The Department of Labor is fulfilling its promise to rethink the salary thresholds applicable to an employer’s obligation to pay overtime. The Department published a proposed rule on March 22nd that would expand eligibility for overtime (and minimum wage) to certain previously exempt employees. As explained in a prior update, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta has acknowledged that the overtime exemption needed updating, as the current thresholds were established decades ago.

As relevant to the mortgage industry, the Department announced in 2010 that it interprets the typical duties of a mortgage loan originator not to qualify for the “administrative” exemption from the federal obligation to pay employees overtime and minimum wage. Mortgage lenders had relied on previous guidance that those originators were exempt, but then had to analyze their originators’ duties to determine whether recharacterization of the originators as exempt or nonexempt was necessary.

Paying overtime compensation to mortgage loan originators can be a complex and difficult task. They often work nonstandard schedules, seeking to be available to potential borrowers, realtors, and others on a near “24/7” basis. Accordingly, keeping track of exact working hours can be tricky. In addition, they likely earn commissions (or a mix of a salary plus commissions), making the calculation of their weekly overtime rate of pay a challenge. The Department recognizes that employers of all types may decide to raise salary levels, reorganize workloads, adjust work schedules, or spread work hours in order to avoid payment of overtime.

Under the Department’s recent proposal, the salary levels for meeting the administrative exemption would increase, broadening the scope of overtime eligibility, but not as much as the Department’s prior attempt, issued in 2016. (A Texas federal court struck down that 2016 rule, holding that the Department exceeded its authority by raising the salary thresholds so high as to essentially supplant other criteria for the overtime exemption.) The current standard salary threshold is $455 per week ($23,600 per year). The Department’s proposal would raise that threshold to $679 per week ($35,308 per year). Continue Reading Department of Labor Proposes New Overtime Salary Thresholds

The Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) is updating its Technology Open to Approved Lenders (“TOTAL”) Mortgage Scorecard in an effort to address excessive risk layering where, for example, FHA mortgage loan applicants have low credit scores and high debt-to-income (“DTI”) ratios. The FHA announced on March 14th that the TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard updates will apply for all mortgages with FHA case numbers assigned on or after March 18, 2019. As a result, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) indicated that lenders should expect to receive an increase in the number of referrals from TOTAL for manual underwriting. While HUD appears to be focused on loans with low credit scores and high DTI ratios, it did not identify the specific changes it will make or the precise combinations of factors that may result in referrals for manual underwriting.

HUD created the FHA TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard as a statistical algorithm to evaluate loan applications and consumer credit using a scoring system that remains constant for all applicants. FHA lenders access TOTAL through an automated underwriting system. Lenders are required to score potential FHA mortgage transactions through TOTAL, except for streamline refinances, home equity conversion mortgages, Title I mortgages, and loans involving borrowers without credit scores. Continue Reading HUD updates FHA TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard

Earlier this week, the Bureau released the Winter 2019 edition of Supervisory Highlights.  This marks the first edition issued under the CFPB’s new Director, Kathy Kraninger, who was confirmed to a five-year term in December.  The report describes observations from examinations that were generally completed between June and November 2018 and summarizes recent publicly-released enforcement actions and guidance.

Like the sole edition of Supervisory Highlights issued under Acting Director Mick Mulvaney’s tenure, this edition emphasizes that “it is important to keep in mind that institutions are subject only to the requirements of relevant laws and regulations,” and that the purpose of disseminating Supervisory Highlights is to “help institutions better understand” how the Bureau examines them for compliance—statements that signal a shift in how the Bureau approaches its supervisory role. Continue Reading First Supervisory Highlights Under Director Kraninger Reflects Focus on Corrective Action and Prevention of Harm

Congress amended the Truth in Lending Act in May 2018 by directing the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau to prescribe ability-to-repay regulations with respect to Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) financing. PACE financing helps homeowners cover the costs of home improvements, which financing results in a tax assessment on the consumer’s property. Ability-to-repay regulations, which TILA and the CFPB currently impose in connection with most closed-end residential mortgage loans, would generally require a creditor to consider specific factors about a consumer’s finances, including income, assets, and debt obligations, and to verify the income and assets with reliable third-party documentation, prior to extending the financing.

On March 4, 2019, the CFPB issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) seeking information regarding, and responses to specific questions related to, PACE financing.

Read more in Mayer Brown’s Legal Update.

