InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC issues November enforcement actions
On December 30, the FDIC released a list of orders of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in November. The FDIC made public nine orders consisting of “two consent orders; two orders terminating deposit insurance; three orders to pay civil money penalties; one order terminating consent order; and one Section 19 order.” Among the orders is a civil money penalty against a Wisconsin-based bank related to violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. The FDIC determined that the bank had engaged in a pattern or practice of violations that included the bank’s failure to: (i) obtain adequate flood insurance on the building securing a designated loan at the time of loan origination; (ii) obtain adequate flood insurance at the time of the origination; (iii) notify borrowers that the borrower should obtain flood insurance where a determination had been made that flood insurance had lapsed or a loan was not covered with the required amount of insurance; (iv) provide borrowers with a Notice of Special Flood Hazard and Availability of Federal Disaster Relief Assistance when making, increasing, extending or renewing a loan; and (v) provide borrowers with a Notice of Special Flood Hazard and Availability of Federal Disaster Relief Assistance within a reasonable time before the completion of the transaction. The order requires the payment of a $39,000 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also issued a civil money penalty against an Oregon-based bank for allegedly violating Section 8(a) of RESPA “by entering into mortgage lead generation arrangements with the operator of a real estate website and the operator of an online loan marketplace that were used to facilitate and disguise referral payments for mortgage business.” The FDIC also determined that the bank violated the FTC Act “by making deceptive and misleading representations in three of the bank’s prescreened offers of credit” and violated the FCRA “by obtaining the consumer reports of former loan clients with recent credit inquiries without a legally permissible purpose.” The order requires the payment of a $425,000 civil money penalty.
Additionally, the FDIC issued a consent order against a Tennessee-based bank alleging the bank engaged in “unsafe or unsound banking practices relating to weaknesses in capital, asset quality, liquidity, and earnings.” The bank neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed, among other things, that its board would “increase its participation in the affairs of the bank by assuming full responsibility for the approval of the bank’s policies and objectives and for the supervision of the bank’s management, including all the bank’s activities.” The bank also agreed to maintain a Tier 1 Leverage Capital ratio equal to or greater than 8.50 percent and a Total Capital ratio equal to or greater than 11.50 percent. The FDIC also issued a consent order against a New Jersey-based bank claiming the bank engaged in “unsafe or unsound banking practices relating to, among other things, management supervision, Board oversight, weaknesses in internal controls, interest rate sensitivity, and earnings.” The bank neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed, among other things, that it would retain a third-party consultant “to develop a written analysis and assessment of the bank’s board and management needs (Board and Management Report) for the purpose of ensuring appropriate director oversight and providing qualified management for the bank.”
District Court denies dismissal of RESPA "dual-tracking" suit
On November 1, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio declined to grant summary judgment in favor of a mortgage servicer defendant in a Regulation X, RESPA, and Ohio Residential Mortgage Lending Act (RMLA) suit against the mortgage servicer and a law firm (collectively, “defendants”). The case concerned a loan modification that plaintiff had allegedly sought from defendants, for which the defendant mortgage servicer ultimately denied, and the defendant law firm initiated a foreclosure action. The defendant mortgage servicer challenged the count in the complaint alleging that the defendant mortgage servicer’s moving for summary judgment in the state foreclosure action violated Regulation X and RESPA’s prohibition on dual tracking. Dual tracking “occurs when a lender ‘actively pursues foreclosure while simultaneously considering the borrower for loss mitigation options.’” The defendant mortgage servicer argued that the prohibition on moving for summary judgment found in Regulation X did not apply because the plaintiff rejected the loan modification. The defendant mortgage servicer based this argument on the fact that it did not receive the plaintiff’s executed modification by a certain date. Because of this, the defendant mortgage servicer argued that it was permitted to move forward with a foreclosure judgment, and its decision to reverse the denial of the modification was at its discretion and not subject to the requirements of 12 C.F.R.1024.41(g).
The court found, however, that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the plaintiff returned the loan modification agreement by the designated date. The court continued, “[the defendant mortgage servicer’s] explanation regarding all three of the exceptions found at §41(g) subsections (1) through (3) each expressly depend upon the factual assertion that [the plaintiff] did not return a signed modification agreement and thereby rejected same. Inasmuch as there is evidence that [the plaintiff] did so, the court cannot conclude that [the defendant mortgage servicer] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding the exceptions in §41(g) of Regulation X.” Among other things, the court also found that the defendant mortgage servicer “failed to act with reasonable care and diligence, in good faith, to safeguard and account for money tendered by [the plaintiff].” The court concluded by finding that the plaintiff sufficiently identified plausible damages as a result of a RESPA violation, further permitting her claims to stand.
