Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Escrow

CFPB’s Message to Mortgage Servicers: Make Sure You Comply with RESPA’s Force-Placed Insurance Requirements

By ,

A&B Abstract:

In Case You Missed It:  At the recent Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Symposium on Property Insurance, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra spoke about force-placed insurance and conveyed the following message: “The CFPB will be carefully monitoring mortgage market participants, especially mortgage servicers to ensure they are meeting all of their obligations to consumers under the law.”

The CFPB’s servicing rules set forth in RESPA’s Regulation X specifically regulate force-placed insurance. For purposes of those requirements, the term “force-placed insurance” means hazard insurance obtained by a servicer on behalf of the owner or assignee of a mortgage loan that insures the property securing such loan. In turn, “hazard insurance” means insurance on the property securing a residential mortgage loan that protects the property against loss caused by fire, wind, flood, earthquake, falling objects, freezing, and other similar hazards for which the owner or assignee of such loan requires assistance. However, force-placed insurance excludes, for example, hazard insurance required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, or hazard insurance obtained by a borrower but renewed by a company in accordance with normal escrow procedures.

Given the Bureau’s announcement, now is a good time to confirm that your company has adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with all of the technical requirements of RESPA’s force-placed insurance provisions.  Set forth below are some of the many questions to consider:

Escrowed Borrowers:

  • When a borrower maintains an escrow account and is more than 30 days past due, does the company ensure that force-placed insurance is only purchased if the company is unable to disburse funds from the borrower’s escrow account?
    • A company will be considered “unable to disburse funds” when the company has a reasonable basis to believe that (i) the borrower’s hazard insurance has been canceled (or was not renewed) for reasons other than nonpayment of premium charges; or (ii) the borrower’s property is vacant.
    • However, a company will not be “unable to disburse funds” only because the escrow account does not contain sufficient funds to pay the hazards insurance charges.

Required Notices:

  • Does the company ensure that the initial, reminder, and renewal notices required for force-placed insurance strictly conform to the timing, content, format, and delivery requirements of Regulation X?

Charges and Fees:

  • Does the company ensure that no premium charge or fee related to force-placed insurance will be assessed to the borrower unless the company has met the waiting periods following the initial and reminder notices to the borrower that the borrower has failed to comply with the mortgage loan contract’s requirements to maintain hazard insurance, and sufficient time has elapsed?
  • Are the company’s fees and charges bona fide and reasonable? Fees and charges should:
    • Be for services actually performed;
    • Bear a reasonable relationship to the cost of providing the service(s); and
    • Not be prohibited by applicable law.
  • Does the company have an adequate basis to assess any premium charge or fee related to force-placed insurance, meaning that the company has a reasonable basis to believe that the borrower has failed to comply with the mortgage loan contract’s requirement to maintain hazard insurance because the borrower’s coverage is expiring, has expired or is insufficient?
  • Does the company have appropriate controls in place to ensure that the company will not assess any premium charge or fee related to force-place insurance to the borrower if the company receives evidence that the borrower has maintained continuous hazard insurance coverage that complies with the fee requirements of the loan contract prior to the expiration of the waiting periods (at least 45 days have elapsed since the company delivered the initial notice and at least 15 days have elapsed since the company delivered the reminder notice)?
  • Will the company accept any of the following as evidence of continuous hazard insurance coverage:
    • A copy of the borrower’s hazard insurance policy declarations page;
    • The borrower’s insurance certificate;
    • The borrower’s insurance policy; or
    • Another similar form of written confirmation?
  • Does the company recognize that the borrower will be considered to have maintained continuous coverage despite a late payment when applicable law or the borrower’s policy contemplates a grace period for the payment of the hazard insurance premium and a premium payment is made within that period and accepted by the insurance company with no lapse in coverage?
  • Within 15 days of receiving evidence (from any source) demonstrating that the borrower has maintained hazard insurance coverage that complies with the hazard insurance requirements in the loan contract, does the company:
    • Cancel any force-placed insurance that the company has purchased to insure the borrower’s property; and
    • Refund to the borrower all force-placed insurance premium charges and related fees paid by such borrower for any period of overlapping insurance coverage and remove from the borrower’s account all force-placed insurance charges and related fees that the company assessed to the borrower for such period?

