Mortgage Lending – Page 4 – Consumer Financial Services Watch

S.D.N.Y. Judge Denies Class Certification in Fair Housing Act Suit against Morgan Stanley

May 20 2015

By: Andrew C. Glass, Roger L. Smerage, Eric W. Lee

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently denied class certification in a Fair Housing Act disparate-impact case in which plaintiffs attempted to hold Morgan Stanley liable for investing in subprime mortgage loans that another entity originated. Adkins v. Morgan Stanley, No. 12-CV-7667, 2013 WL 3835198 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2013).

U.S. Supreme Court Allows DOL Interpretation on Overtime for Mortgage Loan Officers

Mar 16 2015

By: Thomas H. Petrides, John L. Longstreth

On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) could issue a controversial “Administrator’s Interpretation,” which had concluded in 2010 that loan officers in the mortgage banking industry generally do not qualify as exempt from overtime under the administrative exemption of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Supreme Court reversed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that had struck down the DOL administrative ruling. The Mortgage Bankers Association had challenged the 2010 Interpretation in court, arguing that because the DOL had previously issued an Opinion Letter in 2006 determining that loan officers could generally qualify as exempt from overtime under the administrative exemption, the DOL could not change its prior position without first issuing a written notice and allowing a comment period pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision ruled that because the 2006 DOL Opinion Letter was itself merely an interpretation of an existing rule and not a new rule with the force and effect of law, DOL could reverse its prior position and issue a new interpretation without a prior notice and comment rulemaking.

Navigating HUD’s New Single Family Housing Policy Handbook

Feb 17 2015

By: Phillip L. Schulman, Holly Spencer Bunting, Krista Cooley, Emily J. Booth-Dornfeld, Christa Bieker

Last fall the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued the first section of its new Single Family Housing Policy Handbook (“Single Family Handbook” or “Handbook”). The Single Family Handbook is designed to achieve a consolidated, authoritative source of single-family housing policy. In addition to consolidating all policy into a single document, the Handbook makes numerous substantive changes to Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) requirements. The Handbook will be effective for FHA-insured loans with case numbers assigned on and after June 15, 2015. This client alert analyzes key changes introduced by the Handbook.

To read the full alert, click here.

Tweaks to TRID – CFPB Issues Final Rule Amending Integrated RESPA/TILA Disclosure

Feb 04 2015

By: Kristie D. Kully

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently issued a final rule amending certain aspects of its integrated disclosure requirements under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act. The CFPB gave the mortgage lending and settlement industries over 18 months—until August 1, 2015—to prepare for the comprehensive overhaul of the disclosures provided to consumers upon application for and settlement of most residential mortgage loans. (Some have called that overhaul effort “TRID”—the TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosures.) During that preparation time, the CFPB has learned of the need for corrections or improvements to those complex requirements. In its latest rulemaking, the CFPB attempts to fix certain issues related to providing a revised Loan Estimate disclosure (the first part of TRID) when a creditor and consumer decide to lock in the interest rate or other charges, and when the creditor expects a long construction period prior to settlement. The new rule also requires loan originators to include their names and identification numbers on the Loan Estimate and the Closing Disclosure (the second part of TRID), and clarifies how creditors must disclose per diem interest. Below, is a description of the changes that the CFPB’s most recent rulemaking makes to the disclosure requirements under the original TRID rule.

Justices Sotomayor and Scalia Lead the Way as the Supreme Court Hears Argument on the Fair Housing Act Disparate-Impact Question

Jan 22 2015

By: Paul F. Hancock, Andrew C. Glass, Roger L. Smerage, and Olivia Kelman

On January 21, 2015, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (the “Texas DHCA case”). The case presents the question whether the Fair Housing Act recognizes a disparate-impact theory of liability. See Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. The Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., — S. Ct. —, 2014 WL 4916193 (Oct. 2, 2014) (No. 13-1371) (granting petition for writ of certiorari). Under that theory, a plaintiff may challenge a defendant’s policies or practices that are neutral on their face (that is, do not reflect any intent to discriminate) but that purportedly have a disproportionate effect on groups sharing certain statutorily-defined characteristics such as race or national origin. The Supreme Court has expressed strong interest in the issue, granting certiorari three times in the last four terms to decide the question, only to have the parties settle just before oral argument in the previous two matters. See Magner v. Gallagher, S. Ct. No. 10-1032, and Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., S. Ct. No. 11-1507. At argument in the Texas DHCA case, the public was finally able to hear the nature of the Court’s interest in the issue.