On February 22, the Third Circuit sidestepped the Supreme Court’s 2017 holding in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. and found that a purchaser of defaulted debt qualified as a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, the Third Circuit considered whether an entity that purchased charged off receivables and outsourced the actual collection activity was subject to the FDCPA.  In analyzing the issue, the court explained that the FDCPA’s definition of the term debt collector has two prongs, and if an entity satisfies either of them, it is a debt collector subject to the Act.  Under the “principal purpose” prong, a debt collector includes any person who “uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of is the collection of any debts.”  Under the “regularly collects” prong, a debt collector includes any person who “regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.”

The defendant in Barbato, Crown Asset Management, purchased defaulted debt and outsourced the collection function to a third party.  After being sued for allegedly violating the FDCPA, Crown argued (among other things) that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Henson, the Act did not apply to it because Crown owned the debts and thus did not regularly seek to collect debts owed to another.  In response to this argument, the Third Circuit explained that while Henson clarified the scope of the “regularly collects” definition, the Supreme Court “went out of its way in Henson to say that it was not opining on whether debt buyers could also qualify as debt collectors under [the principal purpose prong].” Continue Reading Third Circuit Holds that Debt Purchasers Can Qualify as Debt Collectors

Federal banking agencies issued a final rule, effective July 1, 2019, implementing the requirement in the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act (the “Act”) for the acceptance of private flood insurance on covered properties. The final rule largely mimics the proposal (which we addressed previously here), but with a few interesting revisions and additional details.

First, the agencies adopted the proposed definition of “private flood insurance” largely unchanged. The Act defines the term, so the agencies had little discretion. However, the agencies clarified what coverage is “at least as broad as” coverage provided under a standard flood insurance policy (“SFIP”). Specifically, the final rule removes the requirement that the policy cover both the mortgagors and mortgagees as loss payees.

The most important change from the proposed stage may be a revision to the rule’s so-called compliance aid. To assist in determining whether a particular private flood insurance policy meets the necessary criteria, the agencies initially proposed that a policy would meet the definition of “private flood insurance” if: (1) the policy includes a written summary identifying the policy provisions meeting each criterion and confirming the insurer’s licensing/approval status; (2) the regulated lending institution verifies in writing the provisions identified in the summary, and that those provisions in fact satisfy the criteria; and (3) the policy includes the following assurance clause: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”

The final rule indicated that the reaction to that proposed compliance aid was largely negative. Continue Reading Acceptance of Private Flood Insurance – Final Rule

CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger has filed her first contested lawsuit as CFPB Director.  Somewhat surprisingly, the lawsuit seeks to enforce a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) issued by the CFPB in June 2017—under former Director Richard Cordray—to a debt collection law firm.  The petition to enforce the CID makes clear that the respondent law firm made a “final, partial, redacted production” in response to the CID in September 2017.  Clearly, therefore, this matter was pending at the CFPB throughout the year-long tenure of Mick Mulvaney, during which the agency took no action to enforce the CID. It is dangerous to read too much into this action, but it does suggest that Kraninger may take a more aggressive enforcement posture than Mulvaney, who was criticized for the sharp drop in the number of enforcement actions under his watch.

The CID at issue is a typically broad CFPB CID from that era. It contains 21 interrogatories with dozens of sub-parts, seven requests for written reports, 15 requests for documents, and, unusually, four request for “tangible things,” in this case phone recordings and associated metadata. Read as a whole, the CID seeks information regarding virtually every aspect of the respondent’s debt collection business over a period of three-and-a-half years. The CID’s Notification of Purpose is equally broad and limitless, Continue Reading Kraninger’s First Lawsuit

Freddie Mac is an outlier among the three primary secondary market investors with its mid-month investor reporting cycle. In an effort to standardize the marketplace, Freddie Mac is joining Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mae by shifting its investor reporting cycle to the beginning of each month. In this regard, Freddie Mac is implementing the following changes: (i) the investor reporting cycle will run from the first day of each calendar month to the last day of such month; (ii) Freddie Mac is encouraging daily loan-level reporting, with reporting of at least one loan level-transaction detailing activity submitted no later than the 15th calendar day of each month (or next business day) (the “P&I Determination Date”); (iii) servicers will report the actual principal received and the forecasted scheduled interest based on unpaid principal balance reported at the end of the current one-month period; (iv) Freddie Mac will draft principal and interest from the servicer’s custodial account two business days after the P&I Determination Date; (v) on the fifth business day following a payoff, Freddie Mac will draft payoff proceeds, provided such payoff was reported within two business days of the payoff date, subject to certain requirements; and (vi) Freddie Mac will process and settle loan modifications on a daily basis.

