InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie Mae adds new entities to fake-employer list
On January 29, Fannie Mae issued a new fraud alert to mortgage lenders warning them of 15 new potentially fictitious employers that have recently been appearing on mortgage applications. As previously covered in InfoBytes, Fannie Mae’s mortgage fraud program has issued several prior alert bulletins to the mortgage industry regarding active and potentially fraudulent schemes, all of which have identified fake employers in California. This new alert adds 15 additional California companies to that list, which now includes 65 potentially fake companies. The GSE alert offers “red flags” for lenders to be aware of when processing loan applications, including high starting salaries and paystubs that lack common withholdings for such things as health insurance and 401(k). Additionally, the alert bulletin suggests that lenders verify the existence of employers listed on borrower applications, and practice careful due diligence in the entire application process.
1st Circuit: Statute of limitations starts on loan closing
On January 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against a mortgage holder and a loan servicer (defendants), concluding the allegations were barred on statute-of-limitations grounds. In 2018, ten years after the borrower defaulted on her loan, she filed a suit against the defendants “alleging that the loan was predatory because at its inception the lender knew or should have known that she would not be able to repay it.” The borrower alleged first that the defendants violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) by committing unfair and deceptive practices when trying to enforce a “predatory mortgage loan,” and second that the defendants violated the Massachusetts Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (MFDCPA) by collecting or attempting to collect on the loan in an unfair, deceptive, or unreasonable manner. The district court dismissed the first claim as time-barred, stating that the four-year statute of limitations period began when the borrower closed on the loan in 2005. The district court also ruled that Chapter 93, Section 49 of the MDFCPA does not provide a private right of action for the second claim.
The 1st Circuit affirmed on appeal, determining that, with respect to the borrower’s MCPA claim, the four-year limitations period “began to run on the signing date when interest began to accrue,” and that the borrower failed to show that any of the defendants’ later collection actions triggered a new limitations period. Concerning the borrower’s MFDCPA claim that the collection efforts were “unfair because they constituted enforcement of inherently unfair and deceptive loan terms,” the appellate court concluded it was unnecessary to decide the issue of whether the borrower held a private right of action under the MFDCPA because the borrower’s claim is time-barred.
CFPB updates HMDA Small Entity Compliance Guide
On January 24, the CFPB published the HMDA Small Entity Compliance Guide with updates to integrate the HMDA final rule issued in October. According to the guide, HMDA rule changes include (i) the types of institutions and transactions that are subject to Regulation C; (ii) the information that institutions must collect and report; and (iii) the process for reporting the information. As previously covered in InfoBytes, some institutions are exempt from the information collection and reporting requirements. Additionally, the guide notes that effective January 1, 2022, the rule “reduces the loan-volume threshold for covered open-end lines of credit to 100 covered open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years” from the temporary threshold of 500 lines, previously covered here. It also clarifies and expands the categories of excluded transactions.
OCC fines bank on flood insurance
On January 21, the OCC assessed a nearly $18 million civil money penalty against a national bank lender for alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA). According to the OCC, the bank allegedly maintained FDPA policies and procedures which allowed the bank’s third-party servicer to extend the 45-day period after notification to the borrower that the flood insurance did not adequately cover the collateral. The OCC alleged that this resulted in the “untimely force placement of flood insurance” on loans secured by buildings or mobile homes located in special flood hazard areas. The bank agreed to pay the penalty without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.
Kraninger outlines plan to extend GSE patch, previews QM Rule
According to sources, on January 17, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger sent a letter to prominent members of Congress announcing plans to extend the qualified mortgage patch—which exempts loans eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) from the Qualified Mortgage (QM) Rule’s 43 percent debt-to-income (DTI) ratio—for a short period beyond its current January 2021 expiration. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the Bureau issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking last July to solicit feedback on, among other things, whether the DTI limit should be altered and how Regulation Z and the Ability to Repay/QM Rule should be amended to minimize disruption from the so-called GSE patch expiration. Kraninger notes in her letter that the Bureau plans to propose an amendment to the QM Rule to replace DTI ratios as a factor in mortgage underwriting with an alternative measure of credit risk. One alternative, Kraninger says, could be to use pricing thresholds based on the difference between the loan’s annual percentage rate and the average prime offer rate for a similar loan. The Bureau is also considering adding a “seasoning” approach through a separate rulemaking process to give safe harbor to certain loans when the borrower has made timely payments for a certain period, Kraninger states. Sources report that the Bureau plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking no later than May.
District Court approves class settlement in mortgage tax action
On January 15, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted final approval of a class action settlement between homeowners and a mortgage company to resolve allegations that the company violated the Internal Revenue Code by failing to report deferred mortgage interest from certain consumers with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM), which allegedly prevented consumers from fully benefiting from the mortgage tax credit. According to the approval order, the plaintiffs contended that “even though the accrued interest is added back to principal, the negative amortization is still interest that should have been reported” to the IRS. However, the order notes that the court previously rejected this theory in part, finding that 26 U.S.C. § 6050H “is ambiguous as to ‘how, whether and when’ such interest must be reported.” Furthermore, the order notes that in 2016 the company began investigating and reporting the negative amortization on loans received via transfer from other companies that allegedly failed to include the negative amortization in their data. These transferred loans, the company asserted, were the only instances where it failed to report negative amortization. Under the terms of the settlement, the company is required to provide amended mortgage interest statements to homeowners whose capitalized interest was incorrectly reported to the IRS for the 2016 through 2018 tax years.