Eminent Enabler: Congress Prohibits HUD and Ginnie Mae from Facilitating Local Government Seizure of Mortgage Loans

Dec 22 2014

By: Laurence E. Platt

At least for the next year, Congress has materially impaired the ability of local governments to seize underwater residential mortgage loans through eminent domain by cutting off federal insurance or guarantees to refinance the seized mortgages and then securitize the refinancings. Without this federal “take out” through mortgage insurance provided by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), and guarantees of mortgage-backed securities by the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”), local governments will have to find private sources of long-term funding to pay for loans that they attempt to seize.

Mortgage Lenders File Brief with Supreme Court Arguing That Fair Housing Act Does Not Support Disparate-Impact Claims

Dec 01 2014

By: Paul F. Hancock, Andrew C. Glass, Roger L. Smerage, and Olivia Kelman

On November 24, 2014, K&L Gates filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the American Financial Services Association, the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the Mortgage Bankers Association as amici curiae in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., No. 13-1371. The case presents the question left unresolved by settlements in Magner v. Gallagher, No. 10-1032, and Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., No. 11-1507, namely whether the Fair Housing Act recognizes a disparate-impact theory of liability. The brief supports the petitioners’ argument that the Act is properly read as being limited to cases of intentional discrimination and explains the negative impact of the disparate-impact theory on the residential mortgage lending industry. A copy of the brief is available here. The Court will hear oral argument in the case on January 21, 2015.

CFPB Issues Guidance to Mortgage Lenders on Verifying Disability Income

Nov 20 2014

By: Melanie Brody, Stephanie C. Robinson, Jay M. Willis

On Tuesday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) issued a compliance bulletin, CFPB Bulletin 2014-03, to help lenders avoid discrimination against recipients of Social Security Administration (“SSA”) disability income in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation B.

Creditors may occasionally feel stuck between a rock and a hard place when underwriting mortgage loans for disability income recipients. On the one hand, creditors have a legal obligation to ensure that applicants are able to repay any credit extended. When an applicant receives public assistance, Regulation B expressly allows creditors to consider the length of time that such assistance is likely to continue. On the other hand, while SSA provides recipients with disability benefits documentation, that documentation generally does not detail how long benefits will last. Creditors seeking to responsibly underwrite mortgage loans must somehow make that determination on their own.

Another CFPB Loan Originator Compensation Enforcement Action

Nov 17 2014

By: Kris D. Kully

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has once again charged a mortgage lender with paying compensation to loan originators based on loan terms, which is prohibited under the Truth in Lending Act and its Regulation Z. This week, the CFPB asked a federal court to approve an order requiring Franklin Loan Corporation (which lends in California and Illinois) to pay $730,000 for allegedly paying loan originators quarterly bonuses based on loan terms.

A Hard Rain Has Started to Fall A Product-by-Product Review of the CFPB’S First 60 Enforcement Actions

Nov 12 2014

By: Jon Eisenberg

Between July 17, 2012 and October 9, 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought 60 enforcement actions. According to our unofficial tally, they resulted in settlements requiring the payment of $2.2 billion in restitution, $174 million in CFPB civil money penalties, and, in a few cases, other forms of consumer relief. In this alert, we discuss the products and alleged practices that led to those recoveries. Our purpose is simple—what’s past is likely prologue when it comes to CFPB enforcement actions. Understanding the conduct that produced the first 60 enforcement actions will help companies avoid becoming one of the next 60 enforcement actions.

To read the full alert, click here.

Catagory:Mortgage Lending