InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
HUD Clarifies FHA Loss Mitigation Requirements
On November 1, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2013-40, which clarifies requirements under FHA’s mandatory loss mitigation program and sets expectations for servicers engaging in loss mitigation during the foreclosure process. The letter states that servicers must (i) evaluate on a monthly basis all loss mitigation tools available for delinquent borrowers, (ii) document those evaluations, and (iii) timely evaluate borrower loss mitigation requests and provide specified written responses. HUD emphasizes that servicers may reduce challenges to foreclosure actions by providing thorough explanations about appeal or escalation processes. The letter further advises servicers that a foreclosure may not be commenced for monetary default unless at least three consecutive monthly payments are unpaid, and details other conditions under which a foreclosure may be initiated. Many of these requirements do not apply if the property has been abandoned or vacant for more than 60 days. Once a foreclosure has been initiated, HUD expects servicers to continue to attempt to communicate with borrowers about potential loss mitigation options based on changing circumstances. The letter also (i) details in a chart the actions the servicer must take when it receives a loss mitigation request from a borrower, (ii) discusses servicer requests for additional borrower documents, (iii) identifies events that trigger extensions of time for initiating a foreclosure, and (iv) outlines steps for terminating foreclosures. All of the requirements in the letter are effective January 1, 2014.
HUD Releases Draft Section Of Overhauled SF Handbook
On October 29, HUD released a draft section of its new FHA Single Family Housing Policy Handbook (SF Handbook). The draft section consolidates all FHA Single Family requirements—including content from hundreds of mortgagee letters, housing notices, and other requirements—for application through endorsement into a single, authoritative source for FHA Single Family Housing Policy. HUD stated that the new SF Handbook is “universally and fundamentally different in the format, style, content and delivery.” While many of the changes made in developing this first draft section of the SF Handbook are designed to conform FHA policy to a standard format using clear, consistent language, other proposed revisions reflect actual proposed changes to policy. The draft section and other information about the broader project are available on a new HUD website. HUD provided tips for reviewing the draft and requested that stakeholders provide comments on the draft section by November 29. HUD noted that the draft posting is the first phase of a multi-phased effort to overhaul the SF Handbook.
Tentative Settlement Reached In SCOTUS Disparate Impact Case
On October 31, the Philadelphia Inquirer and national media outlets reported that a tentative agreement has been reached to resolve the underlying claims at issue in Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey, et al. v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al., No. 11-1507, an appeal currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that could provide the Court an opportunity to rule on whether a disparate impact theory of liability is cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. Briefing before the Supreme Court has been ongoing—over the past week respondents filed their brief, as did numerous supporting parties, including a group of state attorneys general—and argument is scheduled for December 4. If the settlement holds, this will be the second time in recent years that a case involving these issues pending before the Court has settled before the Court had an opportunity to hear the case. Attention likely now will turn to litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over a HUD rule finalized earlier this year. That rule specifically authorized disparate impact or “effects test” claims under the Fair Housing Act. The case has been stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome in Mt. Holly.
HUD Updates Foreclosure Procedures, Pre-Foreclosure Borrower Communication Policies
On October 28, HUD issued two mortgagee letters related to the servicing of certain FHA-insured loans. Mortgagee Letter 2013-38 provides a list of the first legal actions necessary to initiate a foreclosure and the reasonable diligence timeframes for completing foreclosure and acquisition of title in each state. The letter also outlines acceptable delays in those timeframes due to mediation or bankruptcy, or when a separate legal action is necessary to acquire possession of the title. In addition, the letter provides a new schedule of allowable attorney fees by state for services performed in connection with a mortgage default. The updated reasonable diligence timeframes apply to all cases in which the first legal action to initiate foreclosure occurs on or after November 1, 2013. The updated attorney fees are effective for all cases in which certain actions occur on or after November 1, 2013. Mortgagee Letter 2013-39 updates the timelines servicers must follow for collection communications, advises servicers regarding early engagement in loss mitigation, outlines staffing requirements to support timely borrower communications, and provides guidance on the timing, content, and method of delivery for collection letters and other borrower communications. This letter also advises servicers to pay special attention to borrowers at risk of early payment default and re-default, and provides specialized collection techniques for such borrowers. Finally, this letter details the FHA’s expectations for escalating borrower inquiries and complaints that allege (i) improper analysis of borrower information or denials of loss mitigation options, (ii) foreclosures initiated or continued in violation of HUD’s policy, or (iii) any other violations of HUD collections and loss mitigation policies. This guidance is effective for all mortgages in default as of January 1, 2014.
