InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Freddie Mac Updates SCRA Servicing Requirements
On August 15, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2013-05, which, among other things, revises requirements relating to the SCRA and similar state laws and explains servicer responsibilities to effectively implement military relief legal protections. Specifically, Freddie Mac eliminated the requirement that servicers collect and report official documentation of a servicemember’s disability or death and available government benefits in the event a servicemember dies or becomes disabled while on active duty. In addition, Freddie Mac added a new guide section to include the additional foreclosure relief Freddie Mac provides to servicemembers and their dependents, and repurposed another guide section to remind servicers of their responsibilities to evaluate servicemembers and their dependents for the most appropriate relief or workout option from Freddie Mac’s existing options when a servicemember or dependent: (i) does not qualify for mortgage relief under the provisions of the SCRA or similar state laws; or (ii) qualifies for mortgage relief under the provisions of the SCRA or similar state law, but chooses to explore other relief options.
Eighth Circuit Extends Recent TILA Rescission Holding
On August 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that borrowers facing foreclosure were required to file suit prior to the foreclosure sale to complete the exercise of their right to rescind under TILA. Hartman v. Smith, No. 12-1947, 2013 WL 4407058 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2013). In this case, the bank moved to foreclose after the borrowers failed to make payments to a real estate financing firm with which the borrowers had placed mortgages on the property. After the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale, the borrowers sued the bank and the financing firm, seeking, among other things, to rescind the loans under TILA on the basis that they provided written notice of rescission prior to the foreclosure sale. Applying its recent holding in Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 720 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. Jul. 12, 2013) that a borrower seeking rescission under TILA must file suit within three years to preserve the borrower’s right of rescission, the court again held that providing notice under TILA is a necessary but not sufficient predicate to exercising the right to rescind. Here, where the foreclosure sale occurred within the three-year rescission period, the court held that the borrowers were required to file a rescission action in a court prior to the foreclosure sale. Because they failed to do so, the court held that their rescission claim was barred.
CFPB Issues Report on Examination Findings, Other Supervisory Activities
This afternoon, the CFPB released its summer 2013 Supervisory Highlights report, which covers supervisory activity from November 2012-June 2013. This is the second such report the CFPB has released; the first report came out in October 2012 and covered activity from July 2011 through September 2012.
The report provides a brief review of the CFPB’s public enforcement actions and non-public supervisory actions and developments in the supervision program, including the issuance of bulletins, the issuance of new fair lending examination procedures, and the reorganization of supervision staff. The report also reviews the CFPB’s risk-based approach to examinations, including the “Institution Product Lines” approach, and outlines the factors that influence examination priorities. The report does not identify any planned supervisory activities.
The bulk of the report, however, summarizes the CFPB’s examination findings. Key findings are discussed below.
Compliance Management Systems (CMS)
- CMS Elements
- Although the report states no specific CMS structure is required, it also states that, based on the CFPB’s supervisory experience, an effective CMS commonly has the following components: (i) board and management oversight; (ii) compliance program; (iii) consumer complaint management program; and (iv) independent compliance audit. The report provides additional discussion on each component.
- Nonbanks
- The report states that nonbanks are more likely than banks to lack a robust CMS. The CFPB found one or more instances of nonbanks that lack formal policies and procedures, have not developed a consumer compliance program, or do not conduct independent consumer compliance audits. According to the CFPB, the lack of an effective CMS has, in a number of instances, resulted in violations of Federal consumer financial laws. In these instances, the CFPB has required appropriate corrective action.
- The report notes that CMS deficiencies in nonbanks are generally related to the supervised entity’s lacking a CMS structure altogether. CFPB examinations have found instances where nonbanks do not have a separate compliance function; rather, compliance is embedded in the business line, which can lead to deficiencies.
- Banks
- The CFPB found that banks generally had an adequate CMS structure; however, several institutions lacked one or more of the components of an effective CMS.
- The most common weakness the CFPB identified in banks is a deficient system of periodic monitoring and independent compliance audits. An entity that lacks periodic monitoring and instead relies on an annual independent compliance audit to identify regulatory violations and CMS deficiencies increases its risk that violations and weaknesses will go undetected for long periods of time, potentially leading to multiple regulatory violations and increased consumer harm.
Mortgage Servicing
- Servicing Transfers
- Examiners found noncompliance with RESPA’s requirement to provide disclosures to consumers about transfers of the servicing of their loans.
- Examiners also noted lack of controls relating to the review and handling of key documents – such as loan modification applications, trial modification agreements, and other loss mitigation agreements – necessary to ensure the proper transfer of servicing responsibilities for a loan.
- Examiners noted that one servicer did not review any individual documents that the prior servicer had transferred, such as trial loan modification agreements.
- At another servicer, examiners determined that documentation the servicer received in the transfer was not organized or labeled, and as a result, the servicer did not utilize loss mitigation information provided to the prior servicer in its loss mitigation efforts.
- Payment Processing
- A servicer provided inadequate notice to borrowers of a change in the address to which they should send payments, which constituted a potentially unfair practice impacting thousands of borrowers. The entity acted promptly to ensure that it did not impose late fees or other delinquency fees, or any other negative consequences.
