Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Mortgage Servicing

Consumer Finance State Roundup

By , ,

The latest edition of the Consumer Finance State Roundup highlights recently enacted measures of potential interest from two states:

California:

Effective January 1, California Assembly Bill 3108 addresses mortgage fraud.  Previously, California law defined “mortgage fraud” to include, in connection with a mortgage loan transaction, filing with the county recorder any document that the person knows to contain a deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission, and with the intent to defraud.

Taking this a step further, the measure prohibits the filing of any document with the recorder of any county that a person knows to contain a material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission. Further, the measure expressly provides that a mortgage broker or person who originates a loan commits mortgage fraud if, with the intent to defraud, the person takes specified actions relating to instructing or deliberately causing a borrower to sign documents reflecting certain loan terms with knowledge that the borrower intends to use the loan proceeds for other uses. For prosecution purposes, the alleged fraud value must be $950 or more (the threshold for grand theft).

A mortgage lender could unintentionally find itself guilty of mortgage fraud if it simply allows a borrower to use a business purpose loan for consumer purposes or makes a bridge loan that it knows will not be used for a dwelling. California’s Penal Code § 532f(b) makes it mortgage fraud for a mortgage broker or lender to allow mortgage-related documents to be formed and filed when the broker or lender has reason to know that the borrower intends on using the loan for purposes other than for what the loan is intended.

Although intent to defraud is an element to this crime, that element can only be determined through rigorous and time-consuming investigation. If a borrower, for example, uses a business loan for consumer purposes or does not apply the funds from a bridge loan towards a dwelling, the lender will be subject to additional scrutiny unless it can prove that all efforts were made to understand the borrower’s plans for the funds.

The measure also prohibits a person who originates a covered loan from avoiding, or attempting to avoid, the application of the law regulating the provision of covered loans by committing mortgage fraud. A “covered loan” means a consumer loan in which the original principal balance of the loan does not exceed the most current Fannie Mae conforming loan limit for a single-family first mortgage loan.

The measure also amends Section 4973 of the Financial Code, which imposes certain requirements ad restrictions (e.g., the inclusion of a prepayment fee or penalty after the first 36 months) in connection with covered loans and amends Section 532f of the Penal Code (as discussed above) in connection with the prohibition on committing mortgage fraud.

New York:

  • Effective June 11, Assembly Bill 424 amends Section 35 of the Banking Law, which relates to an information pamphlet that residential mortgage lenders must provide to applicants. In place of making a physical pamphlet available to lenders, the amended section requires the Department of Financial Services to notify mortgage bankers of the posting a digital version of the pamphlet on the Department’s website (and when it makes any changes thereto). The measure also amends the pamphlet contents to reflect that a lender may provide an applicant with a good faith estimate (instead of a loan estimate), depending on the type of loan for which the applicant is applying.
  • Effective May 15, Assembly Bill 2056 amends Section 283 of the Real Property Law, which limits the amount of flood insurance that a mortgagee may require a mortgagor to maintain. Under current law, that section provides that the maximum amount of coverage a mortgagee may require is the mortgage’s outstanding principal amount as of January 1 of the year the policy will be in effect. As amended, that section makes the maximum permitted amount of coverage the lesser of the outstanding principal amount or the residential property’s replacement. Additionally, AB2056 slightly alters the printed notice about flood insurance that a mortgagee must deliver to mortgagors, removing language referring to the fact that required coverage would only protect the interest of the lender or creditor in the property.
  • Effective March 21, New York Senate Bill 804 amends data breach notification requirements. Section 899-aa of the General Business Law requires a person or business to notify New York residents whose data is part of a breach, as well as to provide notice to certain governmental entities (including the Department of Financial Services). As amended, that section will require notification to the Department of Financial Services (in the form mandated by N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. tit. 23, § 500.17) only by “covered entities.” A “covered entity” is any person who requires any type of authorization to operate under the Banking Law, Insurance Law, or Financial Services Law, and thus includes a mortgage banker or mortgage servicer.

New York Passes New Removal Procedures for Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Partners of Any Entity Regulated by Department of Financial Services

By ,

What Happened?

On December 21, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, signed into law, S7532, which repealed the existing section of the Banking Law addressing the removal of officers, directors, and trustees of banking organizations, bank holding companies and foreign banks (“covered individuals”), and enacted a new section providing a clearer process for removing such individuals and expanding the scope of the removal authority to apply to all entities regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services (“the Department”).

Repealed Section:

The former provisions regarding the removal of covered individuals were limited to banking organizations, bank holding companies, and foreign banks.

