Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Mortgage Servicing

The COVID-19 National Emergency is Ending: Are mortgage servicers ready?

By ,

A&B Abstract:

On January 30, 2023, President Biden informed Congress that the COVID-19 National Emergency (the “COVID Emergency”) will be extended beyond March 1, 2023, but that he anticipates terminating the national emergency on May 11, 2023. The White House Briefing Room reiterated the President’s position on February 10, 2023. Given the significant updates mortgage servicers made to their compliance management systems (“CMS”) to ensure compliance with the myriad of COVID-19-related laws, regulations and guidance issued in response to the pandemic, servicers should begin evaluating their CMS now to determine whether updates are necessary to minimize the risk of non-compliance and consumer harm as the COVID Emergency comes to an end. Set forth below, we discuss some of the key areas on which servicers should focus as they develop a plan for winding down COVID-19 protections.

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented operational challenges for mortgage servicers – challenges servicers sought to overcome through significant actions that were taken at the outset of the pandemic and over the last three years to implement the myriad of federal and state laws, regulations, and guidance that were enacted or promulgated in response to the pandemic.

Indeed, in response to the pandemic, the US Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, Sections 4021 and 4022 of which provided certain borrowers impacted by the pandemic with certain credit reporting and mortgage-related protections.

Section 4021 of the CARES Act amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act by adding a new section providing special instructions for reporting consumer credit information to credit reporting agencies when a creditor or other furnisher offers an “accommodation” to a consumer affected by the pandemic during the “covered period,” which ends 120 days after the COVID Emergency terminates.

Section 4022 of the CARES Act granted forbearance rights and protection against foreclosure to certain borrowers with a “federally backed mortgage loan.” Specifically, during the “covered period,” a borrower with a federally backed mortgage loan who is experiencing a financial hardship that is due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID Emergency may request forbearance on their loan, regardless of delinquency status, by submitting a request to their servicer during and affirming that they are experiencing a financial hardship during the COVID Emergency. When the CARES Act was enacted, there was uncertainty in the industry as to how to define the “covered period” as the term was undefined. However, because the borrower must attest to a financial hardship during the COVID Emergency, the industry came to understand the “covered period” to be synonymous with the COVID Emergency, such that borrower requests received outside the COVID Emergency need not be granted.

Additionally, under Section 4022, a servicer of a federally backed mortgage loan were prohibited from initiating any judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process, moving for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or executing a foreclosure-related eviction or foreclosure sale (except with respect to vacant and abandoned properties) through May 16, 2020.

In response to the CARES Act, mortgage servicers were inundated with directives issued by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), the US Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), as well as the guidelines published by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the “Agencies”), as the Agencies (other than the CFPB) were tasked with implementing the protections afforded by the CARES Act.  As result of these directives, servicers were required to quickly implement changes to their servicing operations, while ensuring accurate communication of such changes to its customers. For example, HUD alone issued over 20 mortgagee letters since the outset of the pandemic that were directly related to the operations of HUD-approved servicers.

In addition to the Agencies, several states either passed legislation, promulgated regulations or issued directives that mortgage servicers were required to implement. Servicers were also required to respond to the CFPB’s Prioritized Assessments, inquiries from Congress, and requests from the Agencies. Accordingly, servicers devoted substantial legal, compliance, and training resources to ensure compliance with applicable laws and requirements.

In implementing the foregoing laws and regulations, servicers made significant updates to their CMS and the various components that support an effective CMS, including, among others, policies, procedures, training, scripting, correspondence, system updates, and vendor management. Similarly, now that the COVID Emergency appears to be nearing an end, servicers should reevaluate what updates are necessary to effectively wind-down COVID-19 protections while minimizing regulatory risk and consumer harm.

Below we discuss several issues servicers should be particularly mindful of in developing a plan for winding down COVID-19 protections.