- A servicer decided – without notice to borrowers – to delay property tax payments from December of one year to January of the next, resulting in the borrowers’ inability to claim a tax deduction for the prior year, which the CFPB cited as an unfair practice.
- A servicer paid certain property taxes late, in violation of RESPA. The CFPB directed the servicer to pay any fees associated with the late payment and to investigate whether consumers experienced any additional harm as a result of the late payments. Further, at the CFPB’s direction, the servicer will notify consumers of the late payment and solicit information about any additional harm. If any such harm is identified, the servicer will remediate it.
- Examiners have found violations of the Homeowners Protection Act (HPA) at several servicers. In one examination, examiners found excessive delays in processing borrower requests for private mortgage insurance (PMI) cancellation. Additionally, in cases where PMI was canceled, the servicer improperly handled unearned PMI premiums in violation of the HPA. The CFPB required the servicer to amend its policies and procedures relating to PMI cancellation. The servicer also must conduct a review to determine whether borrowers were subject to additional harm caused by delays in processing PMI cancellations.
- Examiners identified a servicer that charged consumers default-related fees without adequately documenting the reasons for and amounts of the fees. Examiners also identified situations where servicers mistakenly charged borrowers default-related fees that investors were supposed to pay under investor agreements. Servicers have refunded these fees to borrowers.
- Loss Mitigation
- Examiners have found issues related to: (i) inconsistent borrower solicitation and communication; (ii) inconsistent loss mitigation underwriting; (iii) inconsistent waivers of certain fees or interest charges; (iii) long application review periods; (iv) missing denial notices; (v) incomplete and disorganized servicing files; (vi) incomplete written policies and procedures; and (v) lack of quality assurance on underwriting decisions.
- The CFPB states that weak compliance management surrounding loss mitigation processes creates fair lending risk and that it expects that entities servicing mortgage loans will implement fair lending policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that they are ECOA compliant. The CFPB states that servicers should conduct fair lending training for loss mitigation staff and engage in effective and timely fair lending risk assessments, compliance monitoring, and testing.
Fair Lending
- ECOA
- The report states that some lenders are not complying with various aspects of the adverse action notification requirements under ECOA and Regulation B. The CFPB has found instances where supervised entities violated ECOA and Regulation B by failing to comply with either the provision, content, or timing requirements for adverse action notices and has directed the entities to develop and implement plans to ensure that the appropriate monitoring and internal controls are in place to detect and prevent future violations.
- The report specifically notes that loan servicers should have systems in place to determine whether borrowers who apply for a change in the terms of credit are entitled to adverse action notices. The CFPB notes that some institutions may find it helpful to arrange for independent, internal reviews of loan files to ensure that the documentation supports the action taken and that all timing requirements are met. In addition, the report states that institutions should provide comprehensive periodic training to management and staff regarding compliance with ECOA and Regulation B, including compliance with provisions on adverse action notices.
- CMS Elements
Freddie Mac Updates Disaster Assistance, Other Servicing Policies
On August 15, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2013-15, which updates and revises many of its servicing requirements, including those related to assistance for borrowers impacted by an eligible disaster. With respect to such impacted borrowers, the Bulletin provides updated requirements related to (i) property protection activities, such as ascertaining the extent of the damage, and, if necessary, securing abandoned properties, (ii) managing the delinquency of a borrower whose mortgaged premises or place of employment was impacted by a disaster, (iii) the addition of the new Disaster Relief Modification for Borrowers who were current or less than 31 days delinquent at the time of a disaster, (iv) streamlined modifications for borrowers who were current or less than 31 days delinquent at the time of a disaster, (v) Trial Period Plan eligibility requirements, (vi) insurance loss settlements, and (vi) credit reporting. The Bulletin also instructs servicers to follow applicable state laws when handling Freddie Mac default legal matters (e.g. foreclosure) and adds a new Guide chapter about when servicers should take advantage of state procedures that allow for quickly completing foreclosures. Further, the Bulletin (i) revises requirements for servicemembers and their dependents, (ii) revises property inspection requirements, (iii) revises requirements for the reimbursement of attorney fees and costs related to contested foreclosures and mediation, expenses incurred for title work, and condominium, homeowners association and Planned Unit Development assessments in super lien states, (iv) permanently extends the submission time frame for 104SF claims from 30 days to 45 days, and (v) updates unemployment forbearance requirements.
