Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Mortgage Servicing

Maryland Issues Executive Order Restricting Foreclosure Actions and Prohibiting Evictions During COVID-19 Emergency

By

A&B ABstract: Maryland’s Governor has issued an Executive Order providing that until the COVID-19 state of emergency is terminated: (1) foreclosure sales will only be valid if the servicer had notified the borrower of their rights to request a forbearance, and (2) residential and commercial evictions are prohibited if the tenant can show they suffered a “Substantial Loss of Income.” Similar to Section 4022 of the CARES Act, this Executive Order grants borrowers a right to request a forbearance if they are experiencing a financial hardship due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 emergency. Additionally, until January 4, 2021, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation must discontinue acceptance of Notices of Intent to Foreclose, which effectively prohibits new foreclosure initiations until that date. Moreover, effective January 4, 2021 and until the COVID-19 state of emergency is terminated, Notices of Foreclosure will only be accepted if the lender or servicer certifies that they notified the borrower of their right to request a forbearance.

 

On October 16, 2020, the Governor of Maryland issued an Executive Order (No. 20-10-16-01), which amends and restates a previous Executive Order providing certain relief to tenants and homeowners impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This Executive order imposes restrictions on servicers’ ability to conduct foreclosure proceedings, and prohibits evictions where the tenant can show a “substantial loss of income,” during the COVID-19 state of emergency.

Restrictions on Residential Foreclosures

The Executive Order provides that “until the state of emergency is terminated and the catastrophic health emergency is rescinded,” foreclosures sales of “Residential Property” (defined as “real property improved by four or fewer single family dwelling units that are designed principally and are intended for human habitation”) under Maryland’s Real Property law will not be considered a valid transfer of title in the property unless certain requirements are met, depending on the type of loan secured by the property:

  • With respect to a property securing a Federal Mortgage Loan:
    1. at least 30 days prior to sending a notice of intent to foreclose to a borrower, the servicer must send a written notice to the borrower stating the borrower’s right to request a forbearance on the loan under Section 4022(b) of the CARES Act; and
    2. the servicer must comply with all of its obligations with respect to the loan owed to the borrower under the CARES Act or otherwise imposed by the federal government or a government sponsored enterprise.
  • With respect to a property securing a Non-Federal Mortgage Loan:
    1. the servicer must have notified the borrower, in writing, that if the borrower is experiencing a financial hardship due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 emergency, the borrower may request a forbearance on the loan, regardless of delinquency status, for a period up to 180 days, which may be extended for an additional period up to 180 days at the request of the borrower;
    2. if the borrower did request a forbearance on the loan, the servicer must have provided such forbearance without requiring the borrower to provide additional documentation other than the borrower’s attestation to a financial hardship caused by COVID-19, and without requiring any additional fees, penalties, or interest; and
    3. during the forbearance period, the servicer must not have accrued on the borrower’s account any fees, penalties, or interest beyond the amounts scheduled or calculated as if the borrower made all contractual payments on time and in full under the terms of the loan.

Notably, as discussed in the next section, these requirements appear applicable only to foreclosure proceedings already in progress prior to January 4, 2021 (because the Executive Order effectively prohibits the initiation of new foreclosure actions until that date), and to those initiated between January 4, 2021 and the termination of the COVID-19 state of emergency.

Directives to the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation

The Executive Order also directs Maryland’s Commissioner of Financial Regulation to alter certain practices regarding its processing of residential foreclosures.

Specifically, as of the date of the Executive Order, and until January 4, 2021, the Commissioner is directed to suspend the operation of the Commissioner’s Notice of Intent to Foreclose Electronic System, and to discontinue acceptance of Notices of Intent to Foreclose. This effectively imposes a moratorium on the initiation of new foreclosure actions. Under Section 7-105.1(c) of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Code, as the first step in the foreclosure process, a Notice of Intent to Foreclose is required to be sent to the borrower at least 45 days before an action to foreclose a mortgage can be filed, and a copy of that notice must be submitted to the Commissioner within 5 business days thereafter via the Commissioner’s Notice of Intent to Foreclose Electronic System. (COMAR 09.03.12.02(E)). Citing the Executive Order, the Notice of Intent to Foreclose Electronic System website currently states that “no new [Notice of Intent] submissions will be accepted until January 4, 2021.” As such, this directive effectively prohibits the initiation of new foreclosure proceedings until December 28, 2020 (the earliest date a Notice of Intent can be mailed to the borrower and then submitted to the Commissioner within 5 business days).