Key Areas of Focus for Servicers

Agency/GSE Guidelines: The myriad of Agency guidance issued in response to the pandemic included new and evolving requirements regarding the offering of COVID-19 Forbearance Plans, COVID-19-specific loss mitigation options, and other COVID-19-related borrower protections. For example, HUD, VA, and USDA have largely tied a borrower’s ability to request an initial COVID-19 Forbearance to the expiration of the COVID Emergency. HUD has indicated that a borrower may only request an additional forbearance extension of up to six months if the initial forbearance will be exhausted and expires during the COVID Emergency. On the other hand, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have previously informally indicated that servicers should continue to process borrower requests for COVID-19 Forbearances until the GSEs announce otherwise. Moreover, there is the possibility that all or some of the Agencies will expand post-forbearance COVID-19 protections to a broader class of borrowers given the apparent success of the streamlined options. On January 30, 2023, HUD issued a mortgagee letter (which was corrected and reissued on February 13th) extending its COVID-19 Recovery Loss Mitigation Options to include additional eligible borrowers, increase its COVID-19 Recovery Partial Claims, and add incentive payments to servicers. Notably, the mortgagee letter does not appear to update HUD’s existing guidance on the availability of COVID-19 Forbearance Plans, and it temporarily suspends several of HUD’s non-COVID-19 loss mitigation options, such as all FHA-HAMP options. In preparing for the end of the COVID Emergency, servicers should ensure that they identify and carefully review applicable Agency guidelines to determine what, if any, updates to existing processes are necessary.

Policies, Procedures, and Training: Whether a servicer created a specific COVID-19/CARES Act policy and/or updated its existing policies to reflect applicable COVID-19 protections, servicers must now review and update those policies to ensure they do not inaccurately reflect requirements no longer in effect as a result of the termination of the COVID Emergency. As a reminder, Regulation X requires servicers to maintain policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to achieve the objectives in 12 C.F.R. § 1024.38. Commentary to Regulation X clarifies that “procedures” refers to the actual practices followed by the servicer. Thus, servicers should ensure that its procedures reflect its policies. It is also important that updated and accurate training and job aids are provided to servicing employees, particularly to consumer service representatives, to ensure clear, accurate, and up to date information is communicated to consumers. It’s also a good time to ensure that policies, procedures, and training reflect the expiration of certain CFPB COVID-19-related measures. For example, the enhanced live contact requirements for borrowers experiencing COVID-19 related hardships were in effect from August 31, 2021 through October 1, 2022.

Scripts, Letters and Agreements: The CFPB called for mortgage servicers to take proactive steps to assist borrowers impacted by COVID-19 including prioritizing clear communications and proactive outreach to borrowers. In response, servicers updated communications through emails, texts, letters, loss mitigation agreements, buck slips, periodic statements, and other standard communications alerting borrowers of requirements for accepting and processing requests for forbearance, approving forbearance requests, providing credit reporting accommodations, and providing information on post-forbearance loss mitigation options and foreclosure. One of the standards the CFPB uses in assessing whether an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice (“UDAAP”) occurred is whether a representation, omission, act or practice is deceptive, meaning that it misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer, the consumer’s interpretation of the representation is reasonable under the circumstances, and the misleading representation, omission, act or practice is material. Thus, it is important for servicers to review their communication library to make sure outdated CARES Act and other COVID-19-related information is not included in borrower communications.

System Updates: Throughout the last three years servicers were required to implement substantial system enhancements to ensure compliance with the myriad of requirements that arose in response to the pandemic. These enhancements included, among others, stop codes to ensure compliance with applicable foreclosure moratoria; changes to loss mitigation decisioning systems to reflect new and revised loss mitigation waterfalls; updates to borrower-facing websites and interactive voice response (“IVR”) systems to provide borrowers with information on available COVID-19 protections and to facilitate a borrower’s ability to self-serve when requesting a COVID-19 Forbearance; enhancing credit reporting systems to ensure accurate credit reporting for borrowers who are provided an accommodation under the CARES Act; and implementing system updates to ensure compliance with applicable fee restrictions. Given the significant time, effort, and resources required to implement the foregoing enhancements, servicers should begin evaluating their systems now to determine what changes are necessary to reflect that some or all of these protections will no longer be in effect.

State Law: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several states (including but not limited to California, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon) enacted their own protections, most of which have since expired. Now is the time for servicers to ensure that their CMS is updated to reflect that these laws are no longer in effect.

Instructions to Service Providers: Many servicers rely on third-party service providers to provide certain support functions. During the pandemic, reliance on such service providers was even more critical as servicers worked to implement the above-referenced requirements. Such service providers include, among others, print/mail vendors, foreclosure counsel, and third-party customer support representatives. In preparing for the end of the COVID Emergency, servicers should ensure accurate and consistent instructions are provided to, and appropriate oversight is exercised over, service providers to ensure compliance with applicable law and to minimize UDAAP risk.

