InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie Mae Announces Numerous Updates to Selling Guide
On January 17, Fannie Mae issued Selling Guide Announcement SEL-2013-01, which provides notice of updates to several Selling Guide topics. First, eligibility for delivery of FHA-insured, HUD-guaranteed, VA-guaranteed, and RD-guaranteed mortgages is now available on a negotiated basis only. This change is effective for all government loans, including whole loans sold to Fannie Mae on or after May 1, 2013, and government loans in MBS with issue dates on or after May 1, 2013. Second, with regard to borrower refunds for overpayment of fees, effective immediately, the Guide has been updated to allow reimbursements in purchase transactions and limited cash-out refinance transactions to include refunds that may be required in accordance with certain federal laws or regulations. In such cases, the HUD-1 Settlement Statement must clearly identify the refund with a notation for the reason, and the loan file must include documentation to support the amount and reason for the refund. Third, the Announcement details a new policy regarding acceptable principal balance curtailments that may be made prior to delivery of a mortgage loan to Fannie Mae and lists the reasons for which Fannie Mae will permit curtailments, as well as documentation and delivery requirements. Finally, the Announcement lists updates and clarifications related to mortgage loans with an inter vivos revocable trust borrower.
CSBS Announces Implementation Date for National Mortgage Loan Originator Test
On January 16, the CSBS announced that a new national mortgage loan originator (MLO) test with a uniform state component will be available on April 1, 2013. The 2009 SAFE Act requires that MLOs pass a test in order to obtain a state originator license through the NMLS. Since adoption of the SAFE Act, the test has been comprised of two parts: a national component and a state-specific component. The new test administered by the NMLS is meant to streamline the licensing process for originators seeking to obtain licenses in multiple states. Twenty state agencies will no longer require a state-specific test component as of April 1, 2013, with four more states removing the requirement on July 1, 2013. The NMLS posted additional details about the test, including costs and enrollment eligibility.
Special Alert: CFPB Issues Final Ability-to-Repay / Qualified Mortgage Rule
On January 10, the CFPB issued its keenly awaited final "Ability-to-Repay" rule under Regulation Z that will require lenders to verify a consumer's ability to repay a mortgage loan as required by Sections 1411 and 1412 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This rule will become effective on January 10, 2014. Concurrently, the CFPB released a proposal seeking comment on amendments to the final rule. Together, the releases containing the final and concurrent proposed rules total almost 1,000 pages. This alert highlights some key issues that the releases resolve and leave open; we will send a summary of the releases with additional analysis of the key issues once we have had more time to review.
Because of the severe penalties established by Congress for violating the "Ability to Repay" requirements - a borrower in foreclosure can assert a violation against the creditor or assignee seeking up to three years of finance charges paid on the loan - the key definitions and exemptions established by the rule are expected to greatly influence the availability and cost of residential mortgage credit for years to come.
The statute defines a subset of mortgage loans to be "Qualified Mortgages" (or QMs), which would be more difficult for consumers to challenge on ability-to-repay grounds. The rule resolves three of the major policy debates surrounding the QM concept, as discussed below, but leaves open many related matters:
- Whether the QM definition should be objective (and thus easier to determine compliance with up front but more rigid in application to individual borrowers) or subjective (creating more of a compliance challenge but allowing for more individualized determinations)
- The rule takes the more objective path, using as its underwriting criteria (i) a numerical standard of 43% debt to income (DTI) ratio as the QM cut-off or, alternatively, for the time being, (ii) eligibility for purchase, guarantee or insurance by the GSEs or Federal agencies. (This alternative to the 43% cut-off will become unavailable after seven years or, if earlier and as applicable, until the Federal agencies write their own qualified mortgage rules or the GSE conservatorships end.) Note that jumbo loans, by definition, could not qualify under the GSE/Federal agency alternative; thus, they will have to be made at a 43% DTI just to pass the QM underwriting test.
- Whether the QM definition should encompass much of the market or be limited to the very top end of the market
- The definition clearly includes much of the market. The underwriting criteria described above would make well over 90% of the current residential mortgage marketplace QM eligible. How many of those loans would also pass the separate "points and fees" test for QM (discussed below) is an open question, however.