Moreover, the Executive Order provides that effective January 4, 2021, and until the state of emergency is terminated and the catastrophic health emergency is rescinded, when a servicer submits to the Commissioner the Notice of Foreclosure required under Section 7-105.2(b) of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Code, the Commissioner must obtain a “certification” from the servicer or secured party that the servicer complied with the Executive Order’s requirement that the borrower be informed of their right to request a forbearance, as discussed above.

Prohibition on Residential and Commercial Evictions

The Executive Order provides that until the state of emergency is terminated and the catastrophic health emergency is rescinded, Maryland courts shall not effect any evictions by giving any judgment for possession or repossession on residential, commercial, or industrial real property, if the tenant can demonstrate to the court, through documentation or other objectively verifiable means, that the tenant suffered a “Substantial Loss of Income.”

The Executive Order defines “Substantial Loss of Income” as follows:

  1. with respect to an individual, a substantial loss of income resulting from COVID-19 or the related proclamation of a state of emergency and catastrophic health emergency, including, without limitation, due to job loss, reduction in compensated hours of work, closure of place of employment, or the need to miss work to care for a home-bound school-age child; and
  2. with respect to an entity, a substantial loss of income resulting from COVID-19 or the related proclamation of a state of emergency and catastrophic health emergency, including, without limitation, due to lost or reduced business, required closure, or temporary or permanent loss of employees.

This prohibition applies to evictions for failure to pay rent under Section 8-401 of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Code, as well as evictions based on a tenant’s breach of the lease under Section 8-402.1 of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Code.

Takeaways

Notably, the forbearances that servicers are required to offer with respect to non-federally backed loans under this Executive Order present forbearance terms and conditions that substantially parallel those offered for federally backed loans under the CARES Act. It is possible that other states will follow suit with Maryland and create similar state mandates effectively applying to non-federally backed mortgages the forbearance rights available for federally backed mortgages under the CARES Act, in addition to state-mandated foreclosure restrictions. We will continue to monitor for such state requirements.

FHFA Expands Mortgage Translations Online Clearinghouse

By

A&B ABstract:  The Federal Housing Finance Agency has expanded the number of languages for which it provides translated documents as part of its Mortgage Translations clearinghouse.

On September 30, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) announced that it has added Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese language resources to its Mortgage Translations clearinghouse.  The update represents the first since October 2019, when the FHFA added Mandarin Chinese documents to the clearinghouse (which also includes Spanish translations).

The FHFA first launched Mortgage Translations two years ago.  According to the 2018 announcement, the FHFA intends the site to provide “a centralized source of industry-standard resources to assist lenders, servicers, housing counselors, and other real estate professionals in serving borrowers with limited English proficiency (LEP). “  In its most recent expansion, the FHFA also added to the clearinghouse industry resources relating to oral interpretation services, including for languages for which translated documents are not available.

Takeaway:

The final anticipated expansion of the Mortgage Translations site gives servicers access to needed resources to assist LEP consumers.

A&B to Host CFPB Servicing Enforcement Webinar on October 6

By

On October 6, Alston & Bird will host “CFPB: Current Enforcement Measures Related to Mortgage Servicing,” a webinar that will explore why there has been a discernible uptick in enforcement activity and how Director Kraninger’s continued focus on these activities affect Mortgage Servicing activities.

The panelists will provide perspective on the dynamics of the CFPB’s Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending Division (SEFL) and factors used to weigh supervision vs. enforcement. The CFPB indicates the finalized Collection Rule will be issued toward the end of the month, and our goal is to assist the industry in understanding and preparation.

Hear how servicers are impacted by CFPB enforcement:

  • “Clear Rules of the Road”
  • Discernable Uptick in Enforcement Activity
  • Director Kraninger’s Initiatives
  • Knowledge is Power: Understanding CFPB’s Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending Division (SEFL).

Please RSVP here.  For additional questions, contact Megan Belliveau at megan.belliveau@alston.com or 202.239.3134.

District Courts Split on Convenience Fees Under Debt Collection Laws

By

A&B ABstract:

In a number of recent decisions, district courts have split on the issue of whether a mortgage servicer violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and related state debt collection statutes by charging a borrower a convenience fee for making a mortgage payment over the phone, interactive voice recording system (“IVR”).

