InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
California Federal Judge Allows Second Los Angeles Fair Housing Case To Proceed
On June 9, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a mortgage lender’s motion to dismiss the City of Los Angeles’s Fair Housing Act suit, the second such denial by the same judge in recent weeks. Los Angeles v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 13-9009, 2014 WL 2571558 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2014). The case is one of several the city has filed alleging that certain mortgage lenders engaged in predatory lending in minority communities, the allegedly predatory loans were more likely to result in foreclosure, and that foreclosures allegedly caused by those practices diminished the city’s property tax base and increased the costs of providing municipal services. The instant order adopts the court’s prior holdings on all of the overlapping arguments presented by the lenders in the two cases. In addition, the court rejected the additional argument that the city’s suit was time barred because the city was on notice of its claims as early as November 2011 when it invited a law firm to “present proposed FHA litigation against ‘several large banking institutions.’”
Colorado Adds Mortgage Servicer Requirements
Recently, Colorado enacted legislation that requires servicers of residential loans, including lenders and other parties that offer a borrower a loss mitigation option or seek to enforce the power to foreclose and sell the residential real estate that secures a delinquent loan, to establish a single point of contact with a borrower. The bill obligates the single point of contact to inform the borrower about loss mitigation options, the status of the borrower's loan, circumstances that may result in foreclosure, and procedures to submit a notice of error or information request. Further, the bill prohibits the servicer from initiating foreclosure proceedings unless the borrower has not qualified for, accepted, or complied with the terms of a loss mitigation option. The bill provides that if a servicer is engaging in prohibited dual tracking, the public trustee must follow certain procedures, including continuance of the foreclosure sale and withdrawal of the notice of election and demand, provided so the borrower is complying with all applicable terms of a loss mitigation option. In addition, the bill requires a foreclosing lender to disclose that it is illegal for a foreclosure consultant to require a deposit or charge fees in advance for providing services, and requires that the posted notice include a statement regarding the borrower's ability to file a complaint with state and federal authorities if the borrower believes the lender or servicer has violated certain provisions of the bill. The bill takes effect January 1, 2015.
House Passes Points And Fees Bill; Financial Services Committee Approves Additional CFPB Bills
On June 9, the House passed by voice vote H.R. 3211, the Mortgage Choice Act of 2013. The bill would amend TILA’s definition of “points and fees” for purposes of the CFPB’s Ability to Repay and HOEPA rules to exclude from the definition insurance held in impound accounts and amounts received by affiliated companies as a result of their participation in an affiliated business arrangement. The bill now moves to the Senate where a similar bill was introduced last year by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) but has not yet been considered by the Senate Banking Committee. Later in the week, the House Financial Services Committee approved numerous additional bills related to the CFPB, including: (i) H.R. 4804, which would establish certain requirements for CFPB examinations, including prohibiting the use of enforcement attorneys; (ii) H.R. 4811, which would establish standards for CFPB guidance, including a notice and comment period, and would declare the CFPB’s fair lending auto finance guidance to have no force or effect; and (iii) H.R. 3770, which would create an independent inspector general for the CFPB.
Connecticut Establishes Alternative Foreclosure Method
On June 3, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed HB 5514, which establishes an alternative to the state’s current foreclosure methods. Under current law, a court may issue a judgment of foreclosure by sale or strict foreclosure. Under the new law, which takes effect October 1, 2014, a court will be permitted to approve a foreclosure sale on the open market provided the lender requests such a sale and the borrower consents. The new method is available only for a first mortgage on a one-to-four family residential property that is the borrower’s principal residence. The bill establishes industry procedures for such sales (including requirements for the foreclosure notice, property appraisal, listing agreement, and purchase and sale contract, and requires foreclosure notices to advise borrowers of the market sale option), as well as judicial procedures. The new law prohibits a borrower who consents to foreclosure by market sale from participating in the state's foreclosure mediation program, but grants such a borrower the right to petition the court to participate under certain circumstances.
South Carolina Allows Expedited Foreclosures For Abandoned Properties
On June 2, South Carolina established a new expedited procedure for mortgage foreclosures on abandoned properties. Governor Nikki Haley signed SB 1007, which allows a mortgagee or its successor to petition a court for an expedited judgment of foreclosure if the property is not occupied and meets at least two of several conditions—e.g. windows or entrances are boarded or otherwise closed, doors are smashed or continually unlocked, utility services have been terminated—and provided the property does not fall within certain exceptions—e.g. it is seasonally occupied or the owner is deceased and the heirs can be identified. The new law took effect immediately.