Takeaway

The implementation of federal and state COVID-19 protections required that servicers devote substantial time, effort, and resources to ensure consumers could avail themselves of available protections and to minimize the risk of harm. Unfortunately, when the pandemic first began, servicers did not have the luxury of time when implementing these measures. However, given that the end of the COVID Emergency is not until May 11th, servicers should utilize this time to think through what impact the termination of the emergency will have on their current processes and controls, and begin making necessary updates.

New York Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act Curtails Servicers’ Options

By , , ,

A&B ABstract:

Effective on approval by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 30, 2022, New York Assembly Bill 7737b – the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (the “Act”) became law.  The Act is signifcant because it reverses judicial precedent that permitted a lender, after default, to undo the acceleration of a mortgage and stop the running of the statute of limitations in a foreclosure action through voluntary dismissal, discontinuance of foreclosure actions, or de-acceleration letters. Notably, the Act applies both prospectively and to any foreclosure action filed prior to its effective date that had not been resolved through a final judgment and order of sale. Further, unlike other provisions of New York law, the Act applies to all properties (and not only those that are owner-occupied). Public reaction has been mixed as to whether the measure will benefit consumers – but, regardless, it changes the rules of the game for lenders and servicers in New York State.

Background

Existing New York law establishes a six-year statute of limitations for the commencement of a mortgage foreclosure action, triggered when the borrower defaults on the obligation and the lender accelerates the obligation to pay the secured debt. In 2021, the New York Court of Appeals considered whether a lender can de-accelerate a loan and reset the statute of limitations.

The court decided four cases (with the opinion rendered in Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel, 37 N.Y.3d 1 (2021)), “each turning on the timeliness of a mortgage foreclosure claim.” The court held that the lender’s voluntary dismissal of a foreclosure suit constituted a revocation of the lender’s election to accelerate. Such revocation returned the parties to their pre-acceleration rights, reinstated the borrower’s right to repay via installments, and established a new statute of limitations period for any future default payments. According to the court, “[w]here the maturity of the debt has been validly accelerated by commencement of a foreclosure action,” the court opined, “the noteholder’s voluntary withdrawal of that action revokes the election to accelerate, absent the noteholder’s contemporaneous statement to the contrary.”

In the course of deciding Engel, the court also considered what constituted an “overt unequivocal act” sufficient to trigger a valid acceleration of debt and the six-year statute of limitations. Here, the court held that neither the issuance of a default letter nor the filing of complaints in prior discontinued foreclosure actions that failed to reference the pertinent modified loan were sufficient methods to validly accelerate debt.

The Act

Since the Engel decision, mortgagees in New York State have relied on their ability to voluntarily discontinue a foreclosure action – and effectively reset the statute of limitations– in order to engage distressed borrowers in loss mitigation efforts. However, the Act appears to eliminate a mortgagee’s ability to unilaterally reset the limitations period by voluntarily discontinuing a foreclosure action and deaccelerating the loan.

With the express intent of overturning the Engel decision, the Act amends provisions of New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL,” N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law §§ 1301 et seq.), General Obligations Law (“GOL,” N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law §§ 1-101 et seq.), and Civil Practice Law and Rules (“Rules,” N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 101 et seq.) relating to the rights of parties involved in foreclosure actions.

RPAPL:

Under previous law, Section 1301 of the RPAPL prohibited the commencement or maintenance of any action to recover any part of a mortgage debt while another action to recover part of the mortgage debt is already pending or after final judgment has been made for the plaintiff without leave of the court in which the first action was brought. Beyond clarifying that a foreclosure action falls within the scope of that prohibition, the Act provides that procurement of leave from the first court must be a condition precedent to commencing or maintaining the new action. Thus, failure to comply with the leave of court condition precedent may no longer be excused by finding that the prior action was “de facto discontin(ued)” or “effectively abandoned” (see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Humphrey, 173 AD3d 811, 812 (2d Dept 2019)); or that the defendant was not prejudiced thereby (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Irizarry, 142 AD3d 610, 611 (2d Dept 2016)); nor by deeming the pre-action failure a mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity that could be overlooked or disregarded (see id.).

Moreover, failure to obtain leave is a defense to the new action. If a party brings a new action without leave of the court, the section declares that the previous action is deemed discontinued unless prior to the entry of final judgment in the original action the defendant: (a) raises the failure to comply with the condition precedent, or (b) seeks dismissal of the action based upon one of the grounds set forth in Section 3211(a)(4) of the Rules.

