Mortgage Lending – Page 5 – Consumer Financial Services Watch

U.S. District Court Strikes Down HUD’s Fair Housing Act Disparate Impact Rule

Nov 04 2014

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

On Monday, November 3, 2014, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down the disparate impact rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) in March 2013 under the Fair Housing Act. The court held that HUD had issued the rule—codified at 24 C.F.R. § 100.500—in contravention of the plain language of the Fair Housing Act. The case is styled American Insurance Association, et al. v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00966-RJL (D.D.C.).

K&L Gates Legal Insight: Is the Third Time the Charm? The Supreme Court to Again Consider Whether the Fair Housing Act Recognizes a Disparate Impact Theory of Liability

Oct 08 2014

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

For the third time in four terms, the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to consider whether the Fair Housing Act recognizes a disparate impact theory of liability. Under that theory, a plaintiff may establish liability for actions performed without any intent to discriminate simply because they may have a disproportionate effect on groups sharing certain statutorily defined characteristics, such as race or national origin. In two recent cases, the Supreme Court was set to decide the issue, only to have the parties settle just before argument. Now, in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (the “Texas DHCA case”), the Court has another opportunity to decide the question.

To read the full alert, click here.

If Bernanke Wants to Refinance, Maybe He Needs a Co-Signer?

Oct 06 2014

By: Kristie D. Kully, Laurence E. Platt

While former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke may be known for his loose monetary policy, unfortunately his mortgage lender is not. According to Bloomberg News, Mr. Bernanke complained (while addressing a conference of the National Investment Center for Seniors Housing and Care in Chicago on October 2) that he was recently unable to refinance his mortgage loan.

Although Mr. Bernanke reportedly remarked that “it’s entirely possible” that lenders “may have gone a little bit too far on mortgage credit conditions,” it’s hard to blame lenders. Mr. Bernanke may seem to be a good credit risk, but a lender that follows the underwriting standards mandated by the federal Qualified Mortgage (“QM”) regulations can’t make a loan to just anyone.
Read More

2013 HMDA Data is Now Available; Mortgage Lenders Should Consider Evaluating Redlining Risk

Sep 25 2014

By: Melanie Brody, Anjali Garg*
*Ms. Garg is not admitted in D.C. She is supervised by Stephanie Robinson, a member of the D.C. Bar.

It has been a busy week in the fair lending space. Last week, the CFPB issued a white paper describing its proxying methodology for imputing race and ethnicity when analyzing fair lending compliance on non-mortgage credit products along with a proposed rule to oversee nonbank auto finance companies. This week, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council released the 2013 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) data, and the Federal Reserve released its own analysis of the data.

Big Data takes a Big Step: CFPB Offers Insight into Its Fair Lending Proxy Methodology

Sep 18 2014

By: Melanie Brody, Anjali Garg*
*Ms. Garg is not admitted in D.C. She is supervised by Stephanie Robinson, a member of the D.C. Bar.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires residential mortgage lenders to collect race and ethnicity information about loan applicants, and lenders, regulators and others routinely use this information to statistically evaluate whether there is a risk that a lender has discriminated against borrowers on a prohibited basis. With regard to other types of credit, with respect to which federal law generally prohibits the collection of demographic information, lenders and other interested parties must impute credit applicants’ race and ethnicity using proxies. For example, a lender could use the racial composition of the census tract in which a consumer resides to assign an assumed race to the consumer. Although proxying provides a way to evaluate fair lending risk in the absence of actual demographic data, there historically has not been a generally-accepted methodology for performing the proxy process, and this has made it particularly challenging to evaluate fair lending compliance for non-mortgage credit products.