CFPB Begins Collecting Input On Mobile Financial Services
On June 11, the CFPB released a request for information (RFI) about how consumers are using mobile financial services (MFS) to access products and services, manage finances, and achieve financial goals, with a focus on “economically vulnerable” consumers. The request does not cover point of sale payments, except with respect to mobile payment products targeted to underserved consumers. The request states that the information will be used to inform the CFPB’s “consumer education and empowerment strategies.” On June 12, the CFPB hosted a field hearing on MFS, which included presentations from consumer advocates and emerging mobile services providers regarding the future potential of MFS to reach the underserved.
To start the field hearing, Director Corday described the growth of technology in financial services and stressed the importance of understanding and encouraging the benefits of innovation without undermining the equally important goal of protecting consumers in the marketplace. He acknowledged that the FDIC and Federal Reserve have already done substantial work in the area of mobile banking services, and explained that the CFPB is now seeking to further those efforts through the RFI, which will help the CFPB: (i) explore how mobile services provide access to consumers that cannot easily access current financial services; and (ii) learn more about the real time money management opportunities mobile devices provide.
The CFPB’s inquiry also will review potential risks to consumers presented by MFS. For example, parts of the field hearing related to consumer data security, and panelists broadly described other potential risks related to online disclosures,along with the potential for mobile products or services to circumvent other existing consumer protections. In addition, the RFI seeks information that could serve regulatory and enforcement purposes. For example, the CFPB asks (i) whether there is a “risk that data will be used to direct underserved consumers to higher-cost products and services than they would otherwise be eligible to purchase and that may pose greater risk of financial harm;” and (ii) whether “low income consumers are less likely to detect hidden fees, and, if so, whether special attention needs to be provided to the design of mobile payments products targeted at low income consumers.”
Comments in response to the RFI are on or before September 10, 2014.
CFPB Director Announces Prepaid Card Rule Delay, Discusses Other Initiatives
On June 10, CFPB Director Richard Cordray testified before the Senate Banking Committee in connection with the CFPB’s recently released Semiannual Report to Congress. The hearing covered a broad range of topics, including, among several others, prepaid cards, student loans, small dollar loans, and arbitration clauses.
Prepaid Cards
Director Cordray advised in response to an inquiry from Senator Menendez (D-NJ) that the CFPB’s prepaid card proposed rule, which the CFPB recently indicated could be released this month, likely will not come until the end of the summer. He reassured the Senator that the delay does not indicate any particular problem about the rulemaking, only that certain of the issues raised have been “hard to work through.”
Student Loans
Senator Menendez raised concerns about “automatic defaults” in the student loan context, an issue raised in the CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman’s mid-year report on student loans. In that report, the CFPB stated, based on an unidentified number of consumer complaints, that “industry participants are automatically placing loans in default – even when a borrower is paying as agreed” – in circumstances such as when a co-signer dies or goes into bankruptcy. The Ombudsman acknowledged that financial institutions may have legitimate business purposes for exercising contractual acceleration options which demand the full balance of a loan when a borrower’s co-signer has died or filed for bankruptcy. Senator Mendendez described legislation to address the issue. Senator Brown (D-OH) also focused on student loan issues, picking up on the CFPB’s common refrain that problems in the student loans servicing market are similar to those seen in mortgage servicing. He called for the CFPB to establish student loan servicing standards. Director Cordray acknowledged that the two markets are different, but pointed to “poor customer service, problems with transfers, lack of information, and harm to consumers” as “eerie” examples of problems seen in both markets.
Small Dollar Loans
On small dollar loans, Senator Brown expressed concern that an eventual CFPB rule on traditional payday loans could lead to arbitrage and leave gaps in consumer protection related to other small dollar loans, including, for example, online loans, auto title loans, and installment loans. Director Corday described this issue as one of “extreme importance” as the CFPB addresses the small dollar loan market. He stated that implementation of the Military Lending Act has given rise to similar problems, which the CFPB is working with the Department of Defense to address. He explained that the CFPB’s process on a payday loan rule is taking longer as the Bureau attempts to deal with these issues, but believes “it's well worth a little additional time in order to make sure that what we do won't be made a mockery of by people circumventing it through just transforming their product slightly.”
Arbitration
Senator Warren (D-MA) turned her attention, which recently has focused on student loans, to the issue of arbitration. She stated that “arbitration stacks the deck against customers in favor of large corporations,” and that it is “no surprise that many big banks, and other big corporations, force customers to agree to arbitration clauses to get credit cards, or open checking accounts, knowing that this means that the customer will have no real remedy if things go wrong.” Director Cordray responded that in hearing from corporations and consumers on the issue of arbitration clauses, there is almost no relation between the two, which is contrary to CFPB’s experience on other issues. He explained that while the Dodd-Frank Act barred arbitration in mortgage contracts, he only directed the CFPB to study and consider interventions related to arbitration in other consumer finance contracts. He said the CFPB has pursued a very thorough process to conduct the required study, which the Director believes will be completed this year. Senator Warren pressed him to commit to new rules if the study presents evidence such rules are required. Director Cordray declined to describe any possible policy judgments or actions that could follow the study, but promised the CFPB will fulfill its obligation to engage in policymaking that appropriately reflects the conclusions of the study.