The Superintendent of the Department (“the Superintendent”) was authorized to bring an action to the Banking Board (“the Board”) to remove an officer, director, or trustee whenever it found that such individual:

  • violated any law or regulation of the Superintendent of financial services, or
  • “continued unauthorized or unsafe practices . . . after having been ordered or warned to discontinue such practices.”

Note that the Banking Board has not existed since the Department of Financial Services was created in 2011.

The Board would then serve notice of the action to the covered individual to appear before the Board to show why they should not be removed from office. A copy of this notice would be sent to each director or trustee of the banking organization and to each person in charge of and each officer of a branch of a foreign banking corporation.

If after a three-fifths vote by the Board members the Board found that the individual committed such violations, an order would be issued to remove the individual from office.

The removal became effective upon service of the order. The order and findings were not made public, and were only disclosed to the removed individual and the directors or trustees of the banking organization involved. Any such removed individual that participated in the management of such banking organization without permission from the Superintendent would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Newly Enacted Section:

The new provision expands the removal authority of the Superintendent to apply to all entities regulated by the Department (“covered entities”), including: banks, trust companies, limited purpose trust companies, private banks, savings banks, safe deposit companies, savings and loan associations, credit unions, investment companies, bank holding companies, foreign banking corporations, licensed lenders, licensed cashers of checks, budget planners, mortgage bankers, mortgage loan servicers, mortgage brokers, licensed transmitters of money, and student loan servicers.

The Superintendent is authorized to bring an action to remove such individuals whenever it finds reason to believe that they:

  • caused, facilitated, permitted, or participated in any violation by a covered entity of a law or regulation, order issued by the Superintendent or any written agreement between such covered entity or covered individual and the Superintendent;
  • engaged or participated in any unsafe or unsound practice in connection with any covered entity; or
  • engaged or participated in any willful material act or omitted to take any material act that directly contributed to the failure of a covered entity.

The notice and hearing provisions were changed to allow the Superintendent to serve a statement of charges against the covered individual and a notice of an opportunity to appear before the Superintendent to show cause why they should not be removed from office. A copy of such notice must now be sent to the affected covered entity, instead of the directors or trustees of the covered entity and persons in charge of foreign bank branches.

Additionally, the threshold for removal was changed. Instead of being removed by a three-fifths vote of a board that no longer exists, the covered individual may be removed if, after notice and hearing: (1) the Superintendent finds that the covered individual has engaged in the unlawful conduct, or (2) if the individual waives a hearing or fails to appear in person or by authorized representative.

The order of removal is effective upon service to the individual. The order must also be served to any affected covered entity along with the statement of charges. The order remains in effect until amended, replaced, or rescinded by the Superintendent or a court of competent jurisdiction. Such removed individual is prohibited from participating in the “conduct of the affairs” of any covered entity unless they receive written permission from the Superintendent. If the individual violates such prohibition, they are guilty of a misdemeanor.

Furthermore, the Superintendent is now authorized to suspend the covered individual from office for a period of 180 days pending the determination of the charges if the Superintendent has reason to believe that:

  • a covered entity has suffered or will probably suffer financial loss that impacts its ability to operate in a safe and sound manner;
  • the interests of the depositors at a covered entity have been or could be prejudiced; or
  • the covered individual demonstrates willful disregard for the safety and soundness of a covered entity.

The suspension may be extended for additional periods of 180 days if the hearing is not completed within the previous period due to the request of the covered individual.

Why Does it Matter?

Prior to the update, the Superintendent only had the power to remove individual officers, directors, or trustees from office in various bank organizations. The new law expands this removal power to all entities regulated by the Department.

The amended statute creates an additional penalty for individuals who caused, facilitated, permitted, or participated in the violation of the Banking Law in their positions of power of a regulated entity. Such individuals may be removed from their positions and prohibited from participating in the management of any regulated entity, until they receive written permission from the Superintendent. If they violate the prohibition, they are guilty of a misdemeanor, which can be punished by imprisonment for up to 364 days or by a fine set by the Superintendent.

What Do I Need To Do?

Entities regulated by the Department that are now covered under this section should be aware that violations of law by a licensee may also lead to the removal of certain high-level individuals within the organization. If removed, such individuals would also be prohibited from managing any regulated entity until the Superintendent provides written permission to do so. Affected entities and individuals should take care to ensure compliance with the law to avoid these new penalties.

FHFA Announces UDAP Compliance Expectations

By ,

What Happened?

On November 29, 2024, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) released Advisory Bulletin AB 2024-06 (the “Advisory Bulletin”), which sets forth FHFA’s expectations and guidance for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”) and the Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the “Regulated Entities”) regarding compliance with the prohibition against unfair and deceptive acts or practices under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”). The Advisory Bulletin follows the FHFA Final Rule on Fair Lending, Fair Housing, and Equitable Housing Finance Plans published in the Federal Register in May 2024 (“Final Rule”).

