies breach of contract class against bank
On January 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class of mortgage borrowers in a breach of contract suit against a national bank (defendant). In doing so, the court approved a class defined as consumers who (i) had a mortgage loan with the defendant; (ii) qualified for a modification of their loan between 2010 and 2018 “pursuant to the requirements of government-sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), [or] the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)”; (iii) though they qualified, were not offered a loan modification by the defendant due to defendant’s flawed calculations of eligibility; and (iv) had their homes foreclosed upon and sold by the defendant. According to the order, the plaintiffs claimed that in 2013 the “defendant discovered a calculation error that had caused certain fees to be misstated and had resulted in incorrect mortgage modification denials,” but the problem was not fully resolved until 2018.
The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in order to add a plaintiff “whose property was secured by an FHA instrument.” The plaintiffs reasoned that they should have a representative for the FHA contracts as well as a representative for the GSE contracts, in case it is argued that the FHA and GSE contracts are so different that each requires its own representative.