2nd Circuit: NY law on interest payments for escrow accounts is preempted
On September 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that New York’s interest-on-escrow law impermissibly interferes with the incidentals of national bank lending and is preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA). Plaintiffs in two putative class actions obtained loans from a national bank, one before and the other after certain Dodd-Frank provisions took effect. The loan agreements—governed by New York law—required plaintiffs to deposit money into escrow accounts. After the bank failed to pay interest on the escrowed amounts, plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, alleging, among other things, that under New York General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-601 (which sets a minimum 2 percent interest rate on mortgage escrow accounts) they were entitled to interest. The bank moved to dismiss both actions, contending that GOL § 5-601 did not apply to federally chartered banks because it is preempted by the NBA. The district court disagreed and denied the bank’s motion, ruling first that RESPA (which regulates the amount of money in an escrow account but not the accruing interest rate) “shares a ‘unity of purpose’ with GOL § 5-601.” This is relevant, the district court said, “because Congress ‘intended mortgage escrow accounts, even those administered by national banks, to be subject to some measure of consumer protection regulation.’” Second, the district court reasoned that even though TILA § 1639d does not specifically govern the loans at issue, it is significant because it “evinces a clear congressional purpose to subject all mortgage lenders to state escrow interest laws.” Finally, with respect to the NBA, the district court determined that “the ‘degree of interference’ of GOL § 5-601 was ‘minimal’ and was not a ‘practical abrogation of the banking power at issue,’” and concluded that Dodd-Frank’s amendment to TILA substantiated a policy judgment showing “there is little incompatibility between requiring mortgage lenders to maintain escrow accounts and requiring them to pay a reasonable rate of interest on sums thereby received.” As such, GOL § 5-601 was not preempted by the NBA, the district court said.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit concluded that the district court erred in its preemption analysis. According to the appellate court, the important question “is not how much a state law impacts a national bank, but rather whether it purports to ‘control’ the exercise of its powers.” In reversing the ruling and holding that that GOL § 5-601 was preempted by the NBA, the appellate court wrote that the “minimum-interest requirement would exert control over a banking power granted by the federal government, so it would impermissibly interfere with national banks’ exercise of that power.” Notably, the 2nd Circuit’s decision differs from the 9th Circuit’s 2018 holding in Lusnak v. Bank of America, which addressed a California mortgage escrow interest law analogous to New York’s and held that a national bank must comply with the California law requiring mortgage lenders to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the 2nd Circuit determined that both the district court and the 9th Circuit improperly “concluded that the TILA amendments somehow reflected Congress’s judgment that all escrow accounts, before and after Dodd-Frank, must be subject to such state laws.”
In a concurring opinion, one of the judges stressed that while the panel concluded that the specific state law at issue is preempted, the opinion left “ample room for state regulation of national banks.” The judge noted that the opinion relies on a narrow standard of preempting only those “state laws that directly conflict with enumerated or incidental national bank powers conferred by Congress,” and stressed that the appellate court declined to reach a determination as to whether Congress subjected national banks to state escrow interest laws in cases (unlike the plaintiffs’ actions) where Dodd-Frank’s TILA amendments would apply.
District Court rules non-judicial foreclosure claims fail
On August 30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an action concerning an allegedly unlawful non-judicial foreclosure. Plaintiffs obtained a cash-out loan in 2005 and modified their mortgage terms. The plaintiffs stopped making payments after one of the defendant loan servicer’s agents allegedly informed them that “help was only available if they were in default,” and the defendant loan servicer threatened foreclosure. Following several years of bankruptcy proceedings and foreclosure mediation, plaintiffs sued to stop the foreclosure proceedings, claiming “that the deed of trust was void and that defendants committed fraud in attempting to foreclos[e] on the debt.” The initial non-judicial foreclosure proceedings were rescinded after the suit was dismissed with prejudice, and the defendant loan servicer was eventually allowed to proceed with a second non-judicial foreclosure under Oregon law. Plaintiffs sent a dispute letter demanding that the foreclosure be rescinded because the order in which several notices of default showing the amounts due and the amounts necessary to reinstate were sent did not comply with state law. After the notice was rescinded and a new notice of default was issued and recorded, plaintiffs sued again, seeking to enjoin the defendant trustee’s sale and filing several claims, including breach of contract and violations of the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act (OUTPA), RESPA, and FDCPA.