CFPB Sues Law Firm Over Alleged RESPA Violations
On October 24, the CFPB announced the filing of a lawsuit against a Kentucky law firm and its principals for allegedly violating Section 8 of RESPA by operating a network of affiliated companies in order to pay “kickbacks” for referrals of mortgage settlement business. The CFPB claims, among other things, that from 2006 until 2011 the law firm established nine joint ventures (JVs) with owners and managers of real estate and mortgage brokerage companies. According to the CFPB, when a JV partner or an agent or employee of the JV made an initial referral of closing or other settlement services to the law firm, the law firm arranged for the title insurance for the underlying transaction to be issued through the co-owned JV in exchange for the settlement business. The parties subsequently split profits generated by the JVs as a result of the title insurance referrals, the CFPB alleges. The CFPB is seeking to enjoin the defendants from the alleged activity, and disgorgement of all income, revenue, proceeds, or profits received in connection with settlement services provided as a result of or in connection with a referral made in violation of RESPA.
The CFPB supports its claims in part by referencing certain factors first established in a HUD policy statement for use in determining whether a controlled business arrangement is a “sham.” For example, the CFPB alleges that (i) in most instances, the initial capitalization for the JV was provided by the law firm and comprised of only enough funds to cover the JV’s Errors and Omissions insurance, (ii) each JV had only one staffer—a single independent contractor simultaneously shared by all nine JVs and concurrently employed by the law firm, (iii) the law firm principals and employees or agents of the law firm managed the business affairs of the JVs, (iv) the JVs did not have their own office spaces, email addresses, or phone numbers and could not function independently from the law firm, (v) the JVs did not advertise themselves to the public, and (vi) all of the JV’s business was referred by the law firm. However, the CFPB never characterizes the business arrangements in this case as a “sham” and does not explicitly cite HUD’s policy statement.
This is at least the sixth RESPA action publicly announced by the CFPB and the second involving allegedly improper affiliated business arrangements. As with the other RESPA actions it has announced to date, the investigation that led to the current lawsuit originated with HUD and transferred to the CFPB when authority for RESPA transferred in July 2011. The CFPB appears to be exercising for the first time in a RESPA case its independent civil litigating authority to pursue the allegations, whereas HUD lacked such litigating authority and typically would have resolved the investigation through a negotiated settlement or a referral to the DOJ for litigation. The announcements, combined with the prior actions, suggests that the Bureau remains focused on enforcing Section 8 of RESPA—including through litigation—even as it focuses substantial attention on implementing extensive revisions to RESPA and other mortgage rules.
Special Alert: Agencies Issue Joint Statement On Fair Lending Compliance And The CFPB's ATR/QM Rule
On October 22, the CFPB, the OCC, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve Board, and the NCUA (collectively, the Agencies) issued a joint statement (Interagency Statement) in response to inquiries from creditors concerning their liability under the disparate impact doctrine of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and its implementing regulation, Regulation B by originating only “qualified mortgages.” Qualified mortgages are defined under the CFPB’s January 2013 Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule). The DOJ and HUD did not participate in the Interagency Statement.
The Interagency Statement describes some general principles that will guide the Agencies’ supervisory and enforcement activities with respect to entities within their jurisdiction as the ATR/QM Rule takes effect in January 2014. The Interagency Statement does not state that a creditor’s choice to limit its offerings to qualified mortgage loans or qualified mortgage “safe harbor” loans would comply with ECOA; rather, the Agencies state that they “do not anticipate that a creditor’s decision to offer only qualified mortgages would, absent other factors, elevate a supervised institution’s fair lending risk.” Furthermore, the Interagency Statement will not necessarily preclude civil actions.
The Agencies acknowledge that although there are several ways to satisfy the ATR/QM Rule, some creditors may be inclined to originate all or predominantly qualified mortgages, particularly when the ATR/QM Rule first becomes effective. In selecting business models and product offerings, the Agencies “expect that creditors would consider and balance demonstrable factors that may include credit risk, secondary market opportunities, capital requirements, and liability risk.” The Agencies further understand that creditors may have a “legitimate business need” to fine-tune their product offerings over the next few years in response to the impact of the ATR/QM Rule, just as they have in response to other significant regulatory changes that have occurred in the past.