President Obama Announces Student Loan Initiatives; Senate Student Loan Refinance Bill Fails
On June 9, President Obama announced numerous initiatives related to federal student loans and signed a presidential memorandum directing the Education and Treasury Departments to execute certain of those initiatives. The central directive instructs the Education Department to initiate a rulemaking that will allow students who borrowed before October 2007 or who have not borrowed since October 2011 to cap their payments at 10 percent of their monthly incomes. The Education Department aims to finalize the program by December 2015. In addition, the President announced that, among other things, (i) the Education Department will renegotiate its contracts with federal loan servicers to alter financial incentives “to help borrowers repay their loans on time, lower payments for servicers when loans enter delinquency or default, and increase the value of borrowers’ customer satisfaction when allocating new loan volume”; (ii) the Education Department will proactively apply SCRA protections by reducing interest rates automatically for eligible servicemembers and will also provide additional guidance to Federal Family Education Loan program servicers to provide for a similar streamlined process; (iii) Treasury and the Education Department will work with tax preparation companies to communicate information about federal student loan repayment options; and (iv) the Education Department will expand other existing efforts to identify borrowers who may be struggling to repay and provide them with information about repayment options. The President also called on Congress to pass federal student loan refinance legislation championed by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). On June 11, the Senate failed to advance that bill, which was designed to allow federal loan borrowers to reat rates set last year by the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act, and allow private loan borrowers to refinance loans into the federal program at the same rates.
House Oversight Committee Choke Point Inquiry Shifts To FDIC
On June 9, Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and Jim Jordan (R-OH), an Oversight subcommittee chairman, sent a letter to FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg that seeks information regarding the FDIC’s role in Operation Choke Point and calls into question prior FDIC staff statements about the agency’s role. The letter asserts that documents obtained from the DOJ and recently released by the committee demonstrate that, contrary to testimony provided by a senior FDIC staff member, the FDIC “has been intimately involved in Operation Choke Point since its inception.” The letter also criticizes FDIC guidance that institutions monitor and address risks associated with certain “high-risk merchants,” which, according to the FDIC, includes firearms and ammunition merchants, coin dealers, and payday lenders, among numerous others. The letter seeks information to help the committee better understand the FDIC’s role in Operation Choke Point and its justification for labeling certain businesses as “high-risk.” For example, the letter seeks (i) all documents and communications between the FDIC and the DOJ since January 1, 2011; (ii) all FDIC documents since that time that refer to the FDIC’s 2012 guidance regarding payment processor relationships; and (iii) all documents referring to risks created by financial institutions’ relationships with firearms or ammunition businesses, short-term lenders, and money services businesses.
D.C. Circuit Holds Government False Claims Case Not Precluded By National Mortgage Settlement
On June 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the district court’s decision not to enjoin the federal government from pursuing alleged False Claims Act violations against a bank that argued such claims were precluded by the terms of the National Mortgage Settlement. United States v. Bank of Am. Corp., No 13-5112, 2014 WL 2575426 (D.C. Cir., Jun. 10, 2014). The bank sought to halt a suit filed by the government in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), in which the government alleges that the bank’s certification of loans as eligible for FHA insurance under the FHA’s Direct Endorsement Lender Program violated the False Claims Act. The bank asserted that the National Mortgage Settlement contains a comprehensive release for certain liability with respect to its alleged FHA mortgage lending conduct. The appeals court held that the agreement releases only the narrower category of liability for loans based on allegations that the bank’s annual certification was false without regard to whether any such loans contain material violations of HUD-FHA requirements, , and held that distinct loan-level violations for such loans would provide an independent basis for liability. However, the appeals court agreed that the SDNY must construe the government’s complaint and “ensure that the claims are litigated in a manner that comports with the [National Mortgage Settlement] Release’s limitations.” The appeals court agreed with the bank that some of the government’s claims “tread on the verge of the released claims, referencing false annual certifications explicitly.” The appeals court noted that the government repeatedly conceded that, to comport the SDNY suit with the National Mortgage Settlement release terms, “material violations do need to be demonstrated with respect to individual loans,” and cautioned the government that, should prosecution of its claims depart from that concession, the bank may seek appropriate relief.