Democratic Congressmen ask GAO to look at alternative data in mortgage lending
On January 16, Democratic members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) inquiring about the benefits and drawbacks of using alternative data in mortgage lending, as well as the federal government’s role in overseeing the use of alternative data credit reporting agencies (CRAs) and lenders. The letter notes that while alternative data can be useful in helping lenders identify creditworthy potential borrowers who cannot be scored by CRAs through traditional measures, questions remain about how the use of alternative data may affect compliance with fair lending laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act. “While some alternative data, such as rental payment history, may provide an objective measure of creditworthiness, others might enable discrimination on the basis of a protected class, or infringe upon consumer privacy,” the letter cautions. The letter asks GAO to study the use of alternative data in expanding access to credit, with a particular focus on mortgage credit, and poses the following questions:
- How have different entities used alternative data to expand access to mortgage credit? Specifically, can alternative data determine consumer creditworthiness and whether a consumer is able to repay a mortgage? Additionally, are there certain alternative data sources that are better at predicting creditworthiness or some that are more likely to raise concerns about correlations with discriminatory factors? Furthermore, what federal activity has there been in this space?
- What are the potential benefits and risks associated with using alternative data and financial technology for access to mortgage credit, and are there variations in these benefits and risks across different groups, including minorities and younger borrowers?
- What potential risks does alternative data pose to fair lending compliance, and are the regulatory and enforcement agencies that govern the credit-granting system equipped to manage and prepare for an increased use of alternative data in mortgage lending?
- How do the benefits and trade-offs of other options for expanding access to mortgage credit compare to the use of alternative data in credit scoring?
District Court shuts down mortgage relief operation; issues $18.4 million judgment
On December 30, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada had, on December 5, granted its motion for summary judgment in an action against a mortgage loan modification operation (operation) for allegedly violating the FTC Act and the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule (MARS Rule). The January 2018 complaint alleged that the operation had engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices when it “preyed on financially distressed homeowners” by making false representations in advertising that its mortgage relief services could prevent foreclosures and “substantially lower” mortgage interest rates, as previously covered here. Additionally, the complaint charged that the operation used “doctored logos” in correspondence with consumers to give the impression that it was “affiliated with, endorsed or approved by, or otherwise associated with the federal government’s Making Home Affordable loan modification program,” and similarly claimed affiliation or “special arrangements” with the holder or servicer of the consumer’s loan. The court agreed with the FTC’s allegations, finding that the operation violated the FTC Act and the MARS Rule. The court entered a monetary judgment against the operation of over $18.4 million as equitable relief, which the FTC may use to compensate consumers harmed by the operation’s business practices. To the extent that an FTC representative determines that direct consumer redress is impracticable or money remains after redress is completed, the FTC may apply any remaining funds to other equitable relief (including consumer information remedies) that it determines is reasonably related to the practices alleged in the complaint. The court also permanently enjoined the operation from marketing or providing any secured or unsecured debt relief product or service, as well as from making deceptive statements to consumers regarding any other financial product or service.
California Court of Appeal: Borrowers allowed opportunity to cure default on missed loan modification payments
On December 16, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District allowed borrowers who missed payments on their modified mortgage loan to reinstate the loan and avoid foreclosure by paying the amount in default under the terms of the modified loan, rather than the amount that would have been in default under the original loan terms. According to the court, the borrowers missed four monthly payments on their modified loan, which had deferred certain amounts due on the original loan (including principal). The loan-modification agreement stated that any future default would allow the lender to void the loan modification and enforce the original loan terms. According to the lender, in order to reinstate their account and avoid foreclosure, the borrowers would have to pay the amount that would have been past due on the original loan principal before the loan was modified, plus the four missed monthly payments, associated late charges, and fees and costs. The borrowers filed suit, alleging violations of California Civil Code §§ 2924c and 2953. Section 2924c overrides typical mortgage acceleration clauses to give the borrower the right to cure a default by paying the amount in default rather than the entire principal balance, plus specified fees and expenses. Section 2953 provides that the right of reinstatement created by § 2924c cannot be waived in “[a]ny express agreement made or entered into by a borrower at the time of or in connection with the making of or renewing of any loan secured by a deed of trust, mortgage, or other instrument creating a lien on real property.”
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the lender. It held that the loan modification at issue was “appropriately viewed as the making or renewal of a loan secured by a deed of trust . . . and is thus subject to the anti-waiver provisions of Section 2953.” Therefore, the court held that the lender had failed to show that the borrowers “could not prevail on their claim” that the lender violated § 2924c and was accordingly not entitled to summary judgment, and remanded the matter to the trial court.
CFPB releases annual HMDA and TILA adjustments
On December 18, the CFPB announced final rules adjusting the asset-size thresholds under HMDA (Regulation C) and TILA (Regulation Z). Both rules take effect on January 1, 2020.
Under HMDA, institutions with assets below certain dollar thresholds are exempt from the collection and reporting requirements. The final rule increases the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions from $46 million to $47 million, thereby exempting institutions with assets of $47 million or less as of December 31, from collecting and reporting HMDA data in 2020.
TILA exempts certain entities from the requirement to establish escrow accounts when originating higher-priced mortgage loans (HPMLs), including entities with assets below the asset-size threshold established by the CFPB. The final rule increases this asset-size exemption threshold from $2.167 billion to $2.202 billion, thereby exempting creditors with assets of $2.202 billion or less as of December 31, from the requirement to establish escrow accounts for HPMLs in 2020.