Section 1301 of the RPAPL is further amended to provide that if the mortgage securing the bond or note representing the debt so secured by the mortgage is adjudicated as time barred by a court of competent jurisdiction, any other action to recover any part of the same mortgage debt is equally time barred. As a result, if the statute of limitations acts to bar a foreclosure action or any other action to recover on mortgage debt, an investor or servicer cannot bring any other action to recover the same part of the mortgage debt, including another foreclosure action or an action to recover a personal judgment against the borrower on the note.

GOL:

Under Section 17-105 of the GOL, an agreement to waive the statute of limitations to foreclose on a mortgage is effective if expressly set forth in writing and signed by the party to be charged.

The Act amends Section 17-105 by: (1) clarifying that the GOL is the exclusive means by which parties are enabled to postpone, cancel, reset, toll, revive or otherwise effectuate an extension of the limitations period for the commencement of an action or proceeding upon a mortgage instrument; (2) clarifying that unless effectuated in strict accordance with Section 17-105, the discontinuance of an action upon a mortgage instrument, by any means, shall not, in form or effect, function as a waiver, postponement, cancellation, resetting, tolling, or extension of the statute of limitations; and (3) codifying certain judicial rulings holding as much.

While not included or otherwise referenced in the Act, it is also worth noting that Part 419 of the New York Department of Financial Services’ mortgage loan servicer business conduct rules prohibit a mortgage servicer from requiring a homeowner to waive legal claims and defenses as a condition of a loan modification, reinstatement, forbearance or repayment plan. It is unclear whether Part 419 would be interpreted to prohibit servicers from seeking a waiver of the limitations period pursuant to Section 17-105, especially with respect to loans where the limitations period has already run. To further complicate matters, the New York legislature is currently considering a bill that would (1) create an express private right of action for violations of Part 419; (2) make compliance with Part 419’s requirements a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action; and (3) render failure to materially comply with Part 419 to be a defense to a foreclosure action or an action on the note, even if servicing of the loan has been transferred to a different servicer when a foreclosure action or action on the note is commenced.

Rules:

The Act amends and adds several provisions of the Rules relating to the application of the statute of limitations in actions relating to mortgage debt.

First, the Act adds Section 203(h) to the Rules, which terminates the ability of a lender or servicer to extend the statute of limitations on a foreclosure action by any form of unilateral action. No voluntary discontinuation of an action to enforce a mortgage may “in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute.” In other words, the amended section appears to prohibit a mortgagee from “de-accruing” a cause of action or otherwise effectuating a unilateral extension of the limitations period by suspending a foreclosure action – and providing loss mitigation opportunities to the borrower – once the six-year statute of limitations has begun to run after the loan is accelerated. The methods by which the statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action can be waived or extended are exclusively set forth in Article 17 of the GOL (see GOL 17-105 (express written agreement to extend, waive or not plead as a defense the statute of limitations); 17-107 (unqualified payment on account of mortgage indebtedness effective to revive statute of limitations)). Accordingly, a bare stipulation of discontinuance or a lender’s unilateral decision to revoke its demand for full payment is no longer a permissible method for waiving, extending, or modifying the statute of limitations.

Second, the Act adds Section 205-a to the Rules, limiting reliance on the savings statute for time-barred claims. After termination of an action, the new section permits the original named plaintiff to commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions only if: (a) the plaintiff brings the new action within six months of the termination; and (b) the termination of the prior action occurred in any manner other than a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, dismissal for any form of neglect, for violation of any court rules or individual part rules, failure to comply with any court scheduling orders, failure to appear for a conference or at a calendar call, failure to timely submit any order or judgment, or a final judgment upon the merits. Further, only one six-month extension will be available to the plaintiff.

Under new Section 205-a, a successor-in-interest or an assignee of the original plaintiff can only commence a new action if such party pleads and proves that the assignee is acting on behalf of the original plaintiff. Further, if the defendant has served an answer and the action has been terminated, in a new action based on the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions (whether brought by the original plaintiff or a successor-in-interest or assignee thereof) any cause of action or defense that the defendant asserts will be considered timely “if such cause of action or defense was timely asserted in the prior action.” Section 205-a also provides that, where applicable, the original plaintiff (or a successor-in-interest acting on behalf of the original plaintiff) may only receive one six-month extension and no court shall allow the original plaintiff to receive more than one six-month extension.

