InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie Mae Announces Numerous Updates to Selling Guide
On January 17, Fannie Mae issued Selling Guide Announcement SEL-2013-01, which provides notice of updates to several Selling Guide topics. First, eligibility for delivery of FHA-insured, HUD-guaranteed, VA-guaranteed, and RD-guaranteed mortgages is now available on a negotiated basis only. This change is effective for all government loans, including whole loans sold to Fannie Mae on or after May 1, 2013, and government loans in MBS with issue dates on or after May 1, 2013. Second, with regard to borrower refunds for overpayment of fees, effective immediately, the Guide has been updated to allow reimbursements in purchase transactions and limited cash-out refinance transactions to include refunds that may be required in accordance with certain federal laws or regulations. In such cases, the HUD-1 Settlement Statement must clearly identify the refund with a notation for the reason, and the loan file must include documentation to support the amount and reason for the refund. Third, the Announcement details a new policy regarding acceptable principal balance curtailments that may be made prior to delivery of a mortgage loan to Fannie Mae and lists the reasons for which Fannie Mae will permit curtailments, as well as documentation and delivery requirements. Finally, the Announcement lists updates and clarifications related to mortgage loans with an inter vivos revocable trust borrower.
CSBS Announces Implementation Date for National Mortgage Loan Originator Test
On January 16, the CSBS announced that a new national mortgage loan originator (MLO) test with a uniform state component will be available on April 1, 2013. The 2009 SAFE Act requires that MLOs pass a test in order to obtain a state originator license through the NMLS. Since adoption of the SAFE Act, the test has been comprised of two parts: a national component and a state-specific component. The new test administered by the NMLS is meant to streamline the licensing process for originators seeking to obtain licenses in multiple states. Twenty state agencies will no longer require a state-specific test component as of April 1, 2013, with four more states removing the requirement on July 1, 2013. The NMLS posted additional details about the test, including costs and enrollment eligibility.
Sixth Circuit Affirms Fair Lending Class Certification Denial
On January 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of class certification sought by a proposed class of borrowers alleging that a lender’s mortgage loan pricing policy, which granted discretion to local loan originators, disparately impacted racial minorities. Miller v. Countrywide Bank, N.A., No. 12-5250, 2013 WL 149853 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 2013). The outcome was expected following the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), which held that a policy that allows local units discretion to act can only present a common question if the local units share a common mode of exercising that discretion. In this case, the borrowers sued their lender on behalf of a proposed class claiming that the lender’s policy granting local agents discretion to deviate from par rates, within a specified range, when originating loans was racially biased. The appeals court held, as in Dukes, that the borrowers did not assert that the policy guided how local agents exercised their discretion and as such the policy could not have caused or contributed to the alleged disparate impacts. The court rejected the borrowers’ attempts to distinguish Dukes based on the Seventh Circuit’s holding in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482, 490 (7th Cir.), because that case involved companywide policies that contributed to the alleged disparate impact that arose from the delegation of discretion to individual actors. The Sixth Circuit held that no similar policy existed in this case and affirmed denial of class certification.
Sixth Circuit Holds That Mortgage Foreclosures are Debt Collections Under the FDCPA
On January 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that mortgage foreclosures are debt collections under the FDCPA. Glazer v. Chase Home Finance LLC, No. 10-3416, 2013 WL 141699 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2013). The decision rejects the view held by a majority of district courts, including the district court in this case, that mortgage foreclosures are generally outside the scope of the FDCPA because they are enforcements of a security instrument, not attempts to collect money. In this case, the borrower brought suit alleging that the law firm that attempted to foreclose on his property violated the FDCPA, and the district court dismissed the claim, ruling that foreclosures are not debt collections. In reaching its conclusion, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that “whether an obligation is a ‘debt’ depends not on whether the obligation is secured, but rather upon the purpose for which it was incurred.” The court explained that collecting such a debt can occur through personal solicitation or legal proceedings. As such, the court held that “every mortgage foreclosure, judicial or otherwise, is undertaken for the very purpose of obtaining payment on the underlying debt,” and, therefore, every mortgage foreclosure is a debt collection. Further, the court held that lawyers who meet the general definition of “debt collector” must comply with the FDCPA when engaged in a mortgage foreclosure. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Holds Standing in Servicemember Proceeding Requires Evidence of Mortgagee Status
On January 14, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reversed a Land Court decision and held that a trustee lacked standing to bring a servicemember proceeding because the trustee was not the clear holder of either the note or the mortgage. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Matt, 464 Mass. 193 (Mass. 2013). As the court explained, under the Massachusetts Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, a lender must file a complaint in equity, a proceeding separate from the foreclosure proceeding, to determine if a borrower is entitled to foreclosure protections under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). Failure to bring a such a servicemember proceeding leaves the title vulnerable to a challenge that the foreclosure sale was defective due to the possibility that it violated a borrower’s rights under the SCRA. On appeal, the borrower argued that the Land Court erred in holding that the trustee bringing the servicemember proceeding satisfied general requirements of standing based on its contractual right to become the holder of a mortgage, even though the trustee failed to establish that it was the current holder of the note or the mortgage. Extending its holding in Eaton v. Fannie Mae that a party with an option to become the holder of a mortgage does not have the present authority to foreclose, the court held that the Massachusetts servicemembers act contemplated that only mortgagees would have the requisite standing to bring a servicemember complaint, and parties with an option to hold the mortgage lack standing. As such, the court held that “only mortgagees or those acting on behalf of mortgagees have standing to bring servicemember proceedings.”