FDCPA Sections 1692(f) and 1692a

Section 1692(f) of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect any debt, and enumerates specific examples of prohibited conduct.  Such conduct includes the “[c]ollection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement created the debt or permitted by law.  15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).

The FDCPA defines “debt collector” as “any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692a(6).  Among other things, the term “debt collector” does not include “any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due . . . to the extent such activity . . . concerns a debt which was originated by such person” or “concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person….”  Id.

Overview of Convenience Fees

In addition to offering consumers several no-cost options to make a timely monthly mortgage payment, many servicers also offer borrowers a means to make an immediate payment on their mortgage by phone, IVR, or the Internet.  Servicers who make such services available to their customers may charge a fee, often referred to as a “convenience fee,” in connection with this service.  In a wave of recent cases, borrowers who have elected to use such payment methods and consequently incurred convenience fees have sued their mortgage servicers, alleging that the convenience fees violated the FDCPA.  Frequently, these borrowers also allege that the convenience fees violated other state consumer protection statutes, breached the express terms of their mortgage agreements, and ran afoul of common law.

Recent Decisions

This year, numerous courts across the country have ruled on loan servicers’ motions to dismiss convenience claims asserted by borrowers.  A clear split has now emerged regarding the viability of plaintiffs’ legal theories.

Some Courts Dismiss Plaintiffs’ FDCPA Claims, Finding Plaintiffs’ Allegations Concerning Convenience Insufficient to State a Violation of the FDCPA

Many courts, largely in district courts in Florida, have dismissed borrowers’ claims for failure to state a claim under the FDCPA and related state acts.  According to these courts, a convenience fee is neither a “debt,” nor is it properly characterized as “incidental” to the mortgage debt itself.  Moreover, these courts have also rejected the argument that the servicer is “debt collector” under the FDCPA unless the loan was in default when the borrower became obligated to pay the convenience fee.

One of the key decisions in this recent line of cases in Turner v. PHH Mortgage Corp. No. No. 8:20-cv-00137-T-30SPF (Feb. 24, 2020 M.D. Fla.).  There, PHH charged Turner for making mortgage payments via telephone or online.  Turner alleged those convenience fees violated the FDCPA, and its Florida counterpart, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”).  PHH responded by moving to dismiss those claims.  The court agreed with PHH, concluding that the convenience fees were not debts owed another as contemplated by the acts.  Further, the court found that even if the fees were debts, PHH’s optional payment services had separate convenience fees that originated with PHH—not with Turner’s mortgage.

Additionally, the court relied on the fact that when Turner became obligated to pay the convenience fees, she was not in default in her obligation to pay it.  Thus, according the court’s analysis, PHH was not acting as a debt collector under the acts because (1) the debt was not in default and (2) the debt originated with PHH.  A number of other courts have since dismissed the borrowers’ claims under similar reasoning, often citing Turner’s analysis as persuasive.  See, e.g. Estate of Derrick Campbel. V. Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC, No. 20-CV-80057-AHS, slip op. at 5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2020); Reid v. Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC, No. 20-CV-80130-AHS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79378 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2020); Bardak v. Ocwen Loan Serv., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158874 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2020).

Some Courts Find that Borrowers’ Allegations Concerning Convenience Fees Are Sufficient to State a Claim Under the FDCPA

A number of other courts across the country, from California to Florida to Texas, have concluded that a borrower does state a claim for violation of the FDCPA (or an equivalent state statute) by alleging that the borrower was charged a convenience fee in connection with a mortgage payment made over the phone, IVR, or Internet.

In contrast to the decisions discussed above, these courts find that the convenience fee is “incidental” to the mortgage debt under FDCPA section 1692f(1).  These courts have rejected the servicers’ arguments that convenience fees are not incidental to the mortgage because they arise from separate services and obligations voluntarily undertaken by the borrower.  They have found instead that, regardless of the fact that the payment method is optional, it is still incidental to the mortgage debt because the servicers only collect convenience fees when borrowers make debt payments.  See, e.g., Glover v. Owen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38701 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2020).