- Whether QM status would provide a "safe harbor" from liability under the requirements or merely a "rebuttable presumption" that the loan meets the ability-to-repay requirements
- The rule provides a safe harbor for loans with APRs below the "higher-priced" threshold of 150 basis points over the Average Prime Offer Rate (APOR), and a "rebuttable presumption" for loans with an APR above that threshold.
The expansive underwriting criteria adopted in the final rule for QMs will place relatively more importance on the separate QM requirement that points and fees be limited to 3% of the loan amount. Indeed, to many observers, the components of that cap present the most significant unresolved issues in the rule. The final rule includes in the 3% cap both (i) direct and indirect loan originator compensation, as well as (ii) closing charges paid to affiliated settlement providers such as a lender-owned title company.
The inclusion of those items in the 3% cap will place a lot of stress on mortgage brokers and wholesale lending business models (and the brokers that send applications to those lenders) and on the use of affiliates. By including these items in the 3% cap, there will be little room for upfront lender charges. At least on the issue of indirect loan originator compensation, however, the Bureau has shown some potential flexibility by raising the matter in the concurrent proposal.
- Whether the QM definition should be objective (and thus easier to determine compliance with up front but more rigid in application to individual borrowers) or subjective (creating more of a compliance challenge but allowing for more individualized determinations)
CFPB Issues Final Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule and High-Cost Mortgage Rules
On January 10, the CFPB issued the final version of a rule that will require creditors to verify a consumer’s ability to repay prior to making a consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling. The rule defines a “qualified mortgage,” providing a safe harbor from liability for loans with an APR below Regulation Z's “higher-priced” threshold of 150 basis points above the Average Prime Offer Rate, and a “rebuttable presumption” for loans with an APR above that threshold. The rule will become effective on January 10, 2014. Concurrently, the CFPB released a proposal seeking comment on amendments to the final rule that would, among other things, provide exemptions for certain community-based lenders and small portfolio creditors and potentially change the treatment of indirect lender compensation for purposes of the qualified mortgage "points and fees" test. BuckleySandler has prepared a Special Alert that highlights a few key issues resolved and left open by the nearly 1,000-page releases on the rule and concurrent proposal. We will distribute a summary and additional analysis of key issues in the releases once we complete our review of them.
Also on January 10, the CFPB issued two final rules related to high-cost mortgages. The first rule amends Regulation Z to implement changes to TILA made by the Dodd-Frank Act that lengthen the time for which a mandatory escrow account established for a higher-priced mortgage loan must be maintained. This rule also exempts certain transactions from the statute’s escrow requirement. The second rule, which also amends Regulation Z to incorporate Dodd-Frank Act statutory changes, expands the types of mortgage loans that are subject to the protections of the Home Ownership and Equity Protections Act of 1994 (HOEPA), revises and expands the tests for coverage under HOEPA, and imposes additional restrictions on mortgages that are covered by HOEPA, including a pre-loan counseling requirement. This rule also amends Regulation Z and Regulation X to require, among other things, that lenders provide borrowers information about homeownership counseling providers. BuckleySandler is reviewing these rules and will soon provide additional information.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Unfair Competition Claims over Teaser Rates
On January 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a putative class action against a national bank over its adjustable rate mortgage disclosure and payment application. O’Donnell v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 11-16351, slip op. (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013). On appeal, the borrowers argued that the district court erred in holding that their California state-law claims for common law fraud and violations of the Unfair Competition Law based on the lender’s alleged concealment of material facts about the loans’ escalating principal balances and interest rates are preempted by the National Bank Act and OCC regulations. The borrowers also challenged the district court’s dismissal of their state-law breach of contract claim based on allegations that the lender improperly applied payments solely toward satisfying part of the interest owed while adding the remaining interest to the principal balance. In affirming the dismissal, the appeals court held that the fraud and unfair competition claims are expressly preempted because they would force the lender to make additional disclosures not required by federal law. The appeals court also affirmed the district court’s holding that the FTC Act does not provide a private right of action and therefore cannot be employed as a premise for the borrowers’ unfair competition claim. With regard to the borrowers’ breach of contract claim, the court held that the mortgage contract did not include any representation that the lender would apply payments to principal if the payment failed to cover the accrued interest, and, therefore, the borrowers failed to state a plausible claim.
