InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC and Federal Reserve Board Extend Independent Foreclosure Review Program Deadline
On August 2, the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC announced that the deadline for borrowers to seek review of their mortgage foreclosures under the Independent Foreclosure Review program has been extended to December 31, 2012. Under the program, an eligible borrower can have his or her foreclosure reviewed by independent consultants to determine whether the borrower was financially injured due to errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in the foreclosure process. An injured borrower may be eligible for compensation or other remedies. The program originally was scheduled to close April 30, 2012, but has been extended numerous times over the past year.
State Law Update: Massachusetts Set to Enact Foreclosure Reform Measure
On July 26, the Massachusetts state legislature passed a bill, H 4323, that establishes new pre-foreclosure requirements that will make it harder to foreclose in that state. Under the bill, prior to initiating a foreclosure sale, a creditor must make specified good faith efforts to avoid foreclosure, including assessing potential mortgage modification options. The bill sets up a pre-foreclosure process by which a creditor must notify a borrower of his or her right to a loan modification assessment. In addition, the bill (i) prohibits publication of a foreclosure notice if the creditor knows or should know that the mortgagee is neither the note holder or the note holder’s authorized agent, (ii) requires that assignments be recorded in the registry of deeds and that each assignment of a mortgage be referenced in any notice of foreclosure for a given property, and (iii) establishes a task force to study foreclosure mediation programs. Governor Deval Patrick is expected to sign the bill, the majority of which would take effect November 1, 2012.
OCC and DOJ Announce SCRA Enforcement Action Against a National Bank
On July 26, the OCC and the DOJ announced resolution of actions brought against a national bank for alleged violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The DOJ filed a complaint and consent order in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, simultaneously bringing and resolving allegations that over a roughly five year period the bank failed to provide sufficient protections to servicemembers (i) denying valid requests for interest rate reductions because the servicemembers’ military orders did not include specific end dates for the period of military service, (ii) foreclosing without a court order, (iii) repossessing motor vehicles without a court order, and (iv) obtaining default judgments without first filing accurate affidavits. Under the DOJ settlement, the bank must pay $12 million in damages to servicemembers. Concurrently, the OCC released consent orders resolving similar allegations. Under both the DOJ and OCC orders, the bank must take specific actions to enhance compliance with SCRA, including with regard to vendor management, training, and internal reporting. The OCC also is requiring that the bank report periodically to the OCC, and conduct a look-back review of its servicemember accounts. The DOJ notes that the bank already has adopted enhanced SCRA policies on its own initiative, including extending a four percent interest rate to qualifying servicemembers and giving an additional one-year grace period before de-enrolling servicemembers from the reduced interest rate program.
State Law Update: Illinois, Michigan, Oregon Enhance Borrower Protections
Illinois Enhances Borrower Protections. On July 25, Illinois enacted SB 1692, which enhances consumer protections related to mortgages and tax refund anticipation loans. The bill amends the state’s High Risk Home Loan Act to (i) update the definition of “high risk home loan” to be consistent with the federal standard, and prohibit prepayment penalties, balloon payments and modification fees for such loans, (ii) revise the definition of “points and fees” and clarify the prohibition on the financing of such fees in connection with high risk loans, and (iii) limit late payment fees to 4% of the amount past due. The bill also amends the state’s Tax Refund Anticipation Loan Disclosure Act to (i) revise certain definitions, (ii) limit the fees that can be charged in connection with tax refund loans and establish other prohibited activities, and (iii) amend the disclosures required for creditors making such loans. These and other changes in the bill are effective January 1, 2013.