In granting summary judgment to the defendants on each of the claims, the court determined that the breach of contract claim fails because plaintiffs acknowledged that because “they have not substantially performed under the relevant contract,” they are precluded from seeking damages. The FDCPA claim against the defendant trustee also fails “because it is based on a perceived lack of authority under the relevant contract, but as explained in the breach of contract claim, that authority was not lacking.” Finally, the OUTPA and RESPA claims both fail “because there is no evidence that they incurred damages arising out of either claim”—a required element under both statutes, the court said. According to the court, plaintiffs failed “to support their drastic allegations with relevant evidence” and failed to “point to specific evidence supporting valid legal claims.”
District Court grants in part/denies in part defendant’s motion in RESPA, FDCPA case
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted in part and denied in part a defendant mortgage servicer’s motion for summary judgment concerning allegations that the defendant improperly foreclosed on plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant wrongfully accused her of failing to remedy her default and therefore violated RESPA and the FDCPA, among other things. Ultimately, the court denied defendant’s summary judgment request as to plaintiff’s RESPA claim because the defendant failed to exercise due diligence. But the court granted defendant’s request for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s FDCPA claim because plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant acted deceptively.
The plaintiff’s original loan—serviced by a previous servicer—was modified in 2016. But payments again were not made, so the previous servicer notified the plaintiff in December 2018 that it had accelerated the loan’s maturity date and referred the loan to foreclosure. The plaintiff, however, again applied for another modification in early 2019. After telling plaintiff her application was complete, the previous servicer then told the plaintiff, who claimed she inherited the property, that it needed additional documents to prove plaintiff’s successor-in-interest status. Ultimately, the previous servicer did not confirm the modification because the plaintiff did not confirm her successor-in-interest status.
The plaintiff again applied for a loan modification in March 2019, after the previous servicer transferred servicing rights to the defendant, and this modification was denied. She allegedly spoke with one of defendant’s representatives about the denial and indicated that she wished to reapply for a modification. However, the representative advised that she would have to reinstate the mortgage first before any loan modification. The defendant then sent a default letter to plaintiff’s property, which advised that the loan was still in default and needed payment.
The plaintiff submitted at least one additional request for mortgage assistance after the March 2019 modification application. The defendant acknowledged receipt of the request and detailed the documents it needed to process the request. The defendant then followed up in June 2019, stating again that it could not confirm that she was the successor-in-interest on the loan without documentation. A month later the defendant advised the plaintiff again that documents were still missing that were necessary to process her loan assistance request. The loan remained in default thereafter and the defendant foreclosed in August 2019.
In adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied as to the RESPA claim, the district court noted that the defendant possibly should have sought documents, specifically the successor-in-interest documentation from the previous servicer, after the plaintiff submitted an incomplete loan modification application. The court stated that “there is a question of material fact whether [defendant] exercised reasonable diligence in failing to request the successor-in-interest documentation from [the previous servicer].” The court added that “there is a requirement of reasonable diligence, and there is no evidence showing that [defendant] met this standard. Failing to address the regulatory standard creates a question that cannot be resolved on the available information. Thus, there is at least one question of material fact here.”
Regarding plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, the court noted that “there is no evidence of deception in the foreclosure of loan payment process” and that “[p]laintiff has failed to provide any evidence that [defendant] acted dishonestly in requesting additional documentation to complete the loan modification.” The court therefore granted defendant’s summary judgment motion as to the FDCPA claim.
CFPB addresses servicers’ obligations to respond to borrower inquiries
On April 4, the CFPB filed an amicus brief in a case on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning a mortgage loan servicer allegedly failing to answer multiple inquiries from two separate consumers regarding their loans despite the requirement under Regulation X that servicers respond when a borrower submits a request for information that “states the information the borrower is requesting with respect to the borrower’s mortgage loan.” The plaintiffs filed suit after the defendant servicer declined to provide the information requested, stating that it would not respond “because the issues raised are the same or very closely related to the issues raised” in pending litigation surrounding the mortgages.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, noting that under RESPA, “a mortgage loan servicer only has an obligation to provide a written response to a [qualified written request] that seeks ‘information relating to the servicing of such loan,’” and that the plaintiffs’ inquiries regarding the ownership of their loans and requesting other miscellaneous information did not “trigger[] [the defendant’s] obligations to respond under Regulation X” because a servicer has a ‘duty to respond’ only if a request for information ‘relates to the servicing of the loan.’”
