InfoBytes Blog

CFPB Report Highlights Errors In Mortgage And Student Loan Servicing

On October 28, the CFPB released the fifth edition of its Supervisory Highlights report. The report highlighted the CFPB’s recent supervisory findings of regulatory violations and UDAAP violations relating to consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, mortgage servicing and student loan servicing. The report also provided updated supervisory guidance regarding HMDA reporting relating to HMDA data resubmission standards.  With respect to consumer reporting, the report identified a variety of violations of FCRA Section 611 regarding dispute resolution.  The report noted findings of several FDCPA and UDAAP violations in connection with debt collection, including: (i) unlawful imposition of convenience fees; (ii) false threats of litigation; (iii) improper disclosures to third parties; and (iv) unfair practices with respect to debt sales.  For deposits, the report identified several Regulation E violations found, including: (i) error resolution violations; (ii) liability for unauthorized transfers; and (iii) notice deficiencies.   The report outlines four main compliance issues identified in the mortgage servicing industry: (i) new mortgage servicing rules regarding oversight of service providers; (ii) delays in finalizing permanent loan modifications;  (iii)  misleading borrowers about the status of permanent loan modifications; and (iv) inaccurate communications regarding short sales. Finally, the report outlines six practices at student loan servicers that could constitute UDAAP violations: (i) allocating the payments borrowers make to each loan, which results in minimum late fees on all loans and inevitable delinquent statuses; (ii) inflating the minimum payment due on periodic and online account statements; (iii) charging late fees when payments were received during the grace period; (iv) failing to give borrowers accurate information needed to deduct loan interest payments on tax filings; (v) providing false information regarding the “dischargeable” status of a loan in bankruptcy; and (vi) making  debt collection calls to borrowers outside appropriate hours.

CFPB FDCPA FCRA UDAAP Student Lending HMDA

Special Alert: CFPB Finalizes Points-and-Fees Cure and Other Mortgage Rule Amendments

Last week, the CFPB finalized an important amendment to its ATR/QM Rule that provides a mechanism for curing points-and-fees overages on qualified mortgage (“QM”) loans, as well as more minor amendments to its mortgage origination and servicing rules.  The new rules, which were proposed in April, are detailed below.  The discussion below regarding the new origination rules, including the points-and-fees cure, will also appear with the American Bankers Association/BuckleySandler publication, The New CFPB Mortgage Origination Rules Deskbook.  (Click here for information about obtaining copies of the Deskbook.)

Click here to view the full special alert.

Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.

• Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
• Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
• John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
• Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
• Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010

CFPB Qualified Mortgage Ability To Repay Mortgage Origination

CFPB Finalizes Qualified Mortgage Points & Fees Cure

On October 22, the CFPB finalized targeted amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act mortgage rules that took effect in January 2014.  The amendments include:

• Points and fees cure.  Under the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule, loans must meet certain requirements to receive “qualified mortgage” or “QM” status.  In particular, the points and fees charged to a consumer on a QM generally cannot exceed 3 percent of the loan amount.  The amendments permit a lender or secondary market purchaser that discovers, after the loan has closed, that the 3 percent cap was exceeded to retain QM status by refunding the excess amount to the consumer with interest. However, the refund must occur within 210 days after consummation and before the consumer files suit, provides written notice to the lender that the cap has been exceeded, or becomes 60 days past due.  In addition, the creditor must maintain and follow policies and procedures for reviewing points and fees and providing refunds to consumers. Although the CFPB stated that this amendment is intended to encourage lenders to provide access to credit to consumers seeking loans that are at or near the points and fees limit, the provision will expire on January 10, 2021.