Why It Is important?

While the Advisory Bulletin applies directly to the Regulatory Entities, any company that does business with the GSEs or the Federal Home Loan Banks should take note, as there likely will be downstream implications. The Regulated Entities are required to certify compliance with Section 5 of the FTC Act.  The Advisory Bulletin, however, raises several concerns.

First, the Advisory Bulletin conflates Section 5 UDAP compliance and fair lending principles. The Bulletin cautions that Regulated Entities are not only subject to the prohibition in Section 5 of the FTC Act against “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce” but also the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and implementing regulations. To that end, the Final Rule requires the Board of Directors of Regulated Entities to bring their operations into compliance with these obligations in their “oversight of the [R]egulated [E]ntity and its business activities.” However, while the stated intent of the Advisory Bulletin is to provide guidance to the Regulated Entities consistent with the FTC Act, the Advisory Bulletin lumps together UDAP and discrimination, reminiscent of the CFPB’s similar attempt in 2022. In carefully worded language, FHFA states that its UDAP expectations “complement FHFA’s expectations regarding compliance with applicable fair lending laws.” And, specifically with respect to “unfairness,” FHFA states that its “duty to affirmatively further fair housing” may be considered when determining whether an act or practice is unfair. Yet any rule or bulletin by the FHFA providing that a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act may be a violation of other federal and state laws (including fair housing, fair lending, and other consumer protection laws) undoubtedly extends fair lending laws beyond the bounds carefully set by Congress. See American Bankers Association, Unfairness and Discrimination: Examining the CFPB’s Conflation of Distinct Statutory Concepts (June 2022).

Second, the Advisory Bulletin suggests various theories of liability for violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In particular, the Advisory Bulletin points out that, in addition to direct liability for UDAP violations, the Regulated Entities may be held vicariously liable for UDAPs resulting from the conduct of their employees, agents, or third parties (depending on the Entity’s control or other legal responsibility over the third party’s conduct) regardless of whether such Entity knew or should have known of that conduct consistent with agency law. Moreover, the Regulated Entity may be liable for failing to take prompt action to correct UDAP violations in certain circumstances. Here again, the Advisory Bulletin conflates UDAP with fair lending, as the Bulletin delves into liability principles typically applicable to the Fair Housing Act and ECOA.

Finally, given the potential liability to the Regulated Entities for the conduct of its agents or other third parties, the Advisory Bulletin may serve to further incentivize the Agencies to act as de facto regulators in their oversight of single-family and multi-family seller servicer relationships. Not surprisingly, the Advisory Bulletin reminds the Regulated Entities of the importance of “assessing, monitoring, and taking corrective action related to legal, compliance, and reputation risks associated with potential sellers and servicers, including risks associated with compliance programs, records of compliance, and other relevant information related to compliance with all applicable laws.” Yet, if the GSEs were to exit conservatorship, it remains uncertain what kind of authority they would have to enforce and remediate compliance deficiencies.

What Do I Need To Do?

The Regulated Entities are directed to identify, assess, monitor, and mitigate risks associated with UDAP, including legal, compliance, operational, strategic and reputational risks. Given that the Regulated Entities are required to certify compliance with Section 5 of the FTC Act, companies should expect downstream implications and should work to ensure it has sufficient controls in place to mitigate UDAP risks and avoid unwelcome repurchase demands or rep and warrant breaches.

Consumer Finance State Roundup

By

The latest edition of the Consumer Finance State Roundup highlights recently enacted measures of potential interest from three states:

Delaware: 

  • Effective August 9, Senate Bill 245 amends mortgage foreclosure provisions of the Delaware Code.  Principally, the measure updates the content of the pre-foreclosure notice that a mortgagee must send – as set forth in Section 5062B of Title 10 of the Code – to reflect that the Delaware State Housing Authority is the appropriate group to contact for financial assistance, and to permit alteration of the statutory language as recommended by the administrator of the Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program.  The measure also eliminates the previously scheduled January 1, 2025, expiration date of provisions including Sections 5062A (loss mitigation affidavit), 5062C (Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program), and 5062D (complaints) of Title 10; those sections now apply to any foreclosure action initiated on or after January 19, 2012.