Florida AG Announces Settlement with Prepaid Debit Card Companies
On January 16, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that she obtained “first of their kind” settlements from the state’s five largest prepaid debit card companies. The settlements resolve claims that the companies failed to properly disclose information about fees and misled consumers with claims that use of the cards would improve credit history. While the agreements are not identical, they each require enhanced compliance measures, which generally relate to fee disclosures, use of comparison charts, and use of claims about credit improvements. Each company also agreed to make a donation to the Central Florida Chapter of Junior Achievement and pay the cost and fees for the matters investigated to the Office of the Attorney General.
California District Court Unseals FCA Complaint Filed Against Numerous Banks
Last week, after the government declined to intervene in the case, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unsealed a qui tam False Claims Act (FCA) complaint filed by a whistleblower in April 2012 against numerous banks. U.S. ex rel Hastings v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-3624, Complaint (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2012). The relator claims that the banks knowingly endorsed for FHA-insurance mortgage loans originated in transactions where down payment gift programs were used fraudulently. According to allegations in the complaint, the banks’ programs generated gift funds by manipulating the sales price to pass FHA down payment assistance fees onto the buyer. Further, the alleged system forced the borrower to repay the down payment gift, a violation of FHA policy. The relator alleges that the banks then submitted to HUD false certifications for the non-compliant endorsed loans, upon which HUD relied to issue FHA mortgage insurance. The relator claims that the government was required to pay, and will continue to have to pay, FHA benefits on defaulted loans that contained material violations, and seeks treble damages and penalties under the FCA, a cease and desist order against the lenders, and a civil penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 for each alleged violation of the FCA.
Federal Regulators Announce Additional Monetary Settlements in Lieu of Independent Foreclosure Review
On January 16, the Federal Reserve Board announced that two additional mortgage servicers subject to consent orders issued in April 2011 agreed in principle to a monetary resolution of allegations that the firms engaged in improper mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices. As described, the agreements in principle mirror those obtained by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC from 10 other servicers, which were announced last week. Together the two firms will provide $232 million in direct payments to more than 220,000 borrowers whose homes were in foreclosure during 2009 and 2010. The companies also will provide $325 million in other assistance, such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments. On January 18, the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC announced an agreement in principle with another servicer that will provide $96 million in direct payments to more than 112,000 borrowers, and $153 million in other assistance. Under all three agreements, borrowers will be contacted by the end of March about their exact payout, which could range from hundreds of dollars to $125,000, depending upon the type of alleged servicing error.
California District Court Holds Assignee Indirect Auto Finance Company Not Subject to FDCPA
On January 9, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that an indirect auto finance company that took assignment of a retail installment sales contract from an automobile dealer is not a debt collector subject to the FDCPA. Tu v. Camino Real Chevrolet, No. 12-9456, 2013 WL 140278 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2013). As the court explained, FDCPA Section 1692a(6) defines a “debt collector” to include any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails for the principle purpose of enforcing security interests. In this case, a customer purchased and financed a car with a dealer who subsequently assigned the retail installment sales contract to an auto finance company. When the borrower fell behind on his payments and the finance company tried to collect the debt, the borrower sued the finance company, alleging violations of the FDCPA. The court held that the finance company was primarily in the business of accepting installment sales contracts with its debt collection activities ancillary to its financing activities. Therefore, the finance company is not a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA. The court dismissed the borrower’s claims.
DOJ Announces Redlining Enforcement Action against Community Bank
On January 15, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it reached a settlement with a Michigan community bank regarding alleged redlining practices. In its complaint, the DOJ charged that between 2006 and 2009, the bank served the credit needs of white neighborhoods in the Saginaw and Flint, Michigan metropolitan areas to a significantly greater extent than it served the credit needs of majority African-American neighborhoods. Under the terms of the consent order, the bank is required to open a loan production office in an African-American neighborhood in Saginaw, invest $75,000 in a special financing program to increase the amount of credit the bank extends to majority African-American neighborhoods in and around Saginaw, invest $75,000 in partnerships with organizations that provide credit, financial, homeownership, and/or foreclosure prevention services to the residents of those neighborhoods, and invest $15,000 in outreach that promotes the bank’s products and services to potential customers in those neighborhoods.