• Debt-to-income cure.  In the April proposal, the Bureau requested comment on the need for a cure for loans that inadvertently exceed the 43% debt-to-income requirement for QMs made under Appendix Q.  The Bureau deferred action on this issue, stating that it is considering the comments and whether to address the issue in a future rulemaking.
• Ability-to-Repay exemption for non-profits expanded.  Certain 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations that lend to low- and moderate-income consumers are already exempt from the Ability-to-Repay rule if the organization makes no more than 200 mortgages a year, among other limitations. The CFPB has amended this provision to allow certain non-profit groups to continue extending interest-free, forgivable loans, also known as “soft seconds,” without regard to the 200-mortgage loan limit.
• Small servicer exemption expanded.  Certain small servicers are exempt from some of the CFPB’s new mortgage servicing rules, so long as they (and their affiliates) service 5,000 or fewer mortgage loans and they (or their affiliate) are the creditor or assignee for all of the loans.  However, some non-profit organizations do not meet this exemption because they service loans, for a fee, from other associated non-profit lenders that are not considered “affiliates,” even though they operate under mutual contractual obligations to serve the same charitable mission, and use a common name, trademark, or servicemark.  Because of this unique corporate structure, these non-profit organizations did not qualify for the small servicer exemption, unlike their for-profit counterparts with similar arrangements.  The final rule expands the small servicer exemption to include these non-profit organizations, so long as they are 501(c)(3) non-profits that service loans on behalf of other non-profits within a common network or group of nonprofit entities, and meet other requirements.

CFPB Qualified Mortgage Ability To Repay

CFPB Finalizes Rule To Limit Relief From Annual Privacy Notice Delivery Requirements

On October 20, the CFPB finalized its amendment to Regulation P, which requires that financial institutions meet specific consumer data-sharing requirements, including the delivery of annual privacy notices. Under the new rule, bank and nonbank institutions under the CFPB’s jurisdiction will now be allowed to post privacy notices online, rather than deliver an annual paper copy. Institutions that choose to post notices online must meet certain conditions, including (i) providing notice to consumers if the institution shares any data to third parties, in addition to providing an opportunity to opt out of such sharing; and, (ii) using the 2009 model disclosure form developed by federal regulatory agencies. The institutions that choose to rely on the new delivery method must (i) ensure that customers are aware of the notices posted online; (ii) provide paper copies within ten days of a customer’s request; and, (iii) make customers aware that the privacy notice(s) are available online—and that a paper copy will be provided at the customer’s request—by inserting a “clear and conspicuous statement at least once per year on an account statement, coupon book, or a notice or disclosure.” As outlined when the proposed rule was issued in May, the CFPB anticipates that the rule will: (i) provide consumers with constant access to privacy notices; (ii) limit the amount of an institution’s data sharing with third parties; (iii) educate consumers on the various types of privacy policies available to them; and, (iv) reduce the cost for companies to provide privacy notices.

CFPB Disclosures Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

CFPB Proposes Language Access Plan To Provide Services In Non-English Languages

On October 23, the CFPB announced its proposal for a Language Access Plan, continuing its efforts to provide non-English speaking persons access to its programs and services. The Language Access Plan “describes the Bureau’s policy and how the Bureau’s current language access activities are implemented across all of the Bureau’s operations, programs and services.” Comments on the proposed plan are due by January 6, 2015.

CFPB

Webinar Recap: The CFPB's Expanding Oversight of Auto Finance, Part I

On October 1, 2014, Buckley Sandler hosted a webinar, The CFPB’s Expanding Oversight of Auto Finance, Part One. Through an examination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) authority, recent enforcement activities, and discussion of the exam process, John Redding, Michelle Rogers, andMarshall Bell explored the different areas of the auto finance industry coming into the CFPB’s focus.

Buckley Sandler will present The CFPB’s Expanding Oversight of Auto Finance, Part Two on October 30, 2014.

Explaining the Larger Participant Rule

Since its creation, the CFPB has held statutory authority to supervise nonbank institutions who are “a larger participant of a market for other consumer financial products or services.” On September 17, 2014, the CFPB proposed a rule defining a market for “automobile financing” and “larger participants” within that market. Under this proposed rule:

• A nonbank institution is a larger participant in the auto finance market if it “has at least 10,000 aggregate annual originations,” which includes:
  • Credit granted for the purpose of purchasing an automobile
  • Refinancings
  • Automobile leases
  • Purchases of extensions of credit and leases
• An “automobile” includes any self-propelled vehicle used primarily for a consumer purpose for on-road transportation, except for certain identified vehicle types, including recreational vehicles, motor scooters and limited others
• Affiliates are included in calculations but dealers are excluded

Supervisory & Enforcement Activities & Trends

Our attorneys noted that potential fair lending issues resulting from dealer “reserve” (also known as “participation”), which is the amount paid based on the difference between the buy rate and contract rate, remains the CFPB’s top area of focus in auto finance at this time, though the CFPB is expected to expand its focus beyond fair lending in the near future. They identified ancillary products, debt collection, and credit reporting as likely areas of CFPB expansion and noted that while the CFPB does not have authority to enforce the Sevicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (SCRA), the Bureau may rely on its Unfair, Deceptive, Abusive Acts and Practices (UDAAP) authority in seeking to extend its authority with respect to SCRA claims. The panelists went on to identify specific areas of CFPB interest under each area of enforcement.