Similarly, the court in Glover further found that the convenience fees were not permitted by Florida law because the court could not identify any statute or law expressly permitting such fees, nor were they explicitly allowed by the mortgage agreement.  A number of other courts have employed similar reasoning and refused to dismiss borrowers’ convenience fee claims under the FDCPA or corollary state statutes.  See, e.g., Torliatt v. Ocwen Loan Serv., No. 19-cv-04303-WHO, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141261 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2020) (refusing to dismiss claims under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—California’s equivalent of the FDCPA—and California’s Unfair Competition Law); Caldwell v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., No. 3:19-cv-02193-N (N.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2020) (refusing to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under the Texas Debt Collection Act).

Takeaway

There is a growing split among district courts regarding whether a borrower who is charged a convenience fee has a viable claim under the FDCPA.  This division is particularly acute within the Eleventh Circuit, and is one unlikely to be resolved in the Court of Appeals any time soon.  So, for the foreseeable future, we expect to see more lawsuits where borrowers seek to take advantage of the current state of legal uncertainty around convenience fees.

NYDFS Issues Guidance to Mortgage Servicers Regarding Assessment of Registration Fees

By ,

A&B ABstract:

On September 1, 2020, the Deputy Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”), issued guidance (the “Guidance”) to New York State regulated mortgage lenders and servicers (collectively referred to as “Servicers”) regarding fees paid to register mortgages in default. The Guidance reminds Servicers of the restrictions on fees and charges set forth under Part 419 of the Superintendent of Financial Services Regulations (“Part 419”) and directs Servicers to reverse and/or refund and credit registration fees impermissibly charged to New York borrowers and to create a log of all borrowers who were either charged, or paid any registration fee to a Servicer.

Part 419 Fee Restrictions

In December 2019, the NYDFS finalized amendments to Part 419, nearly 10 years after its initial adoption. Part 419, which sets forth business conduct requirements for mortgage loan servicers operating in the state, was amended to include expansive obligations that, in certain instances, exceed obligations under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s mortgage servicing rules.

Under Section 419.5 of the amended regulations, servicers may only collect certain specified types of fees from a borrower, subject to certain conditions.  Such fees include attorney’s fees, late and delinquency fees, and property valuation fees.  In addition, a servicer may collect a fee if it is for a service that is actually rendered to the borrower, reasonably related to the cost of rendering that service, and is: (1) expressly authorized and clearly and conspicuously disclosed by the loan instruments and not prohibited by law; (2) expressly permitted by law and not prohibited by the loan instruments; or (3) not prohibited by law or the loan instruments and is for a specific service requested by the borrower that is assessed only after disclosure of the fee is provided and the borrower expressly consents to pay the fee in exchange for the service.

NYDFS Guidance

The Guidance indicates that the NYDFS has become aware that “certain counties, cities and other municipalities in New York State, by ordinance or otherwise, are requiring mortgage lenders and servicers…to register mortgages declared to be in default…with the county, city or other municipality in which the real property is situated” and that some Servicers have charged borrowers, or collected from their account, the fee for such registrations.

The Guidance reminds Servicers that Section 419.5 of Part 419 “only permits [a servicer] to collect certain specified types of fees from a [borrower], consisting of attorney’s fees, late and delinquency fees, property valuation fees, and fees for services actually rendered to a mortgagor when such fees are reasonably related to the cost of rendering the service to the borrower.” Because a “[r]egistration [f]ee is neither an attorney fee, late or delinquency fee, property valuation fee, or fee for a service rendered to a [borrower],” Servicers are prohibited from charging or collecting such a fee from a borrower under Part 419.

Servicers subject to the requirements of Part 419 who, at any time, collected any registration fees from a borrower, are directed to refund and credit the full amount of such registration fees to the account of the borrower. If the registration fee was charged to a borrower’s account, but was not collected, the Servicer must remove and reverse any and all registration fees charged to the borrower’s account.

Finally, Servicers are directed to create a log of all borrowers that were either charged, or paid any registration fee to the servicer “at any time.” The log must contain details of the full amounts of the registration fees, whether such fees were collected or charged, and the date(s) the full amounts of collected registration fees were refunded and credited to or, in instances where the fee was charged but not collected, removed and reversed from borrowers’ accounts.  The Guidance indicates that the NYDFS plans to inspect the log during its next examination of Servicers.

 Takeaway

The Guidance is a reminder to Servicers to ensure compliance with the fee restrictions under the amended Part 419 regulations.  Servicers should review their portfolio of New York loans to ensure borrowers who paid, or were charged, a registration fee are provided appropriate remediation, as the NYDFS has already flagged this as an issue that will be scrutinized in upcoming servicing examinations.