Michigan Updates Guidance on Return Check Fees on Installment Sales Contracts. On July 19, the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation (OFIR) published a letter to installment seller/sales finance licensees clarifying the regulator’s position on the use of return check fees in installment sales contracts. Previously, the OFIR had taken the position that inclusion of an NSF fee in a vehicle installment sales contract was not permitted because such a fee was not expressly permitted under the state’s Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act (MVSFA). However, in its July 19 letter the OFIR clarified that the OFIR considers it a violation of state law for a licensee under the MVSFA to charge a fee for returned checks if the motor vehicle installment sales contract does not specifically provide for the assessment of such a fee. The OFIR states that the MVSFA requires a contract contain all of the terms of the agreement between a buyer and a seller, including any default charges. Although the state Credit Reform Act permits regulated lenders to charge return check fees up to a maximum of $25, because a returned check constitutes a default under the contract, a return check fee is considered a default charge and can only be assessed if disclosed in the agreement.
Oregon Adopts Rules to Implement Foreclosure Avoidance Program. Recently, the Oregon Department of Justice adopted temporary rules to implement the Foreclosure Avoidance Mediation Program established earlier this year. The rules establish (i) the accepted methods of notice required to be provided to the state Attorney General, (ii) the minimum training and qualifications for mediators, (iii) the fees and timing of fee payments, and (iv) the form of mediation notice for use in seeking nonjudicial foreclosure. The rules took effect July 11, 2012, and expire January 6, 2013.
Oregon Supreme Court Agrees to Address Electronic Mortgage Registry's Role as Beneficiary; Two California Appellate Courts Affirm Electronic Registry's Beneficiary Role
On July 19, the Oregon Supreme Court accepted certified questions arising from four cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon related to the role of an electronic mortgage registry as beneficiary. Brandrup v. ReconTrust Company, N. A. (S060281) (question certified from D. Or. Case No. 3:11-cv-1390-JE). The judge in those matters asked Oregon’s highest court to determine whether under state law (i) such a registry, that is neither a lender nor successor to a lender, may be a "beneficiary," (ii) an electronic registry may be designated as beneficiary where the trust deed provides the registry holds only the legal title to the interests granted by the borrower, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, the registry has the right to exercise any or all of those interests, (iii) the transfer of a promissory note from the lender to a successor results in an automatic assignment of the securing trust deed that must be recorded prior to the commencement of nonjudicial foreclosure, and (iv) an electronic registry can retain and transfer legal title to a trust deed as nominee for the lender, after the note secured by the trust deed is transferred from the lender to a successor or series or successors. The court’s decision on these questions may also have implications for a recent decision in which the a state appellate court held that, under Oregon law, the term beneficiary can only mean the person named or otherwise designated in the trust deed as the person to whom the secured obligation is owed. Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, No. CV 10020001, 2012 WL 2915520 (Or. App.Ct. Jul. 18, 2012). As such, the court held, a beneficiary that uses an electronic registry, and does not publicly record assignments of a trust deed, cannot avail itself of the state’s nonjudicial foreclosure process. That holding is contrary to substantialOregon case law.
Recently, in matters pending in California regarding similar issues, two appellate courts rejected challenges to an electronic registry’s role as beneficiary brought by borrowers as a defense in their foreclosure actions. Taasan v. Family Lending Services, Inc. No. A132339, 2012 WL 2774967 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st. Dist. Jul. 10 2012); Skov v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. H036483, 2012 WL 2054996 (Cal. Ct. app. 6th Dist. Jun. 8, 2012). For example, in Taasan, the court held that the foreclosing entity need not have physical possession of the note in order to initiate a nonjudicial foreclosure.
