On May 15, 2020, the House of Representatives passed the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (H.R. 6800, or the “HEROES Act”). The legislation is a controversial behemoth. It would provide another round of stimulus checks and student loan forgiveness, impose a 12-month eviction moratorium, expand mortgage forbearance relief, provide a
In a development that industry observers may have overlooked amid more pressing concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Idaho legislature enacted a measure that will require mortgage servicers to be licensed by July 1, 2020, unless the date is extended. With last month’s enactment, Idaho joins the majority of states that license mortgage servicing and provides a useful reminder that, when things eventually return to some degree of normalcy, non-pandemic-related compliance obligations will remain. This blog post discusses Idaho’s new mortgage servicer licensing obligation and other pertinent provisions of the legislation.
The New Mortgage Servicer Licensing Obligation
Idaho House Bill 401 (“H401” or the “Bill”) amends the Idaho Residential Mortgage Practices Act (Idaho Code §§ 26-31-101 et seq.) (the “RMPA” or the “Act”) to include mortgage servicing among the activities that trigger licensing under the Act.
Continue Reading Regulatory Life Goes On—Idaho Legislature Remained in Session During COVID-19 Pandemic to License Mortgage Servicers
How do documents get signed and notarized when the parties signing the documents are faced with stay-at-home orders? While both the federal Electronic Signatures In Global And National Commerce Act and state-enacted versions of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act authorize notaries to perform electronic notarizations, electronic notarization is different than remote online notarization (RON). Without…
On Friday, March 27, 2020, the President signed into law a stimulus bill designed to provide emergency assistance for those affected by the COVID-19 national emergency (the “CARES Act” or “Act”) that includes certain temporary relief for federal student loan borrowers. The Act largely codifies the Department of Education’s previous announcement regarding temporary relief to federal student loan borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 national emergency and extends the timeline for the temporary relief measures.
The Act provides three primary relief measures to federal student loan borrowers whose loans are held by the Department of Education:…
On Thursday, March 26, 2020, from 3:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. EDT, Larry Platt will discuss the provisions of recent federal legislation that impact residential mortgage loans. This call is a part of Mayer Brown’s Global Financial Markets Teleconference Series.
Congress’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is expansive legislation that provides support to federal agencies,…
The Taxpayer First Act (the “Act” or “TFA”) imposes new limits on the disclosure of US taxpayer tax information obtained on or after December 28, 2019. The Act is designed, among other things, to overhaul and modernize operations at the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). One provision of the TFA has a direct impact on a recipient of taxpayer return information obtained directly from the IRS. Although questions remain about the reach of the new rule, it is already finding its way into structured finance and secondary market transactions.
Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) governs the confidentiality and disclosure of tax returns and the information contained in tax returns. The TFA, effective as of December 28, 2019, amends Code Section 6103(c) to require taxpayers to consent to: (i) the particular purposes for which the recipient will use the taxpayer’s tax return information (the recipient may not use the information for any other purpose); and (ii) the sharing of any information from the tax return with other persons. Prior to the TFA amendment, Code Section 6103(c) simply authorized the IRS to release a taxpayer’s tax return information to parties designated by the taxpayer to receive it.
Continue Reading The Taxpayer First Act and the Impact on Secondary Market Participants
For many years it was unclear whether mortgage debt was covered under the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”), which is California’s corollary to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). That issue was resolved on October 7, 2019, when California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law legislation that expressly includes “mortgage debt” within the Rosenthal Act’s definition of “consumer credit.” Senate Bill 187 (“SB 187”), which is effective January 1, 2020, amends the Rosenthal Act to expressly apply to debt collection activities involving residential mortgage loans.
SB 187 also amends the Rosenthal Act so that it now includes attorneys in the definition of “debt collector.” Until the amended Rosenthal Act goes into effect, attorneys are excluded from that definition.
Continue Reading California Legislature Declares that Mortgage Debt Is Regulated under the State’s Debt Collection Law
The U.S. House of Representatives is considering a bill to address the underwriting difficulties and resulting lack of access to mortgage credit for self-employed borrowers and others with nontraditional income sources.
On April 29, 2019, New Jersey joined a growing number of states that license mortgage loan servicers when Governor Phil Murphy signed the Mortgage Servicers Licensing Act, to be effective in July 2019. Mayer Brown’s latest Legal Update discusses implications for mortgage servicers, including new licensing requirements, certain exemptions, and the Act’s relationship to federal…
Legalization of certain cannabis-related activities by over 30 states has led to a surge in companies that grow and produce cannabis and related products. However, banks and other financial services companies have been hesitant to serve this growing population of potential customers due to conflicting statutes and enforcement policies under federal law. On Thursday, March 28, 2019, the Financial Services Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives took a step toward clearing some ambiguity, at least for federally insured financial institutions.
The Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019 (“SAFE Act”), which the Committee approved on a vote of 45-15, with 11 of the panel’s Republican members voting in favor, has been cleared for consideration by the full House. The SAFE Act would, if enacted, provide a safe harbor against retaliatory enforcement action by federal bank regulators directed at banks (including federal branches of non-U.S. banks), savings associations, and credit unions that provide services to cannabis businesses or service providers. In addition, the SAFE Act would prohibit federal regulators from discouraging depository institutions from offering financial services, including loans, to an account holder on the basis that the account holder is a cannabis-related business or service provider; an employee, owner, or operator of a cannabis-related business; or an owner or operator of real estate or equipment leased to a cannabis-related business. Furthermore, the SAFE Act would provide that officers, directors, and employees of depository institutions and the Federal Reserve Banks may not be held liable under federal law or regulations based solely on their provision of financial services to cannabis-related businesses or for investing any income derived from such businesses. The protections would apply only to cannabis-related businesses located in states, political subdivisions of states, or an Indian country where local law permits the cultivation, production, manufacture, sale, transportation, distribution, or purchase of cannabis. …
Continue Reading House Takes First Step to Open Banking for Cannabis Companies