Mortgage Broker or Mini-Correspondent: CFPB Issues Policy Guidance on Questions for Consideration

Jul 18 2014

By: Holly Spencer Bunting, Anaxet Y. Jones

In response to what the CFPB views as an increasing trend among mortgage brokers shifting to a mini-correspondent lender model, the CFPB recently issued “Policy Guidance on Supervisory and Enforcement Considerations Relevant to Mortgage Brokers Transitioning to Mini-Correspondent Lenders” (“Policy Guidance”) regarding the application of Regulations X (RESPA) and Z (TILA) to transactions involving mini-correspondent lenders. In addition to providing background on the differences between brokers and mini-correspondents and certain requirements of Regulations X and Z, the Policy Guidance identifies questions the CFPB may consider when reviewing mini-correspondent transactions and the relationship between the mini-correspondent lender and the investor as part of CFPB examinations or enforcement actions. The CFPB, however, stops short of drawing any lines in the sand between what it considers to be brokered transactions and bona fide secondary market transactions under the mini-correspondent model. Read More

Agencies Issue Recommendations for Managing Home Equity Lines of Credit Nearing Their End-of-Draw Periods

Jul 11 2014

By: Jonathan D. Jaffe, Jeremy M. McLaughlin

Many mortgage industry pundits have written about an impending home equity line of credit (HELOC) crisis resulting from a significant volume of HELOCs reaching the end of their interest-only draw periods. In fact, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) estimates that $23 billion in HELOCs will reset in 2014 at the largest national banks; $42 billion in 2015; $50 billion in 2016; and $56 billion in 2017. There is a legitimate question whether many of these borrowers will be able or willing to repay the much higher, fully amortizing payments required during the HELOCs’ repayment periods. It is obvious that federal banking regulators share these concerns and have given them a lot of thought. Read More

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. FHFA: Fremont Meets The Federal Government

Jun 05 2014

By: Irene C. Freidel

On June 2, 2014, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac in state court, under Massachusetts’ consumer protection statute (“Chapter 93A”) to force them to sell foreclosed properties to non-profit organizations at fair market value, so that the properties can then be re-sold or leased back to the former homeowner. See Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., C.A. No. 14-1763 (June 2, 2014). Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a declaration that the GSEs’ current anti-fraud guidelines violate Massachusetts foreclosure law (M.G.L. c. 244, § 35C(h)), an order requiring property sales to non-profits in specific transactions, an injunction to prevent the GSEs from refusing to adhere to Massachusetts law, and an award of penalties of up to $5,000 for each transaction that the court determines constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under state law. The lawsuit follows a series of communications between the Massachusetts Attorney General and FHFA beginning in 2012 in which the state has demanded that FHFA direct the GSEs to change their anti-fraud “arms-length” requirements that apply to short sales and REO transactions. Read More

K&L Gates Webinar: Mortgage Loan Servicers and Affiliated Service Providers – What are the Rules?

Jun 05 2014

By: Holly Spencer Bunting, Kristie D. Kully, Kerri M. Smith, Nanci L. Weissgold

No one said it was going to be easy to be a servicer of residential mortgage loans.

The current scrutiny of servicing practices is at a fever pitch. Recently, one focus of federal and state officials has been on enforcing the broad array of laws, regulations, and other requirements applicable to a servicer’s engagement of affiliated service providers. In particular, regulators are increasingly interested in the reliance by servicers upon affiliated service providers, and the perception that the servicer may have conflicts of interest or is self-dealing. In fact, regulators such as New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky are becoming significant obstacles to the transfer of mortgage servicing rights in certain cases, probing into compliance failures in past servicing practices and potential conflicts of interest with affiliated service providers. Read More

CFPB Widens RESPA Enforcement to Focus on Affiliated Business Arrangement Disclosures

Jun 03 2014

By: Holly Spencer Bunting, Anaxet Y. Jones

The CFPB once again has taken aim at affiliated business arrangements (“AfBAs”), only this time, it is targeting AfBA disclosures. In prior enforcement actions, the CFPB focused on the validity of the AfBA, bringing actions against alleged “sham” AfBAs. However, in its most recent enforcement action, the CFPB entered into a consent order with a real estate brokerage company, alleging that it referred consumers to its affiliate, but failed to provide an adequate AfBA disclosure. The CFPB also alleged that the brokerage company improperly required the use of its affiliate title insurance agency.

Catagory:Mortgage Lending