Massachusetts Federal Court Upholds Local Foreclosure Laws
On July 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed several banks’ challenge to a Massachusetts city’s foreclosure-related ordinances. Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield, No. 11-30280, 2012 WL 2577582 (D. Mass. Jul. 3, 2012). The banks sued to enjoin the City of Springfield from enforcing two local ordinances related to foreclosures: one that regulates the maintenance of vacant properties and properties in the foreclosure process, and another that requires mediation prior to foreclosures. The banks argued that (i) state law preempts both ordinances, (ii) the vacant property ordinance violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and (iii) a provision of the vacant property ordinance that requires a cash bond constitutes a tax prohibited by state law. The court in ruling for the city held that the ordinances are not preempted by state law because neither significantly alters the foreclosure process or the mortgagee-mortgagor relationship established by state law, and the imposition of additional duties does not create a conflict with state law. With regard to the federal constitutional challenge, the court held that the vacant property ordinance does not violate the Contracts Clause because any impairment of the banks’ contracts under the ordinances is minor, and even if substantial, the ordinance falls within the city’s police powers, is appropriately tailored to protect a basic societal interest, and imposes reasonable conditions on mortgagors. Finally, the court allowed the bond requirements of the vacant property ordinance to stand, reasoning that it is a regulatory fee and not a tax because the portion of the bond retained by the city is reasonably designed to compensate the city for regulatory expenses.
Key Parts of California "Homeowner Bill of Rights" Signed Into Law
On July 11, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law two bills (AB 278 and SB 900) that form part of the state’s proposed “Homeowner Bill of Rights.” Effective January 1, 2013, the two substantively identical bills will (i) codify a number of protections similar to those contained in the Multistate Servicer Settlement between 49 state attorneys general, the Federal Government, and the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers announced in February, (ii) amend the mechanics of California’s foreclosure processes, and (iii) provide borrowers with new private rights of action. Several other parts of the Homeowner Bill of Rights remain pending, as described in a fact sheet prepared by the California Attorney General.
Special Alert Update: Portions of California's "Homeowner Bill of Rights" Signed Into Law
As an update to a development we reported last week, on July 11, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law two bills that form part of the state's proposed "Homeowner Bill of Rights." Effective January 1, 2013, the two substantively identical bills will (i) codify a number of protections similar to those contained in the Multistate Servicer Settlement between 49 state attorneys general, the Federal Government, and the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers announced on February 9, (ii) amend the mechanics of California’s foreclosure processes, and (iii) provide borrowers with new private rights of action. Several other parts of the Bill of Rights remain pending, as described in a fact sheet prepared by the California Attorney General.
Sixth Circuit Holds Foreclosure Filing Before Transfer of Mortgage and Note May Violate FDCPA
On June 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that a misrepresentation of the creditors name in a foreclosure action may constitute a false representation actionable under Section 1692e of the FDCPA. Wallace v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., No. 10-3694, 2012 WL 2379664 (6th Cir. June 26, 2012). In Wallace, a law firm allegedly brought a foreclosure action before the firms bank client received an assignment of the mortgage and transfer of the promissory note. The borrower contended that the law firm violated the FDCPA in foreclosing on behalf of the bank before the transfer and assignment occurred. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the failure to record an assignment before filing a foreclosure action is not a deceptive practice under the FDCPA. The Sixth Circuit disagreed and reversed, holding that the borrowers allegations were sufficient to support a claim of material misrepresentation that would confuse or mislead an unsophisticated consumer.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules That Lenders May Foreclose Without Possessing Mortgage Note, But Only In Certain Circumstances
On June 22, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that lenders do not need to be in physical possession of a mortgage note to foreclose on a property, but that they must establish that they are acting on behalf of the noteholder. Eaton v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, No. SJC-11041, 2012 WL 2349008 (Mass. June 22, 2012). The lower court had preliminarily enjoined defendant Fannie Mae from evicting the plaintiff following a foreclosure sale; that court interpreted the term “mortgagee,” as used in Massachusetts’ statutes, to refer to a person holding both the mortgage and the mortgage note. At the time of the foreclosure, the foreclosing party held only the mortgage. Reversing the lower court, the Supreme Judicial Court found that the term “mortgagee” refers to a person who (i) holds the mortgage, and (ii) either physically holds the mortgage note or acts on behalf of the mortgage note holder. Recognizing that it was common prior practice to interpret the term “mortgagee” as requiring possession of only the mortgage, the court held that its new interpretation of “mortgagee” should be given only prospective effect.