Outlining the Exam Process

Each panelist is experienced in working with the CFPB, including in the examination context. They offered their insights on working with the CFPB to negotiate modifications of timing and scope of examination requests, educating examiners on business operations, and responding to Potential Action and Request for Response (PARR) and Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (NORA) letters. Our panelists stated that ECOA exams of creditors are one of the most common CFPB examinations in the auto finance industry, reviewing the following three aspects of transactions:

• Buy rates
• Mark up
• Underwriting decisions

The exam process may include:

• Initial information request/ “first day letter”
• Request for transactional data
• Discussions to clarify exam scope, responsibilities, resources and document control
• Presentations of key operational processes
• Statistical testing to detect potential disparities on a prohibited basis in underwriting outcomes, buy rates or “mark up”
• Notification of alleged violations or concerns may be communicated by:
  • “Soft exit” meeting or formal exit meeting
  • PARR/NORA letter
  • Written examination report
  • Informal discussion

   

CFPB Auto Finance

Proposed Changes to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule

On October 10, the CFPB issued a proposal to modify and make technical amendments to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule, issued in November of 2013. Specifically, the CFPB proposes to (i) relax the timing requirements associated with the redisclosure of interest rate dependent charges and loan terms after consumers lock in a floating interest rate, such that creditors would have until the next business day after a consumer locks in a floating interest rate to provide a revised disclosure; and (ii) add language to the Loan Estimate form that creditors could use to inform a consumer that the consumer may receive a revised Loan Estimate for a construction loan that is expected to take more than 60 days to settle. In addition, the Bureau proposes non-substantive changes such as technical corrections and corrected or updated citations and cross-references in the regulatory text and commentary, minor word changes throughout the regulatory text and commentary, and an amendment to the 2013 Loan Originator Rule, to provide for placement of the NMSR ID on the integrated disclosures. The CFPB is accepting comments on the proposed changes through November 10, 2014. The CFPB noted its intention to finalize the proposed amendments quickly in order to provide the industry adequate time to implement any resulting changes by August 1, 2015, the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule.

CFPB TILA RESPA TRID

CFPB Report Analyzes Private Student Loan Borrowers' Complaints

On October 16, the CFPB announced the findings of its annual student loan ombudsman report. Analyzing over 5,000 private student loan complaints that the CFPB received from October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014, the report highlights the struggle private loan borrowers face in repaying their loans, noting that many are driven into default because practical repayment options are not available to them. The report outlines three main reasons why many private student loan borrowers default: (i) they are unaware of the loan modifications available to them; (ii) they do not have the same affordable options that federal student loan borrowers are entitled to by law; and (iii) the temporary forbearance options that some lenders offer often result in “burdensome enrollment fees and processing delays.” In connection with the report, the CFPB released a sample letter that consumers can edit and send to servicers to request lower monthly payments and information on available repayment plans, as well as a sample financial worksheet to assist borrowers to determine maximum funds available to pay their student loans.

CFPB Student Lending

CFPB And FTC To Hold Roundtable On Debt Collection In The Latino Community

On October 23, the CFPB and the FTC will hold a roundtable to discuss the effects of debt collection and credit reporting in the Latino community. The event will focus on the customers with limited English proficiency, and is scheduled to take place from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Long Beach, CA.

CFPB FTC Debt Collection

CFPB Publishes Proposed Policy Regarding No-Action Letters

On October 10, the CFPB published for comment a proposal for a limited No-Action Letter policy, which appeared in the Federal Register on October 16. The proposed policy aims to “create a process to reduce the regulatory uncertainty that may exist for certain emerging products or services which stand to benefit consumers.” Specifically geared towards financial products and services for which existing statutes and regulations are vague, the proposed policy allows for a CFPB staff member to inform a company that “staff has no present intention to recommend initiation of an enforcement or supervisory action against the requester” by sending a No-Action Letter. The proposed policy requires that the financial product or service that is the subject of a No-Action Letter have substantial consumer benefit when issues of uncertainty regarding certain provisions of statutes implemented by the Bureau arise.

CFPB