InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Massachusetts AG Launches Webpage for Homeowners Trying to Clear Property Titles
On March 31, the office of Massachusetts AG Maura Healey launched a new webpage designed to help eligible homeowners clear property titles in order to refinance or sell their properties. The webpage follows a $2.7 million settlement with four national banks that allegedly foreclosed on Massachusetts property without having the legal authority to do so. Because the alleged unlawful foreclosures affected thousands of Massachusetts titles, the new webpage is intended to “[enable] consumers to file online complaints and have their title issues reviewed by the banks in a single process.”
Utah Enacts Money Transmitter Act
On March 27, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed S.B. 24, which modifies provisions related to persons and entities subject to the jurisdiction of Utah’s Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), amends the state’s Mortgage Lending and Servicing Act, and enacts the Money Transmitter Act. The Money Transmitter Act establishes new licensing requirements and grants rulemaking authority to the DFI to (i) prohibit practices that are misleading, unfair, or abusive, (ii) promote full disclosure of the terms and conditions of agreements between a customer and a money transmitter, and (iii) assure uniform application of applicable state or federal laws and regulations.
Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit over Mortgage Auction Terms
On March 31, 2015, the Second Circuit in Truman Capital Advisors LP v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, No. 14-cv-3533 (2d Cir. Mar. 31, 2015), affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit involving the auction sale of hundreds of non-performing residential mortgage loan notes. Truman Capital is an investment manager that was the winning bidder in an auction of non-performing mortgage notes that were being sold by Nationstar Mortgage, a mortgage servicing company. After the auction, the mortgage servicing company exercised its contractual right not to complete the sale of the notes for the high bid price. The investment manager then sued the mortgage servicing company in the Southern District of New York, alleging that the auction terms gave the winning bidder the right to purchase the notes. The mortgage servicer defended on the grounds that the auction terms permitted the seller to refuse to enter into a contract for the sale of the notes even after a high bidder was recognized. The district court and the Second Circuit agreed, holding that no obligation would be binding on the seller unless and until the seller executed a loan sale agreement, which never occurred. BuckleySandler LLP represented Nationstar in this matter.
Eleventh Circuit Throws Out FDCPA Complaint On Grounds of Judicial Estoppel
On March 31, U.S. Court of Appeals in the 11th Circuit concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s FDCPA complaint, using the concept of judicial estoppel. Ward v. AMS Servicing, LLC, 2015 WL 1432982 (11th Cir. Mar.31, 2015). In this case, the court addressed whether the Defendant was incorrect in charging the Plaintiff a monthly mortgage amount agreed to in a consent order, rather than the amount stipulated in the Note. In November 2013, the Plaintiff filed suit in the district court, alleging that Defendant violated the FDCPA by falsely representing the amount of her monthly mortgage payments. In June 2009, the Plaintiff and the original servicer of her loan entered into a loan modification for her home where she agreed that her monthly payment would be $1,182.89. Thereafter, the loan was sold with the Defendant acting as the new servicer. Subsequently, the Plaintiff fell behind on her loan and sought Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. As a result, the mortgage holder sought to modify the automatic stay to allow it to foreclose on the property. In order to resolve the matter, the parties entered into a consent order, signed by the bankruptcy court, which provided that, in order to cure the arrearage, the Plaintiff’s monthly payment would rise to $1,319.50 from September 1, 2012 through May 1, 2013, but regular payments would resume once the arrearage had been paid. Despite the consent order, Plaintiff argued in district court and on appeal that Defendant violated FDCPA by charging the higher amount. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s challenge to the amount of the monthly mortgage payment was barred by judicial estoppel (e.g., “meant to prevent litigants from deliberately changing positions after the fact to gain an unfair advantage”), as Plaintiff would have gained an unfair advantage if allowed to proceed with the FDCPA suit since Defendant was convinced not to proceed with foreclosure in return for Defendant’s express agreement to pay $1,319.50 until her mortgage was current. For these reasons, the court affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s civil suit against the Defendant.
Trade Association Urges HUD to Delay Effective Date on Single-Family Housing Policy HandBook
On March 26, 2015, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) sent a letter to HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary Zadareky seeking clarification, guidance, and answers to outstanding questions raised by HUD’s early drafts of its new comprehensive Federal Housing Administration Single-Family Housing Policy Handbook. The MBA raises five particular concerns and requests a possible delay for the scheduled implementation date of June 15, 2015 for the following reasons in order to give the industry time to adapt including (i) some of the policy changes in the Handbook are expected to mean changes for the TOTAL Scorecard, and lenders will need access to a revised Developers Guide in order to align their systems with HUD’s systems; (ii) lenders are adapting to a large number of new legal and regulatory requirements. The TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule alone constitutes a major shift for lenders; (iii) it is currently not clear where a lender would go to find out if a borrower’s federal debt has been referred to the US Treasury for collection in order to comply with the Handbook’s requirement that delinquent Federal debt be resolved in accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act; (iv) the new required treatment of excluded parties puts an impossible burden on lenders because the lender must now guarantee that an employee of another company with which the lender is working does not have an employee who has been suspended or debarred by HUD; and (iv) the Handbook’s new definition of satisfactory credit is unclear and conflicts with payment history requirements in other sections of the Handbook.