Third, the Act amends Section 213(4) of the Rules to clarify that in any action where the statute of limitations is raised as a defense – and if that defense is based on a claim that the indebtedness was accelerated prior to or through commencement of a prior action – a plaintiff will be estopped from asserting that a mortgage instrument was not validly accelerated prior to or by way of commencement of a prior action. An exception exists if the prior action “was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.”

Further, in any quiet title action seeking cancellation and discharge of record of a mortgage instrument, a defendant will be estopped from asserting that the applicable statute of limitations period for commencement of an action has not expired because instrument was not validly accelerated prior to or by way of commencement of a prior action, “unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.”

Finally, the Act amends Section 3217 of the Rules, by adding a new Subsection (e), which clarifies that if the statute of limitations is raised as a defense in an action, and if the defense rests on a claim that the instrument was accelerated prior to or by virtue of the commencement of a prior action, the plaintiff cannot stop the tolling of the statute of limitations by asserting that the instrument was not validly accelerated unless the prior action was dismissed based on an express judicial determination regarding invalid acceleration.

Takeaway

In light of the Act’s curtailment of a servicer’s or investor’s ability to unilaterally suspend a foreclosure action, we recommend that mortgagees carefully review their pending mortgage foreclosure actions in New York state. At a minimum, the Act removes the ability of a holder or servicer in New York state to voluntarily discontinue a foreclosure action after acceleration of the indebtedness triggers the running of the statute of limitations.

Whether this will interfere with servicers’ contractual rights and ability – and obligations under the CFPB rules and New York Part 419 – to offer meaningful loss mitigation opportunities to borrowers remains to be seen. At least one judge thinks so. In a recent Order to Show Cause, a New York Supreme Court judge concluded that the Act violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and included an invitation for the New York Attorney General to weigh in.

CFPB Proposes Nonbank Registry to Focus on Compliance “Recidivism”

By , ,

A&B ABstract:

On December 12, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a proposed rule to require certain non-banks to register with the agency when they become subject to a public written order or judgment imposing obligations based on violations of certain consumer protection laws. The CFPB also proposes to maintain a public online registry of those nonbanks subject to agency or court orders, to “limit the harms from repeat offenders.” We provide below a description of the CFPB’s proposed rule, along with the potential implications for the financial services industry.

Background on Proposed Rule

Earlier this year, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra presented remarks at the University of Pennsylvania, where he asserted that “[c]orporate recidivism has become normalized and calculated as the cost of doing business; the result is a rinse-repeat cycle that dilutes legal standards and undermines the promise of the financial sector and the entire market system.” To address this problem, Director Chopra suggested establishing “dedicated units in our supervision and enforcement divisions to enhance the detection of repeat offenses and corporate recidivists and to better hold them accountable.” With respect to accountability for “serial offenders of federal law,” Director Chopra warned that the CFPB would be focusing on “remedies that are more structural in nature,” including “limits on the activities or functions” of the entity.

Subsequently, in November 2022, and leading up to the proposed rule, the CFPB announced, as part of its Supervisory Highlights, that it would be establishing a Repeat Offender Unit as part of its supervision program. The Repeat Offender Unit would be focused on: reviewing and monitoring the activities of “repeat offenders;” identifying the root cause of recurring violations; pursuing and recommending solutions and remedies that hold entities accountable for failing to consistently comply with Federal consumer financial law; and designing a model for order review and monitoring that reduces the occurrences of repeat offenders. The Bureau asserts that its authority for these efforts, along with any proposed rulemaking, is derived from the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s mandate that the Bureau “monitor for risks to consumers in the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services” and “gather information from time to time regarding the organization, business conduct, markets, and activities of covered persons and service providers.” See 12 U.S.C. § 5512(c)(1), (4).

Proposed Requirements

The CFPB’s proposed rule would require certain nonbanks covered person entities (with exclusions for insured depository institutions, insured credit unions, related persons, States, certain other entities, and natural persons) to register with the Bureau upon becoming subject to a public written order or judgment imposing obligations based on violations of certain consumer protections laws. Such entities would be required to register in a system established by the Bureau, provide basic identifying information about the company and the order (including a copy of the order), and periodically update the registry for accuracy and completeness. For purposes of the proposed rule, “covered person” would have the same meaning as in 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6). Further, “service providers” would be deemed covered persons to the extent that they engage in the offering or provision of their own consumer financial product or services or where they act as service providers to covered person affiliates.