Fannie Mae Updates Servicer Disaster Assistance Policies
On August 7, Fannie Mae issued Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-16, which updates assistance policies for borrowers affected by earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, or other catastrophes caused by a person or event beyond the borrower’s control. The announcement provides a table of new pre-approved forbearance terms for borrowers affected by a disaster. Fannie Mae reminds servicers that while they have discretion to determine the appropriate duration of forbearance, any forbearance that exceeds the set terms must be approved in writing by Fannie Mae. The announcement also (i) updates requirements for insurance claim settlements, (ii) requires that income documentation be no more than 180 days old at the time of the post-disaster foreclosure prevention alternative evaluation, (iii) directs servicers to suspend credit reporting for a disaster-impacted borrower during a repayment plan or Trial Period Plan if the borrower is making the required payments, (iv) reduces eligibility requirements for streamlined modifications for borrowers completing a disaster-related forbearance plan in a FEMA-declared disaster area, (v) introduces a new modification, the Cap and Extended Modification for Disaster Relief, and (vi) addresses escrow analysis requirements prior to offering a Trial Period Plan for certain disaster-related modifications. All of these policy changes took effect immediately.
California Federal District Court Grants Class Certification in HAMP Litigation
On August 5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class of borrowers who allege that a mortgage servicer wrongly rejected mortgage modification applications and improperly initiated foreclosure proceedings. Gaudin v. Saxon Mortg. Svcs., Inc., No. 11-1663, 2013 WL 4029043 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013). The named plaintiff contends that a trial modification plan provided by her servicer constituted a binding contract that required the servicer to evaluate the borrower under the Home Affordable Modification Program and, if all conditions of the trial plan were satisfied, offer the borrower a permanent modification. According to the borrower, the servicer later, without cause, refused to offer a permanent modification and breached the contract, thereby violating California’s Rosenthal Act and Unfair Competition Law. On the borrower’s motion for class certification, the court held that the case presents significant common questions of law and fact concerning the nature and scope of the trial plan, and that the borrower’s alleged injury is similar to, if not precisely the same as, the potential class because the servicer’s issuance and countersigning of the trial plans constitute a single course of conduct. The court rejected the servicer’s argument that the borrower’s claims are subject to unique defenses because the servicer will argue that the borrower misrepresented her income, explaining that a defendant cannot defeat typicality if it intends to raise similar arguments in response to all class members.
New York Codifies Pre-Foreclosure Filing Requirement
On July 31, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed AB 5582, which seeks to reduce the number of incomplete foreclosure cases that are filed, but stalled, awaiting information needed to move the cases to mandatory settlement conferences. To do so, the bill requires a foreclosure attorney who is filing a foreclosure complaint involving a home loan to sign and file a “certificate of merit” with the complaint, stating that, to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information and belief, there is a reasonable basis for the commencement of such action and that the plaintiff is currently the creditor entitled to enforce the applicable mortgage documents. The attorney also must attach to the complaint or the certificate copies of the relevant debt instruments and any instruments of modification, extension, consolidation, and assignment. The new law allows for the filing of supplemental affidavits where the debt instrument is lost. The new requirements take effect August 30, 2013. This law follows State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s enforcement effort to address similar problems – he sued at least one financial institution for allegedly failing to timely file requests for judicial intervention which would trigger court-supervised foreclosure settlement conferences.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Alter Servicing Incentives
This week, Fannie Mae (SVC-2013-15) and Freddie Mac (Bulletin 2013-14) announced that they are altering certain servicing incentives. Effective for all collection periods with a start date on or after August 1, 2013, the two entities are eliminating the complete Borrower Response Package and Delinquency improvement performance standard and the related incentive and compensatory fee structure. Servicers still must collect the package when required to do so by the enterprises’ respective guides. In addition, for mortgages with HAMP modification effective dates on or after April 1, 2014, the entities are increasing the servicer incentive by $500 if the modification is completed in accordance with the Guide.
Federal Reserve Board Announces Additional Foreclosure Review Settlement
On July 26, the Federal Reserve Board released an amended consent order with one of the several financial institutions that entered into a consent order in April 2011 to resolve allegations that the institutions engaged in improper mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices. The agreement follows numerous others released earlier this year. Under this latest agreement the institution will pay roughly $230 million, including $32 million to satisfy its obligation to provide loss-mitigation assistance since it no longer owns a significant residential mortgaging portfolio. Together, all the amended consent orders will provide approximately 4.4 million borrowers a total of more than $3.8 billion in cash compensation while an additional $5.8 billion will be provided by the servicers in commitments for loss-mitigation assistance, such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments. For the participating servicers, the amendments also replace the requirements related to the Independent Foreclosure Review process set out under the original consent orders.
Eleventh Circuit Affirms TILA's Safe Harbor Exception Applies to Servicer Seeking to Foreclose
On July 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a mortgage servicer moving to foreclose on borrowers pursuant to an assignment from the lender’s nominee was exempt from TILA’s debt ownership disclosure requirements. Reed v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. 12-15755, 2013 WL 3868079 (11th Cir. Jul. 29, 2013). The borrowers argued that the assignment made the servicer the new owner of the debt and triggered the servicer’s obligation under TILA to inform the borrowers of a change in debt ownership. The court agreed with the servicer and the district court, holding that the servicer was exempt from the disclosure requirements because it was operating under an assignment made solely for “administrative convenience,” based on the plain meaning of those terms, which are not defined in the statute. The court held that because the servicer was operating within the administrative convenience safe harbor, it was allowed to service the loan – including by seeking to foreclose on the home – without making any additional disclosure. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the servicer.