InfoBytes Blog

Fair Housing Groups File First REO Complaint

Last week we posted about plans by the National Fair Housing Alliance and certain of its member organizations to file administrative complaints and/or lawsuits against multiple financial institutions for alleged discriminatory practices with regard to real estate owned (REO) properties in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Yesterday, the first such complaint was filed with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The filing triggers a process through which HUD will now conduct its own investigation of the issues presented. The complaint is based on an NFHA report released earlier this month, which overlooks key considerations with regard to servicer management of REO properties. In announcing this complaint, NFHA indicated another will be filed next week. Servicers should expect several additional complaints in the coming weeks and months.

Mortgage Servicing Fair Housing

Housing Groups Plan Multiple Fair Housing Act Complaints, Release Report on REO Property Maintenance

According to reports, the National Fair Housing Alliance and several of its member organizations (collectively NFHA) indicated this week that they plan to take legal action against multiple financial institutions for alleged discriminatory practices with regard to real estate owned (REO) properties in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The NFHA promised that it will file administrative complaints with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and/or legal complaints in federal courts. The first such complaint could be filed as early as next week. The anticipated complaints will be based on the results of an investigation conducted by the NFHA concerning the practices of several lenders and investors responsible for maintaining and marketing REO properties in African-American and Latino neighborhoods.

According to a report that was released on April 4, the investigation covered more than 1,000 REO properties in nine metropolitan areas including Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas, Dayton, Miami/Fort Lauderdale, Oakland, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Washington, DC. The investigation claims to have revealed that, among other things, REO properties in predominantly minority neighborhoods are 42 percent more likely to have maintenance problems and are 33 percent less likely to have a “For Sale” sign than properties in predominantly White neighborhoods. The report suggests that the poor maintenance practices and other alleged neglect can result in properties being vacant for longer periods and can increase the likelihood that a property eventually will be purchased by an investor at a discounted price, as opposed to an owner-occupier. NFHA maintains that these alleged practices violate the Fair Housing Act and HUD’s implementing regulations and leave those neighborhoods in “crisis.” The NFHA report also makes several policy recommendations. The report offers recommendations for financial institutions to (i) enhance their vendor selection and oversight, (ii) better market and sell properties, and (iii) make REO data more transparent. The NFHA also (i) urges federal regulators, including the CFPB, to conduct a major nationwide investigation into REO practices, (ii) proposes a policy to make REO properties available exclusively to owner-occupants and non-profit organizations prior to offering them more broadly, and (iii) suggests further development of lease-purchase programs for REO properties.

HUD Fair Housing

UPDATE: Petitioners Withdraw Major Fair Housing Case Pending Before U.S. Supreme Court

On February 10, the parties in a major fair housing case under review by the U.S. Supreme Court requested that the Court dismiss the case. As reported previously by BuckleySandler, the City of St. Paul, Minnesota withdrew its petition in Magner v. Gallagher, No. 10-1032, due to concerns that "a victory could substantially undermine important civil rights enforcement throughout the nation." A Supreme Court decision in Magner likely would have definitively decided whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and if they are, the applicable legal standards for such claims. Under the disparate impact theory of discrimination, a plaintiff can establish "discrimination" based solely on the results of a neutral policy, without having to show any intent to discriminate.  The result of the Supreme Court review would have had profound impact both in private litigation and government enforcement actions, and as such had drawn significant attention from civil rights groups, state attorneys general, and financial services trade groups. The withdrawal of Magner means that these important questions will remain open.

In Magner, the City had asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the FHA permits disparate impact claims. Private landlords, seeking to limit the City's "aggressive" enforcement of its housing code, sued the City for violating the FHA. The landlords argue that the City's attempts to close housing that violates its housing code reduces the amount of affordable housing available to minority renters. The landlords claim that as a result, the City's enforcement efforts have a disparate impact on minority renters in violation of the FHA. Although the District Court ruled for the City, the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the landlords had stated a cognizable claim under the FHA. The City petitioned the Eighth Circuit for rehearing en banc, but the court denied the petition. As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the City's petition for certiorari on November 7, 2011.  The parties and numerous amici had submitted briefs to the Court, and oral argument was scheduled for February 29.

Magner was the Supreme Court's first opportunity to evaluate whether disparate impact claims can exist under the FHA since Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005). In City of Jackson, the Court held that disparate impact claims are grounded in Title VII's statutory text, not merely in the broader purpose of the legislation. Since City of Jackson, the courts of appeals have offered almost no guidance as to whether the FHA permits disparate impact claims. Reviewing parallel language in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in Garcia v. Johanns, 444 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2006), the D.C. Circuit stated in dicta that "[t]he Supreme Court has held that this ["effects"] language gives rise to a cause of action for disparate impact discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA.  ECOA contains no such language."

The City issued a statement explaining its unusual decision to withdraw its petition at this late stage, explaining that if the City prevailed, the decision "would undercut important and necessary civil rights cases throughout the nation. The risk of such an unfortunate outcome is the primary reason the city has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition." The City has stated that it will continue to pursue the case in federal district court in Minnesota.

In a separate attempt to resolve through federal agency action the question of whether the FHA permits disparate impact claims, on November 15, 2011, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a proposed rule interpreting the FHA as authorizing disparate impact claims, and proposing the applicable standards for such claims. HUD has yet to promulgate a final rule. The absence of a decision in Magner will focus substantial additional attention on HUD's rulemaking process and decisions, and in particular the standards and associated burdens of proof HUD asserts apply to disparate impact claims. Click here for BuckleySandler's previous reporting on the HUD proposed rule.

U.S. Supreme Court Fair Housing

Petitioners Withdraw Major Fair Housing Case Pending Before U.S. Supreme Court

On February 10, several media outlets reported that a major fair housing case under review by the U.S. Supreme Court had been dismissed by agreement of the parties. The case, Magner v. Gallagher, No. 10-1032, described previously in a BuckleySandler alert, poses the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. The result of the Supreme Court review would have had profound impact both in private litigation and government enforcement actions, and as such had drawn significant attention from civil rights groups, state attorneys general, and financial services trade groups. The City of St. Paul, which raised the question on appeal, reportedly decided not to pursue the appeal out of concern that “a victory could substantially undermine important civil rights enforcement throughout the nation.” Instead, the City will now take its case to trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. For additional reports regarding these developments, please click here and here.

U.S. Supreme Court Fair Housing

The Fair Housing Act, Disparate Impact Claims, and Magner v. Gallagher

In the February 2012 volume of The Banking Law Journal, BuckleySandler partner Jeff Naimon published "The Fair Housing Act, Disparate Impact Claims, and Magner v. Gallagher", in which the authors review the text of the Fair Housing Act, its legislative history, and past federal appellate court decisions holding that the FHA permits disparate impact claims. They argue that recent Supreme Court decisions cast doubt on the past federal appellate court decisions, and show that the statutory text of the FHA, unlike the text of some other civil rights laws, does not permit disparate impact claims. They also discuss the case currently pending before the Court in which the Court may address for the first time whether the FHA permits disparate impact claims.

U.S. Supreme Court Fair Housing