Freddie Mac has released several bulletins outlining the transition (2016-15, 2017-4, 2017-15, and 2018-14), summarized in the following timeline:

Continue Reading Freddie Mac’s Investor Reporting Changes

On February 6, 2019, the CFPB issued a proposal to reconsider the mandatory underwriting provisions of its pending 2017 rule governing payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans (the Payday/Small Dollar Lending Rule, or the Rule).

The CFPB proposed and finalized its 2017 Payday/Small Dollar Lending Rule under former Director Richard Cordray. Compliance with that Rule was set to become mandatory in August 2019. However, in October 2018, the CFPB (under its new leadership of former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney) announced that it planned to revisit the Rule’s underwriting provisions (known as the ability-to-repay provisions), and it expected to issue proposed rules addressing those provisions in January 2019. The Rule also became subject to a legal challenge, and in November 2018 a federal court issued an order staying that August 2019 compliance date pending further order.

The 2017 Rule had identified two practices as unfair and abusive: (1) making a covered short-term loan or longer-term balloon payment loan without determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan; and (2) absent express consumer authorization, making attempts to withdraw payments from a consumer’s account after two consecutive payments have failed. Under that 2017 Rule, creditors would have been required to underwrite payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans (i.e., determine borrowers’ ability to repay). The Rule also would have required creditors to furnish information regarding covered short-term loans and covered longer-term balloon loans to “registered information systems.” See our previous coverage of the Rule here and here. Continue Reading CFPB Announces Proposal to Revoke (Most of) the Payday/Small Dollar Lending Rule

While most of the federal government remained shuttered in mid-January, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau) was on the job, thinking about the Military Lending Act (MLA or the Act). On January 17, 2019, the Bureau’s Director, Kathleen Kraninger, issued a statement asking Congress to “explicitly grant the Bureau authority to conduct examinations specifically intended to review compliance with the MLA.” Director Kraninger’s predecessor, Mick Mulvaney, reportedly halted MLA-related examinations last year, citing the lack of statutory authority . It appears from the Director’s request that the CFPB may not conduct MLA compliance examinations without new legislation.

The MLA—enacted in 2006 and implemented by the Department of Defense—provides enhanced protection to active duty service members, their spouses, and their dependents when they obtain certain types of loan products. One of the main protections prevents creditors from imposing more than a 36% Military Annual Percentage Rate (an annualized rate including interest and other fees) on a covered individual for certain products. The Act also prohibits certain loan terms, such as mandatory arbitration clauses or prepayment penalties.

Congress granted the Bureau enforcement authority for the MLA’s requirements in 2013. At the time, the Bureau interpreted the scope of that new authority to include supervision—the authority to proactively examine covered institutions for violations of the Act. In its Supervisory Highlights for Winter 2013, the Bureau stated that it would ensure adherence to the MLA through both enforcement and supervision activity, and noted that it had updated its short-term, small-dollar loan examination procedures with guidance on how to identify MLA violations. The Bureau then issued a set of standalone examination procedures for MLA compliance in 2016. The Bureau has taken one enforcement action based on MLA violations—a consent order issued in 2013.

The Bureau has not issued any formal guidance regarding MLA-related supervisory activity since 2016. However, in August 2018, it was widely reported that then-Acting Director Mulvaney planned to suspend MLA-related examinations. The basis for the suspension was reportedly that, although the MLA legislation granted the Bureau enforcement authority, the Act did not grant supervisory authority. In other words, the Bureau planned to continue to exercise its enforcement authority as violations of the MLA came to its attention, but CFPB examiners would not proactively monitor covered institutions for violations.

Subsequent to those reports, Democratic members of the House Committee on Financial Services (HCFS)—including current HCFS Chair Maxine Waters—sent a letter to Director Kraninger requesting that she commit to resuming MLA-related supervisory activity. The Director responded by issuing the above-mentioned request for legislation explicitly granting the Bureau supervisory authority over the MLA. Based on the wording of Director Kraninger’s request, it appears that the Bureau may not conduct “examinations specifically intended to review compliance with the MLA” until it receives explicit legislative authority from Congress.

In conjunction with her request, Director Kraninger submitted to lawmakers proposed legislation that would grant the Bureau supervisory authority for the MLA’s requirements. A week prior to the Director’s request, Representative Andy Barr introduced House Resolution 442, which would also grant the requested authority. The prospects for either proposal are unclear in a divided Congress.