Fannie Mae Obtains Comprehensive Settlement of Repurchase Claims Against Major Lender
On January 7, Fannie Mae and a national bank announced a comprehensive settlement to resolve all outstanding and future repurchase requests on nearly all single-family loans originated by the bank (and other lenders it later acquired) over a nine-year period and subsequently delivered to Fannie Mae. The announcement states that the loans had an outstanding unpaid principal balance of $297 billion as of November 30, 2012. Fannie Mae alleges that the lenders breached representations and warranties on the loans. The bank agreed to pay $3.55 billion in cash to Fannie Mae and to repurchase roughly 30,000 loans with cumulative unpaid principal balances and interest of $6.75 billion. On the loans retained by Fannie Mae, the bank remains responsible for certain payment and other obligations with respect to mortgage insurance rescissions, cancellations and denials, as well as its servicing, third-party indemnification, and recourse obligations. Finally, Fannie Mae and FHFA approved the transfer of servicing rights for roughly one million loans from the bank to specialty servicers, which FHFA stated is designed to benefit borrowers and reduce future credit losses to Fannie Mae.
Ohio Creates Temporary Loan Originator License
Last month, Ohio enacted a bill, S.B. 333, to allow the Division of Financial Institutions to offer a transitional loan originator license to assist an originator licensed by another state to transition to employment with an Ohio-regulated firm. The new license allows a transitioning out-of-state originator to originate loans on a temporary basis—120 days—while the originator completes the requirements of obtaining a state-issued annual license. A transitioning originator must have a sponsor that meets certain criteria and must pay a fee as set by the state regulator. In addition, the law directs the state regulator to adopt regulations allowing an originator from a federally regulated institution to obtain a temporary state license after federal law is changed to allow such transitional licenses. The CFPB has interpreted current federal law to prohibit such transitional licenses.
State Law Update: Michigan Excludes Certain Loans from State Mortgage Laws, Extends Loan Modification Program
On December 22, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed three bills—SB 1283, SB 1284, and SB 1285—to exclude from state mortgage laws, including its predatory lending law and loan originator licensing act, any loan transaction in which the proceeds are not used primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose. The changes took effect immediately. On December 28, the Governor executed SB 1172, which extends until June 30, 2013 a law enacted in 2009 to create a residential mortgage loan modification program. The program provides for a 90-day moratorium before a mortgage lender may pursue a non-judicial foreclosure against a delinquent borrower, during which time the borrower must be given an opportunity to modify the loan. Under prior law the program was scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2012.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Announce Next Phase of ULDD
On December 13, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac published the Phase 2 Specification for the Uniform Loan Delivery Dataset (ULDD), the common set of data elements required by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for single-family loan deliveries as part of the Uniform Mortgage Data Program, an initiative announced in May 2010 to improve appraisal quality and other loan information. The Phase 2 ULDD specification contains a total of 19 joint data points, of which 15 of which were optional for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of the Phase 1 ULDD specification, one data point that was conditionally required for Freddie Mac and optional for Fannie Mae, and three new data points. Lenders must begin collecting the Phase 2 data points for all loans with application received dates on or after March 1, 2014, for loans delivered on or after August 25, 2014.
CFPB Announces First Partnership with a City Government, Highlights Chicago's Consumer Financial Protection Efforts
On December 5, CFPB Director Richard Cordray and Chicago, IL Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced an agreement to share consumer financial protection information and resources. According to Director Cordray, the partnership will allow the CFPB to learn from and expand on the ways Chicago protects its consumers, and help the CFPB determine where it should be focusing its attention by allowing the CFPB to better understand consumer protection challenges that arise locally. The partnership also will allow the city to leverage new resources and information developed by the CFPB. In his statement regarding the partnership, Mayor Emanuel highlighted the city’s recent consumer financial protection initiatives, including (i) the planned introduction of a new City Council ordinance to regulate and license debt collectors, (ii) information gathering on predatory and deceptive acts associated with home repair loans, payday loans, small dollar loans, reverse mortgage products, and mortgage origination and servicing, (iii) new zoning regulations to limit the proliferation of payday lenders, auto-title loan stores, and other predatory financial services, and (iv) the planned introduction of a new ordinance to enhance the Department of Business Affairs & Consumer Protection’s ability to take action against businesses convicted of violating state and federal consumer protection acts.