In urging the appellate court to overturn the decision, the Bureau argued that under Section 1024.36 of Regulation X “servicers generally must respond to ‘any written request for information from a borrower’ that seeks ‘information ... with respect to the borrower’s mortgage loan.’” According to the Bureau, although a servicing-related request would fall under this provision, it is just one type of request that seeks information ‘with respect to’ a loan and thereby triggers a servicer’s obligation to respond” under the rules. The Bureau stated that Regulation X broadly requires servicers to respond to requests that seek information “with respect to” a borrower’s mortgage loan, explaining that it “included explicit language to that effect in the 2013 Rule to make clear that the rule created a unified set of requirements such that servicers’ obligations to respond were the same for a qualified written request as for any other information request,” and that it “did not exclude information requests that do not relate to servicing from the scope of § 1024.36.” The Bureau agreed with the plaintiffs that there is “no litigation exception to a servicer's obligation to respond to information requests under Regulation X.” The Bureau further noted in a blog post that,“[a] pending lawsuit does not take away a borrower’s right to a response from their loan servicer under Regulation X.”
District Court rejects borrower’s RESPA, TILA mortgage servicing claims
On March 15, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted a defendant mortgage loan servicer’s motion for summary judgment in an action claiming violations of federal law based on alleged defects in the servicing of the plaintiff’s loan. According to the court, after settling similar claims against his two prior loan servicers, the plaintiff sued the companies that own and service his mortgage loan (collectively, defendants) disputing the precise amount of his delinquency and claiming the defendants failed to properly apply his mortgage payments or to respond to his notice of error (NOE). The plaintiff contended, among other things, that the defendants’ response to the NOE, misapplication of payments, and inaccurate periodic mortgage statements breached the terms of the mortgage agreement and violated RESPA, FDCPA, and TILA. In granting summary judgment, the court agreed with the defendants, finding that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was foreclosed by a prior settlement agreement with his former servicer. The court also found that the servicer’s response to plaintiff’s NOE did not violate RESPA because it “fully addressed both ‘errors’ that the plaintiff presented,” and the perceived errors “amounted to confusion about basic arithmetic.” The court emphasized that “[n]othing in RESPA or Regulation X gives borrowers authority to dictate the parameters of a lender’s investigation,” and concluded that the servicer’s investigation and response was sufficient since the servicer provided the documents used to conclude that there was no misapplication of funds and “[e]ven a cursory investigation would have revealed that the specific errors alleged in the NOE did not occur.”
In granting the defendants’ request for summary judgment regarding claims that the plaintiff received five inaccurate mortgage statements in violation of the FDCPA and TILA, the court concluded that the periodic statements contained all the fields required under Regulation Z, and explained that allegations contesting the accuracy of the information contained in the statements did not violate TILA because “12 C.F.R. § 1026.42(d) does nothing to regulate the accuracy of information presented in a periodic statement.” As to the plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, which was premised on allegations that plaintiff’s prior servicer misapplied funds which caused defendants to collect amount that plaintiff did not owe, the court found that that the disputed periodic statement was truthful and accurate and that the plaintiff released the defendants of any liability under the FDCPA in his settlement agreement with the prior servicer.
FDIC highlights NSF/overdraft fees, fair lending in 2022 Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights
On March 31, the FDIC released the spring 2022 edition of the Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights to provide information and observations related to the FDIC’s consumer compliance supervision of state non-member banks and thrifts in 2021. Topics include:
- A summary of the FDIC’s supervisory approach in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including efforts made by banks to meet the needs of consumers and communities.
- An overview of the most frequently cited violations (approximately 78 percent of total violations involved TILA, the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA), EFTA, Truth in Savings Act, and RESPA). During 2021, the FDIC initiated 20 formal enforcement actions and 24 informal enforcement actions addressing consumer compliance examination observations, and issued civil money penalties totaling $2.7 million against institutions to address violations of the FDPA and Section 5 of the FTC Act.