And let’s not forget that companies must continue to comply with the above requirements if the company is a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) with respect to a borrower and that borrower has exercised a “cease communication” right under the FDCPA.  Of course, failure to comply with the Regulation X requirements could also result in violations of UDAAP and FDCPA provisions.

Takeaway:

Given that the CFPB is telegraphing its upcoming review of servicers’ force-placed insurance practices, now is a good time for companies to ensure that their compliance management programs are robust enough to ensure compliance with all the technical requirements of RESPA’s force-placed insurance requirements. Alston & Bird’s Consumer Financial Services team is happy to assist with such a review.

Consumer Finance State Roundup

By

The pace of legislative activity during this current year can make it hard to stay abreast of new laws.  The Consumer Finance State Roundup is intended to provide a brief overview of recently enacted legislation of potential interest.

Between the end of July and the first week of August, two states enacted legislation of potential interest to Consumer Finance ABstract readers:

  • District of Columbia:  Effective as an emergency measure from July 31 to October 29, 2023, B 25-357 (Act #25-0189), the “Public Health Emergency Credit Alert Emergency Amendment Act of 2023”, provides certain consumer protections to DC residents in connection with their credit reports under Section 28-3871 of the D.C. Code.  First, Section 28-3871(a)(1) requires a credit reporting agency to accept and include in the consumer’s file a personal statement provided by the consumer indicating that the consumer has been financially impacted by the COVID-19 emergency. Second, Section 28-3871(c) prohibits a user of a credit report from taking into consideration adverse information in a credit report that was a result of an action or inaction by the consumer that occurred during the public health emergency, if the credit report includes a personal statement in the form required by Section 28-3871(a).  Third, Section 28-3871(d) requires that an entity providing a credit report to a DC resident upon that consumer’s request (pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681) must notify the DC resident of the right to request a personal statement to accompany the credit report.  Fourth, the emergency measure addresses the ability of the D.C. Attorney General to remedy violations, including through the imposition of penalties.  (We note that this measure includes provisions identical to those previously enacted by the D.C. Council on a short-term basis while it considers permanent legislation with the same effect.  B 25-358, a temporary measure that would extend the same provisions on a 225-day basis, is currently pending in the D.C. Council.)
  • District of Columbia:  Effective as an emergency measure from July 27 to October 25, 2023, B 25-363 (Act #25-0192), the “Foreclosure Moratorium and Homeowner Assistance Fund Coordination Emergency Amendment Act of 2023”, provides for foreclosure protections to certain DC homeowners.  For the period of July 1 through September 30, 2022, the measure protects homeowners: (a) who applied for funding from the DC Homeowner Assistance Fund (“DC HAF”) program prior to September 30, 2022; and (b) whose applications are under review, pending approval, pending payment, or under appeal.  The measure prohibits: (a) a lender or servicer from initiating or conducting a foreclosure action; (b) the initiation of a sale under the Condominium Act of 1976; or (c) the entry of a judgment foreclosing the right of redemption.  Second, on or after July 25, 2022, the measure prohibits a mortgage lender, condominium association, homeowners’ association, or tax sale purchaser, or an agent acting as a representative for any housing or financing entity of a homeowner, from commencing or proceeding with a foreclosure action until 30 days after sending the homeowner to warn of its intention to initiate or continue a foreclosure.  (Like B 25-357, we note that this measure includes provisions identical to those previously enacted by the D.C. Council on a short-term basis while it considers permanent legislation with the same effect.  B 25-364, a temporary measure that would extend the same provisions on a 225-day basis, is currently pending in the D.C. Council.)
  • Illinois:  Effective January 1, 2024, House Bill 2094 (Public Act 103-0292) amends the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1) to address requirements for mortgage marketing materials from a mortgage company not connected to the consumer’s mortgage company.  Specifically, the measure adds new subsection 505/2AAA(a-5), under which:
    • No language may be used to state or imply that any response by a consumer who is not an existing customer is required … such as the use of the terms “urgent”, “action required”, “materials inspected”, “time sensitive”, or “important account information enclosed”;
    • The mortgage company’s name of the solicitor must be prominently stated in the body of the text, at the head of the letter or message in a font bigger than the body of the text, and on any envelope;
    • The mortgage company’s name of the consumer may not be used to state or insinuate in any way that the marketing material is from the consumer’s mortgage company rather than the solicitor’s mortgage company and is merely a solicitation;
    • The name of the consumer’s mortgage company must not be visible through an envelope window, appear on the envelope itself, or appear in an email subject line;
    • The text must clearly state if the consumer’s mortgage company had no part in helping the solicitor obtain the homeowner’s mortgage information.