The Agencies advise creditors to continue to evaluate fair lending risk as they would for other types of product selections, including by carefully monitoring their policies and practices and implementing effective compliance management systems. Nonetheless, the Agencies state that individual cases will be evaluated on their own merits.
The Agencies state that they “believe that the same principles…apply in supervising institutions for compliance with the Fair Housing Act.” However, because neither DOJ nor HUD participated in issuing the Interagency Statement, it remains to be seen how those agencies would view this issue.
It is noteworthy that the standard articulated in the Interagency Statement (“legitimate business needs”) differs from HUD’s disparate impact rule relating to the Fair Housing Act. In its rule, HUD codified a three-step burden-shifting approach to determine liability under a disparate impact claim. Once a practice has been shown by the plaintiff to have a disparate impact on a protected class, the rule states that the defendant would have the burden of showing that the challenged practice “is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests of the respondent…or defendant…A legally sufficient justification must be supported by evidence and may not be hypothetical or speculative.” (Emphasis added.)
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
Bank Holding Company Resolves Federal Mortgage Claims
On October 10, a bank holding company announced that it has agreed in principle, on behalf of itself and certain affiliates, to resolve mortgage-related allegations by the federal government. The company reached agreements in principle with HUD and the DOJ to settle (i) certain civil and administrative claims arising from FHA-insured mortgage loans originated over a six-and-a-half year period and (ii) certain alleged civil claims regarding the company’s mortgage servicing and origination practices as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement. Pursuant to the agreements in principle, the company committed to $500 million of consumer relief, a $468 million cash payment, and the implementation of certain mortgage servicing standards. The company also reached an agreement in principle with the Federal Reserve Board to impose a $160 million civil monetary penalty, in conjunction with an April 2011 Consent Order.
Federal District Court Invalidates Application Of HUD Regulation Requiring Full Payment of Reverse Mortgage From Surviving Spouses
On September 30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that a HUD regulation defining conditions under which it would insure a reverse mortgage agreement, which would have made it easier for lenders to foreclose on homes occupied by surviving spouses, contradicted the governing statute. Bennett v. Donovan, 11-498, 2013 WL 5424708 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2013). The surviving spouses in this case, neither of whom were legal borrowers under the reverse mortgages entered into by their spouses, sought declaratory relief that HUD’s regulations requiring that the mortgage be due and payable in full if a borrower dies and the property is not the principal residence of at least one surviving borrower violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the rule is inconsistent with the governing statute. The statute protects “homeowners,” as opposed to “borrowers,” from displacement and defines “homeowner” to include “spouse of the homeowner.” Applying the Chevron deference test, the court held that that the plain meaning of the statute is not contradicted by context or legislative history and clearly provides for the loan obligation to be deferred until the homeowner’s and the spouse’s death. The court held that the regulation as applied to the surviving spouses is invalid, and, consistent with guidance from the D.C. circuit, directed HUD to determine the appropriate relief.
HUD Issues Three Mortgagee Letters
On September 27, HUD issued three Mortgagee Letters. In Mortgagee Letter 2013-34, HUD announced the indefinite delay of pre-foreclosure sale (PFS) requirements for FHA mortgagees, which were announced in July. Mortgagee Letter 2013-35 announces that, effective March 31, 2014, HUD will consolidate the identification numbers it issues to FHA lenders under Title I and II. Finally, Mortgagee Letter 2013-36 updates guidance regarding 203(k) insured mortgages in the Hurricane Sandy disaster area.
Special Alert: HUD Proposes Its Own QM Rule
On September 27, HUD released a proposal defining what constitutes a “qualified mortgage” (QM) for purposes of loans insured by the FHA. We have prepared a Special Alert regarding this proposal, which, once it is finalized and takes effect, will replace the temporary QM definition for FHA loans established by the CFPB in its January 2013 Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule. QMs, when made in accordance with the applicable requirements, provide lenders with some legal protection against borrower lawsuits under TILA alleging the lender did not sufficiently consider the borrower’s ability to repay the loan.
The CFPB’s temporary QM definition will continue to apply to loans that are eligible to be guaranteed or insured by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Agriculture until those agencies establish their own QM definitions. Similarly, the CFPB’s temporary QM definition will continue to apply to loans that are eligible to be purchased or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or any successor entity for as long as those entities remain under the conservatorship or receivership of the Federal Housing Finance Authority or until January 10, 2021, whichever is earlier.
Questions regarding the matters discussed in the Special 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
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010