- Information on the charging of multiple non-sufficient funds fees (NSF) for re-presented items, and risk-mitigating activities taken by banks to avoid potential violations. According to the FDIC, “failure to disclose material information to customers about re-presentment practices and fees” may be deceptive. The failure to disclose material information to customers “may also be unfair if there is the likelihood of substantial injury for customers, if the injury is not reasonably avoidable, and if there is no countervailing benefit to customers or competition. For example, there is risk of unfairness if multiple fees are assessed for the same transaction in a short period of time without sufficient notice or opportunity for consumers to bring their account to a positive balance.” Recommendations on addressing overdraft issues are discussed in the report.
- An overview of fair lending concerns highlighting ways to mitigate risk, including “[m]aintaining written policies and procedures that include information for lending staff to reference when applying credit decision criteria and determining whether borrowers are creditworthy” and reviewing requirements used to screen potential applicants to make sure there is no “discriminatory impact.”
- Information on regulatory developments, such as (i) rulemaking related to the Community Reinvestment Act, flood insurance, false advertising/misuse of the FDIC’s name or logo rulemaking, deposit insurance, and LIBOR; and (ii) guidance on fintech due diligence, artificial intelligence/machine learning, and third-party risk management.
- A summary of consumer compliance resources available to financial institutions.
- An overview of consumer complaint trends.
4th Circuit reviews whether borrowers’ letters are QWRs under REPSA
On February 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s dismissal of claims related to whether letters sent by plaintiff borrowers to a defendant loan servicer constituted qualified written requests (QWRs) under RESPA or Regulation X that would require the defendant to stop sending adverse information about accounts to credit reporting agencies. According to the opinion, one of the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant asking to have his records corrected after noticing his credit reports reflected purported overdue home loan payments that were allegedly affecting his employment after his employer expressed concerns about the credit report. The plaintiff noted a discrepancy between the amount he was allegedly behind on his mortgage payment and included a copy of the credit report his employer received, his account number, the ID number of the agent with whom he spoke on the phone, and requested that the error be corrected. However, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to report adverse loan information. The other named plaintiff allegedly fell behind on her loan payments, and the defendant began reporting adverse information to the credit reporting agencies. She later applied for a loan modification, which was not finalized due to the existence of a lien by a solar panel company. The plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant challenging the existence of “title issues” and asked for her dispute to be investigated and corrected. The parties ultimately finalized a loan modification, but in the interim, the defendant continued reporting adverse information. The plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that despite sending QWRs, the defendant continued to report adverse information on their loans to credit reporting agencies; however, the district court dismissed the claims.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the first plaintiff’s claim, holding that the plaintiff’s letter was a QWR subject to RESPA because it contained sufficient details to identify his account and indicate why he believed the credit reporting was in error. In particular, the court noted that the letter constituted a QWR because it did not rely solely on the alleged phone call “as the basis for the description of the problem,” but also detailed conflicting balance information received from the defendant and the credit reporting service. The dissenting judge wrote that this plaintiff’s letter was not a QWR because it failed to identify the possible error and did not provide a statement of reasons for believing the unidentified error existed.
With respect to the other named plaintiff’s claim, the court affirmed dismissal because the letter did not qualify as a QWR. The court explained that the content of the plaintiff’s letter failed to satisfy the requirements of a valid QWR, finding that “correspondence limited to the dispute of contractual issues that do not relate to the servicing of the loan, such as loan modification applications, do not qualify as QWRs.”
District Court grants preliminary approval of class action settlement against national bank
On January 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted preliminary approval of a settlement in a class action against a national bank (defendant) for allegedly participating in a kickback scheme with a title company (company). According to the memorandum in support of plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, the class action complaint alleged that over a six year period the company paid the defendant for the referral of residential mortgage loans, refinances, and reverse mortgages for title and settlement services in violation of RESPA. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that the company and defendant falsified borrowers’ HUD-1 settlement statements and other documents, and misrepresented the defendant’s efforts to “choose a qualified attorney, title agent or title insurance company to search title and conduct [the borrower's] closing.” While agreeing to the class action settlement, the defendant disputes plaintiffs’ allegations and denies that it is liable for any of the claims in the complaint. Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement agreement, the defendant will pay approximately $1.2 million in settlement benefits to class members, a $1,500 service award to both lead plaintiffs, and up to $325,000 in attorneys’ fees and $17,500 in expenses to class counsel.