InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
VA clarifies policy regarding the use of lender payment or credit of certain borrower costs
On February 23, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-18-4 in response to reports that lenders may be funding temporary “buydown” or escrow accounts in order to subsidize a borrower’s payment through an above market interest rate, which the VA views as a “cash-advance on principal.” The circular reminds lenders that cash-advances on principal are prohibited, and lenders may not pay temporary buydown fees and charges. The circular notes that sellers are not prohibited from paying buydown fees and charges for the borrower and that lenders are allowed to charge a maximum of one percent of the loan amount as a flat charge in lieu of all other charges related to the costs of origination not expressly allowed by 38 C.F.R. 36.4313. The circular is effective until January 1, 2020.
Previously, on February 1, the VA updated multiple chapters of the VA Servicer Handbook M26-4, which, among other things, added the definition of delinquency, corrected the bankruptcy reporting timeframe, and added information on the new VA Affordable Modification.
3rd Circuit holds payday lender’s arbitration clause unenforceable
On February 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an arbitration clause is unenforceable if the corresponding forum selection provision designates a forum that does not actually exist. According to the opinion, in 2012 the plaintiff obtained a $5,000 loan from the defendant, an online loan servicer. An arbitration provision accompanying the loan agreement stated that arbitration would be conducted by an authorized representative of a specific tribal nation. The plaintiff subsequently sued the defendants for allegedly violating the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, and various New Jersey state laws. The defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the lower court denied. In affirming the lower court’s decision, the 3rd Circuit concluded that the tribal arbitration forum referenced in the loan agreement does not actually exist and “because the loan agreement’s forum selection clause is an integral, non-severable part of the arbitration agreement,” the entire arbitration agreement is unenforceable.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in January, a district court judge ordered the same online loan servicer and its affiliates to pay a $10 million penalty for offering high-interest loans in states with usury laws barring the transactions. The penalty was based on a September 2016 finding that online loan servicer was the “true lender” of the loans issued through entities located on tribal lands. The penalty was significantly reduced from the CFPB’s request of over $50 million.
Florida judge rules borrower failed to establish RESPA private right of action
On February 20, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an opinion and order against a borrower after a two-day bench trial, finding that the borrower failed to establish a private right of action for any of her alleged RESPA violations. According to the opinion, one of the defendants, a mortgage company, initiated foreclosure proceedings against the borrower for failing to pay required insurance and tax associated with her reverse mortgage. During this period, the mortgage company purchased force-placed insurance through an insurance intermediary company to protect its collateral for the reverse mortgage. When the borrower later brought the account current, the mortgage company dismissed the foreclosure complaint. However, the borrower filed a suit against the mortgage company for failing to “advance insurance premiums on her behalf through an escrow account” and against the second defendant, an insurance company, for procuring a policy that “tortiously interfered” with her business relationship with the mortgage company. Specifically, the borrower alleged the procedure used to obtain the force-placed rates violated Florida Insurance Code Section 626.916, and were, therefore, “not bona fide and reasonable under RESPA.”
However, the judge ruled that none of the borrower’s claims created a private right of action under RESPA, and furthermore, the borrower could not “bootstrap Section 626.916 through another cause of action.” Additionally, the judge noted that counsel for the borrower was unable to provide case law authority to support the “proposition that [the borrower’s] RESPA claim could be premised on a Florida statue which lacked a private right of action.” Concerning the borrower’s allegations of tortious interference against the insurance company, the judge concluded that the claim failed to show that the insurance company “intentionally or unjustifiably” interfered with her relationship with the mortgage company.
OCC provides banks with resources for community revitalization efforts
On February 27, the OCC published a new edition of its Community Developments Investments newsletter entitled, “Expanding Housing Opportunities: Single-Family Rehabilitation Financing Programs.” The publication provides resources and programs for national banks and federal savings associations to utilize to assist in community revitalization efforts. Highlighted is program guidance set forth previously in OCC Bulletin 2017-28, “Mortgage Lending: Risk Management Guidance for Higher-Loan-to-Value Lending Programs in Communities Targeted for Revitalization,” which outlines criteria geared towards residential rehabilitation loan financing. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The publication also covers significant revitalization initiatives in communities across America, explains the ways in which loan programs sponsored by the Federal Housing Administration and Fannie Mae are supporting single-family rehabilitation financing initiatives, and notes that banks participating in such programs may qualify for Community Reinvestment Act consideration during evaluation.
