In the CFPB’s new Supervisory Highlights, the agency concludes that paying individual mortgage loan originators differently for loan products that are brokered out to another lender, as compared to loans that are originated in-house, is a violation of Regulation Z’s Loan Originator Compensation Rule.
The CFPB’s Highlights describe a lender that makes certain mortgage
In explaining its view of the pleading standards in a disparate treatment discrimination case, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) shed light on its interpretation of the Truth in Lending Act’s (“TILA’s”) appraisal independence standards, providing that a lender is not required to rely on a biased appraisal.
The underlying case relates to a claim that an appraiser undervalued a home because of the homeowners’ race, and that the lender knew of the undervaluation. In mid-March, the CFPB and the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in the case, addressing the applicability of nondiscrimination principles in the property valuation context. In doing so, the agencies also addressed the federal requirements for appraiser independence.
TILA and its Regulation Z prohibit lenders or other covered persons from coercing, instructing, or inducing an appraiser to cause the appraised value to be based on any factor other than the appraiser’s independent judgment. They also prohibit lenders from suborning any mischaracterization of a property’s appraised value or materially altering a property valuation. A lender that reasonably believes an appraiser has materially violated ethical or professional requirements must report the appraiser to the appropriate state agency. In addition, to comply with Regulation Z’s conflict-of-interest requirements, mortgage lenders generally ensure that the appraiser reports to a person who is not part of the lenders’ loan production function, and that no person in that function is involved in selecting the appraiser. Agencies and investors may impose additional requirements or prohibitions addressing appraisal independence.
The regulations expressly permit a lender to ask the appraiser to consider additional information, provide further detail or explanation, or correct errors. However, lenders must walk a fine line – while they may ask for additional information, explanations, or corrections, they are understandably careful in questioning an appraiser’s conclusions and are limited in their ability to obtain a second appraisal. (For instance, Fannie Mae generally prohibits its lenders from obtaining a second appraisal without a reasonable and documented basis for believing that the first appraisal is flawed.)Continue Reading CFPB Addresses the Fine Lines of Appraisal Independence
The CFPB marketed its latest set of supervisory highlights as the “Junk Fees Special Edition.” The splashy headline is consistent with the agency’s recent focus on fees that it asserts are hidden from the competitive process. In speeches, press releases, and blog posts (and now a single proposed rule), the CFPB has stressed its growing concern with “junk” fees. The CFPB even created a section of its web site solely devoted to press releases on “junk” fees.
Gleaning compliance guidance from Supervisory Highlights is not always straightforward, as they do not provide full details. However, in this Special Edition, the CFPB notes that it has characterized the following types of fees and practices as junk:
Deposit Accounts
Auto/Title Financing
Mortgage Loan ServicingContinue Reading CFPB Junk Fees Special Edition
Today, in another legal blow to the CFPB, a federal court in Illinois dismissed the Bureau’s redlining lawsuit against Townstone Financial (“Townstone”) and its owner.
The Bureau made waves back in 2020 when it filed the lawsuit, which was the first public redlining action brought by the Bureau against a non-bank mortgage lender. While the
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its latest set of Supervisory Highlights and reminded us that “unforeseen” means “unforeseen.”
The CFPB’s regulations generally prohibit reducing a loan originator’s compensation in selective cases. While lower compensation sounds good for consumers, the CFPB asserts that allowing loan originators to decrease their compensation in selective cases is actually
Apparently time flies when you’re Director Chopra of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). On June 17, Director Chopra issued a blog post titled “Rethinking the Approach to Regulations,” indicating that the agency will move toward “simpler and clearer rules” that are easy to understand and enforce. As part of that effort, the
On February 9, 2022, the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) released its Draft FHFA Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022-2026 (the “2022 Strategic Plan”) for public input.
This year, FHFA added a novel objective to this plan – to identify options for incorporating climate change into FHFA’s governance of the entities it regulates.
According to
Mayer Brown and the Mortgage Bankers Association (“MBA”) invite you to the 2022 Mortgage & Housing Summit: The Outlook for Issuers and Investors, hosted in-person at Mayer Brown’s New York office.
The event will take place on March 17 from 12:00 to 5:00 pm EDT.
Formerly known as the annual Mortgage REIT Summit, this
Mortgage loan servicers have a wide range of responsibilities. However, does everything servicers do constitute “servicing”? Or do servicers do some things that are not “servicing”?
The answer is important because the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and its Regulation X impose strict obligations on servicers to respond to certain borrower communications related to “servicing,” but not to nonservicing. The courts, including two recent federal courts of appeals, are drawing fine lines between the two.
RESPA requires a mortgage loan servicer to respond in a timely manner to a borrower’s request to correct errors relating to “allocation of payments, final balances for purposes of paying off the loan, or avoiding foreclosure, or other standard servicer’s duties.” Section 1024.35 of Regulation X specifies that a servicer must acknowledge, investigate, and respond to a borrower’s “notice of error” within strict timeframes, so long as the notice is in writing and provides enough information for the servicer to identify the account and the asserted error. In addition, after receipt of a notice of error, a servicer is prohibited, for 60 days, from furnishing adverse information to a consumer reporting agency regarding any payment that is the subject of the notice.
Section 1024.35 then provides a list of covered errors that are subject to those requirements. The list includes errors that could arise in typical servicing activities – errors related to the acceptance, application, or crediting of borrower payments; and to disbursing amounts for taxes, insurance premiums, or other charges. The list of covered errors also includes those that could arise in default servicing – errors related to providing information regarding loss mitigation options, making foreclosure notices or filings, moving for foreclosure judgments or orders of sale, or conducting foreclosure sales.
Then, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) included a catch-all provision to section 1024.35, such that a covered error includes “any other error relating to the servicing of a borrower’s mortgage loan.”
Courts have been considering the scope of those responsibilities since even before the CFPB issued that list in 2013. Recently, two circuit courts of appeals have indicated that some activities of servicers do not constitute “servicing,” particularly where loan modifications are involved.
Continue Reading Mortgage Servicing “Notices of Error” – Does The Catch-All Catch It All?
Climate change is a serious threat to the US housing finance system. That is the conclusion reached by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) in a December 27th statement. In the statement, Acting FHFA Director Sandra L. Thompson recognizes that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks have an important leadership