Illinois: 

  •  Effective August 9, 2024, Senate Bill 3550 amends the Consumer Installment Loan Act by: (a) clarifying that licensees thereunder have authority to make a loan with a maximum principal amount of $40,000 and to charge, contract for, and receive an annual percentage rate of no more than 36% (rather than charges at an APR of more than 36%); and (b) amending disciplinary provisions, including those applicable to persons engaged in unlicensed activity.  The measure also establishes the “Financial Institutions Act” (20 ILCS 1205/1) from existing provisions of the Financial Institutions Code.
  • Effective January 1, 2025, Senate Bill 2919 amends the Mortgage Foreclosure article of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure to provide for online foreclosure sales, among other topics.  First, the measure amends Section 15-1507 to permit a mortgagee to request that a judge, sheriff, or other person to conduct the sale of a foreclosed home either in-person and/or online, and to add corresponding content to the public notice of sale that the mortgagee must provide.  Second, the measure adds Section 15-1507.2 to establish procedures for the conduct of online judicial sales, addressing applicable fees, bid procedures, proper information security controls, and the engagement of third-party purchasers.  Finally, the measure adds Section 15-1510.1, prohibiting the charging of any fee beyond the winning bid amount to a third-party bidder or purchaser who is not a party to the case in a residential real estate sale.
  •  Effective January 1, 2025, Senate Bill 3551 amends the Residential Mortgage License Act of 1987 (RMLA) and the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act (RRPDA).  First, the measure adds the term “shared appreciation agreement” to the definitions section of the RMLA, and amends related terms (“mortgage loan”, “residential mortgage loan”, and “home mortgage loan”) to “include a loan in which funds are advanced through a shared appreciation agreement.”  Second, the measure adds to the RMLA a new section addressing counseling and disclosure requirements for shared appreciation agreements.  Third, the measure adds to the RRPDA provisions relating to counseling, such that: (a) counseling is required to be provided in person, or by remote electronic or telephonic means, with the permission of all borrowers; (b) counseling must be provided in a private session; and (c) the counselor must verify the identity of each borrower, as well as document the counseling session, subject to any implementing regulations.

New Hampshire: 

  • On August 23, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed into law House Bill 1241, which amends provisions of the New Hampshire statutes relating to the regulation of money transmitters and mortgage licensees, among other topics beyond the scope of our reporting.   First, effective October 22, the measure repeals New Hampshire’s existing money transmission laws and adopts the model Money Transmission Modernization Act.  The Act requires the licensing of persons engaged in money transmission and establishes licensing application requirements, licensee reporting obligations, and enforcement provisions, among others. Second, the measure amends Chapters 397-A and 399-A with respect to license renewals for mortgage loan originators; mortgage bankers, brokers, and servicers; small loan lenders; and debt adjustment services. Going forward, a license term will run from the date of approval of an application December 31 of the year in which the license term began; however, if the initial license date is between November 1 and December 31, the initial license term will run through December 31 of the following year.

VA Issues Guidance on Processing Assumptions with Secondary Financing

By

What Happened?

On August 11, 2024 the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) released Circular 26-24-17, clarifying how a servicer should process an assumption when there is secondary financing.  Significantly, the VA clarified an open question of whether a junior mortgage obtained simultaneously with the assumption of a first-lien VA-guaranteed loan must also be assumable.

Why Does it Matter?

Assumable mortgage loans have been gaining in popularity in our current high interest rate environment.  Often, however, buyers will need secondary financing to make up the difference between the mortgage to be assumed and the purchase price of the property.  There has been a lack of guidance on how to process the assumption of a first-lien VA-guaranteed loan that involves secondary financing, as well as the question of whether such secondary financing must also be an assumable loan.

VA Circular 26-24-17 clarifies that the VA does not prohibit an assumer (regardless of whether a Veteran) of a VA-guaranteed loan from obtaining secondary financing (i.e., a junior lien) in conjunction with an assumption of the VA-guaranteed loan, and that such secondary financing does not need to be an assumable mortgage.  However, if the secondary financing is not assumable, “the holder of the VA-guaranteed loan should counsel the assumer that this may restrict their ability to sell the property to another creditworthy assumer through an assumption in the future.”

Additionally, to protect the VA-guaranteed loan priority, holders are expected to ensure:

  • The secondary financing is subordinate to the VA-guaranteed loan, such as through a subordination agreement.
  • Documentation exists in the loan file that provides the name of the secondary lender, the amount of the secondary borrowing, and the repayment terms of the secondary borrowing agreed to by the assumer.
  • Proceeds of the secondary financing are used for amounts due to the seller at closing as part of the assumption process or allowable closing costs.  Note, that the assumer cannot receive cash back from the secondary financing.
  • Contract terms of the secondary financing include a reasonable grace period before a late charge is assessed and, in the event of default, before the secondary lender may commence foreclosure proceedings. The interest rate can be negotiated between the assumer and the lender and can be higher than the rate on the VA-guaranteed loan.
  • Underwriting decisions include the recurring payment of any secondary financing.

What Do I Need to Do?

Servicers that process assumptions of VA-guaranteed loans should review the circular closely and ensure the requirements are implemented into servicers’ compliance management systems, as this circular took effect immediately when issued on August 11, 2024.