FTC Announces Results of "Operation Ruse Control" on Auto Industry
On March 26, the FTC announced the results of Operation Ruse Control, “a nationwide and cross-border crackdown” on the auto industry with the intent to protect consumers who are purchasing or leasing a car. Efforts taken jointly by the FTC and its law enforcement partners resulted in over 250 enforcement actions, including the six most recent cases that involved (i) fraudulent add-ons; (ii) deceptive advertising; and (iii) auto loan modification. According to the press release, the FTC recently took its first actions against two auto dealers for its add-on practices, which allegedly violate the FTC Act by failing to disclose the significant fees associated with offered programs or services and misrepresenting to consumers that they would save money. Three auto dealers recently “agreed to settle charges that they ran deceptive ads that violated the FTC Act, and also violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and/or Consumer Leasing Act (CLA).” Finally, at the FTC’s request, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida temporarily put an end to the practices of a company that charged consumers an upfront fee to “negotiate an auto loan modification on their behalf, but then often provided nothing in return.” The FTC’s recent actions are indicative of its ongoing efforts to prevent alleged fraud within the industry.
Treasury Deputy Secretary Raskin Delivers Remarks On Cyber Security
On March 25, Department of the Treasury’s Deputy Secretary Raskin delivered remarks regarding the agency’s efforts to enhance cybersecurity as the number of cyber-attacks continue to increase. Raskin outlined three specific areas where financial institutions can better prepare for cyber threats and enhance “cyber resilience” in the event of a cyberattack: (i) increase information sharing among financial institutions, thereby making this a priority for the financial sector worldwide; (ii) ensure that safeguards are in place for all third-party vendors with access to the financial institution’s data and systems; and (iii) design a cyber-preparedness “playbook” that has a “detailed, documented plan so that the firm can react quickly to minimize internal and external damage, reduce recovery and time costs, and instill confidence in outside stakeholders and the public.”
Comptroller Curry Remarks on OCC Assistance to Mutual Savings Associations and Community Banks
On March 23, OCC Comptroller Curry delivered remarks at the ABA Mutual Community Bank Conference regarding the agency’s supervision of mutual savings associations and community banks. Curry focused on the agency’s ongoing efforts to assist smaller financial institutions, specifically by reducing some of the unnecessary burden placed on them. Curry outlined three areas in which the agency is urging Congress to take action to reduce burdensome regulation: (i) raising the asset threshold requirement for the 18-month examination cycle from $500 million to $750 million; (ii) exempting community banks from the Volcker Rule requirement; and (iii) making it “easier for thrifts to expand their business model without changing their governance structure.” In addition to recommending actions to Congress, the OCC continues to hold OCC Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee meetings and support collaboration among community banks to further ensure that smaller institutions can continue to serve their communities.
FTC Settles with Texas-Based Mortgage Company Over Mortgage Relief Scams
On March 5, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas approved a settlement agreement between the FTC and a Texas-based mortgage relief company and its owners (Defendants) to resolve allegations that they charged customers up-front fees for services that were promised to reduce their mortgage interest rates or monthly payments. According to the complaint filed last year, the FTC alleged that the Defendants (i) misled consumers into believing that they would obtain mortgage loan modifications or help consumers avoid foreclosure; (ii) deceived consumers by instructing them to stop payment of their mortgages so that they could afford Defendants’ fees without disclosing that if they did so, consumers “could lose their homes or damage their credit ratings;” and (iii) failed to make required disclosures and illegally charged an upfront fee of, on average, $2,550. Among other requirements, the Order (i) requires the Defendants to pay more than $1.2 million in “equitable monetary relief,” and (ii) prohibits the Defendants from advertising, marketing, promoting or selling debt relief products or services. However, based on an assessment of the Defendants’ financial statements, the judgment will be partially suspended after the FTC receives approximately $68,000.
SEC Adopts Rule Giving Access to Capital for Smaller Companies
On March 25, the SEC adopted final rules to amend Regulation A, a current exemption from registration for smaller companies issuing securities. The new rules, which allow smaller companies to offer and sell up to $50 million of securities within a twelve-month period – subject to certain eligibility, disclosure, and reporting requirements – expand Regulation A into two tiers for offering securities. Tier 1 allows eligible issuers to sell up to $20 million of securities without registration so long as security-holders who are affiliates of such issuers sell no more than $6 million in securities, whereas Tier 2 permits such issuers to sell up to $50 million of securities yet caps affiliate sales at $15 million. Moreover, Tier 2 offerings are subject to further supplementary disclosure and reporting requirements (e.g., requiring eligible issuers to provide audited financial statements and file annual and semiannual current event reports), and allow eligible issuers to preempt state registration and qualification requirements for securities sold to “qualified purchasers,” as such term is defined in the rules. The new rules will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.