A violation of the new subsection constitutes an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

  • Illinois:  Effective July 28, 2023, House Bill 2717 (Public Act 103-0322) amends two sections under the Mortgage Escrow Account Act (765 ILCS 910/1) with respect to higher-priced mortgage loans.  First, the measure amends Section 5 to clarify that a mortgage lender that complies with the escrow account requirements under 12 CFR Part 1026 for a “higher-priced mortgage loan” (as defined therein) is deemed to comply with the requirement under the section to notify a borrower about terminating or continuing that escrow account.  Second, the measure amends Section 7 to provide a borrower does not have the right to terminate any escrow account arrangement for a higher-priced mortgage loan, unless the borrower has met all the conditions for cancellation of an escrow account for a higher-priced mortgage loan under 12 CFR Part 1026.

Nevada Adopts Regulations for Licensure by Endorsement

By

A&B Abstract:

Nevada recently adopted new regulations allow a natural person to obtain a license by endorsement to engage in business as a mortgage broker or mortgage agent, mortgage loan servicer, or escrow agent or agency, so long as such person holds a corresponding valid and unrestricted license to engage in such business in another jurisdiction upon meeting certain conditions.

New Regulations:

On June 26, 2019, the Nevada Commissioner of Mortgage Lending (“Commissioner”) adopted new regulations R177-18, R178-18 and R180-18, which introduce standards that permit the issuance of licenses by endorsement for natural persons to engage in business as: (1) a mortgage broker or mortgage agent; (2) a mortgage servicer or a covered service provider (including a foreclosure and loan modification consultant); and (3) an escrow agent or agency, respectively.

Eligibility Criteria:

In order to be eligible for a license by endorsement, a natural person must:

  • hold a corresponding valid and unrestricted license to engage in the relevant occupation or profession in another jurisdiction;
  • submit proof to the Commissioner of his or her corresponding valid and unrestricted license in another jurisdiction; and
  • possess qualifications that are largely similar to the qualifications required for a Nevada license,

in addition to meeting other qualifications set forth in the new regulations.

Other Changes to Licensing Requirements:

The amendments also modify existing licensing requirements for mortgage brokers, mortgage bankers and mortgage agents by:

  • Authorizing the Commissioner to waive any monthly reporting requirements under Nevada law if substantially similar information is available from another source; and
  • Reducing the annual continuing education required to be completed by a mortgage broker or mortgage agent.

NYDFS Proposes Overhaul to Mortgage Loan Servicer Business Conduct Rules

By

The New York Department of Financial Services has proposed significant changes to the mortgage servicer business conduct rules found in Part 419 of the Superintendent’s Regulations.  The proposed changes represent the first major changes to Part 419 since its adoption nearly 10 years ago.  Some of the significant proposed changes to Part 419 include:

  • Adding new provisions governing affiliated business arrangements, which would include a requirement that such relationships be negotiated at market rate, restrictions on certain kick-backs and a requirement to provide borrowers with a written disclosure of the relationship;
  • Restricting a servicer from charging a property valuation fee to a borrower more than once in a 12-month period;
  • Broadening a servicer’s duty of fair dealing to include ability to repay requirements for loan modifications and that a servicer consider foreclosure alternatives;
  • Broadening the protections available to delinquent borrowers and borrowers seeking loss mitigation assistance to more closely align with the CFPB’s Mortgage Servicing Rules, including a requirement that acknowledgment notices be delivered more quickly than under the current rules and providing borrowers with additional time to accept or reject a loss mitigation offer; and
  • Detailed third party vendor management requirements, which would require a servicer to maintain policies and procedures overseeing third party providers generally and more specific requirements for overseeing counsel and trustees of foreclosure proceedings.

Our June 20 client advisory provides greater detail on the proposed changes to Part 419.  In the meantime, we note that the deadline for comment on the proposal is June 29, 2019.  Mortgage servicers should take this opportunity to review the proposed changes to Part 419 against their current operations to determine the impact these rules would have if adopted in their current form.