House passes bill to ease operational risk capital requirements for banks
On February 27, in a bipartisan vote of 245-169, the House passed H.R. 4296, which would ease the operational risk capital requirements for banks based on several factors. Specifically, the bill would prohibit the establishment of such requirements unless they are based primarily on the risks posed by a bank's current activities and are determined by a forward-looking assessment of its potential losses and not solely on historic losses. The requirements must also allow for certain adjustments based on certain operational risk mitigants. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling stated in a press release issued by the Committee that “H.R. 4296 simply amends the method of how reserve capital is calculated” and that “banks would still retain sufficient reserves to weather an economic storm, but they would also be able to put the billions of dollars currently sitting on the sidelines to work to help fuel the economy.”
Texas State Securities Board issues order halting unregistered cryptocurrency trading operation
On February 26, the Texas State Securities Board (Board) issued an emergency cease and desist order (order) to an unregistered cryptocurrency trading operation for allegedly targeting investors through fraudulent and materially misleading online advertisements and offering unregistered securities for sale. According to the order, the company purportedly—in addition to intentionally seeking to mislead the public by promoting high-return investment opportunities—failed to disclose risks associated with cryptocurrency mining, promised investors it would comply with “all relevant laws and regulations,” and claimed that its fund directors were regulated by the Cayman Islands. The Board further asserted the company failed to disclose the true identities of its Code of Ethics Association members responsible for “contract law, due diligence and corporate law,” and instead, created the impression it was associated with attorneys and judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Under the terms of the order, the company, among other things, is prohibited from engaging in the sale of securities in the state until the security is registered with the SEC or exempt from registration under the Texas Securities Act, and cannot act as a securities dealer until it complies with the same.
OFAC sanctions target North Korea’s shipping and trading industry
On February 23, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed additional sanctions targeting the North Korean shipping and trading industry. The sanctions include the designation of 27 entities, 28 vessels, and one individual consistent with the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin stated, “Treasury is aggressively targeting all illicit avenues used by North Korea to evade sanctions, including taking decisive action to block the vessels, shipping companies, and entities across the globe that work on North Korea’s behalf. This will significantly hinder the Kim regime’s capacity to conduct evasive maritime activities that facilitate illicit coal and fuel transports, and erode its abilities to ship goods through international waters.” All property or interests in property held by the sanctioned individual and entities within U.S. jurisdiction must be blocked, and transactions between the designated persons and Americans are also prohibited.
Separately, OCAC issued a global shipping advisory in conjunction with the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Coast Guard to, among other things, (i) outline methods employed by North Korea to facilitate illicit transactions to evade sanctions; (ii) list due diligence steps companies should employ to monitor illicit North Korean activity and mitigate the risk of potentially engaging in prohibited activity or transactions; and (iii) provide an overview of penalties associated with violating U.S. or UN sanctions.
See here for previous InfoBytes coverage on North Korean sanctions.
IRS issues reporting guidance for MIP
On February 22, the IRS issued a notice providing guidance to mortgage lenders on the reporting of mortgage insurance premiums (MIP) treated as qualified residence interest. The IRS emphasizes that MIP paid or accrued through December 31, 2017 will be deductible for eligible taxpayers and informs lenders to report MIP received in 2017 on Form 1098. If a lender has already filed Form 1098 and did not include the reportable MIP, the IRS requires lenders to file corrected forms by the filing due date and to furnish corrected statements to borrowers by March 15.
Alabama extends right of redemption period
On February 22, Alabama enacted HB 90, which amends the Code of Alabama section relating to the right of redemption on residential property. The amendment provides for a one-year right of redemption period after the foreclosure sale date. Alabama requires a mortgagee to mail a notice of a mortgagor’s right of redemption at least 30 days prior to the foreclosure sale, and the amendment allows the mortgagee to use the proof of mailing of the notice as an affirmative defense to any notice requirement action. Finally, the amendment reduces the time all actions related to the notice requirement must be brought from two years to one year after the date of foreclosure.
OCC updates Comptroller’s Licensing Manual to revise background investigation guidance
On February 23, the OCC released Bulletin 2018-5 announcing a revised version of its “Background Investigations (Version 1.1)” booklet, which is part of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual. The revised booklet replaces a November 2017 booklet of the same name, and reflects minor technical corrections and one process update. The booklet outlines the OCC’s procedures for carrying out background investigations of individuals, companies, and other organizations who file applications or notices seeking to acquire control of or influence a national bank or a federal branch or agency of a foreign bank. Specifically, the changes made under the heading “Application Process” (i) removes enforcement actions and 12 USC §1818 approval conditions from a list of filers subject to OCC background investigations; and (ii) adds a description of language the OCC may use should the agency decide to allow an individual to assume his duties before the background investigation has been completed.