In addition, certain larger participant nonbanks subject to the Bureau’s supervisory authority would be required to designate a senior executive, who is responsible for and knowledgeable of the nonbank’s efforts to comply with the orders identified in the registry, to attest regarding compliance with covered orders and submit an annual written statement attesting to the steps taken to oversee the activities subject to the applicable order for the preceding calendar year, and whether the executive knows of any violations of, or other instances of noncompliance with, the covered order.

Further, the CFPB is considering whether to release, via its publicly available website, the above registry information for non-banks.

Implications for Non-Banks

While the CFPB’s proposed enforcement order registry would provide greater transparency about a lender’s regulatory track record to the various federal and state regulators and the general public, it remains to be seen how the information maintained in this registry might be used against lenders. At a minimum, however, the proposed rule raises the following significant implications for non-banks:

  • Supervision and examination considerations. The CFPB intends to use the information in the registry to coordinate its “risk-based supervisory prioritization,” for those non-bank markets covered by the Bureau’s supervision and examination authority under CFPA section 1024(a). Thus, entities with a local, state, or federal prior enforcement order may be subject to more targeted supervision.
  • Investigation and enforcement presumptions. The CFPB intends to use the information in the registry in connection with its investigation and potential enforcement activities, which presents various risks, including:
    • Increased civil money penalties. Specifically, the CFPB believes that the information contained in the proposed registry can assist the agency in determining the civil penalties that may be assessed for a future violation of federal consumer financial law, given that federal law permits the CFPB to consider the entity’s “history of previous violations.” Indeed, it is possible that the CFPB may use evidence of prior enforcement against an entity, brought by itself or another agency, to establish that the entity acted knowingly or recklessly in violating federal consumer financial law, perhaps even where the prior enforcement order involved a different consumer-related issue.
    • Presumption of consumer harm. Further, the CFPB believes there is a “heightened likelihood” that entities that are subject to public orders relating to consumer financial products and services may pose risks to consumers in the markets for those products and services, since entities that have previously been subject to enforcement actions “present an increased risk of committing violations of laws.” Thus, there may be a presumption of consumer harm against an entity where a prior enforcement order exists. Yet this approach by the CFPB likely will overstate the actual harm to consumers, as most consent orders do not contain an admission by the entity of any liability or wrongdoing.
  • Increased reputational risk. Given that the CFPB maintains Memoranda of Understanding with federal parties (such as the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice), as well as with at least 20 state attorneys general offices, it appears that the information reported to the registry already would be available to such agencies. However, the registry will permit all agencies, as well as the general public, a readily accessible, one-stop shop to an entity’s entire enforcement track record, which may present significant reputational risk to that entity, as well as a potentially increased risk of class action lawsuits and other consumer claims.
  • Facilitating of private enforcement. The CFPB believes that the proposed registry may “facilitate private enforcement of the Federal consumer financial laws by consumers, to the extent those laws provide private rights of action, where consumers have been harmed by a registered nonbank.” In other words, the “information that would be published under the proposal might be useful in helping consumers understand the identity of a company that has offered or provided a particular consumer financial product or service, and in determining whether to file suit or otherwise make choices regarding how to assert their legal rights.”

Takeaway:

Given the significant implications raised by the CFPB’s proposed rule, non-bank financial institutions should consider submitting comments, which are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. In particular, the CFPB seeks comment on “its preliminary conclusion that collecting and registering public agency and court orders imposing obligations based upon violations of consumer law would assist with monitoring for risks to consumers in the offering or provision of consumer financial products and services.” The CFPB also seeks comment on “whether the types of orders described in the proposal, and the types of information that would be collected about those orders and covered nonbanks under the proposal, would provide useful information to the Bureau,” as well as “any other risks that might be identified through collecting the information described in the proposal.” Finally, the Bureau seeks comment on whether it should consider collecting any other information in order to identify risks to consumers associated with orders.

Assumptions on the Rise: Are You Ready for Mortgage Assumptions?

By , ,

A&B ABstract:

Mortgage assumptions – where a buyer assumes the existing mortgage loan of a seller – have fluctuated in popularity since the 1980s. However, inflation and the high interest rate environment, coupled with an observable shift to a buyer’s market, are raising the prospect that assumable mortgages – especially those with historically low interest rates – are likely to become a selling point for potential sellers. Statements by the real estate broker industry, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and former Ginnie Mae officials, to name a few, corroborate this hunch. Ultimately, given these rumblings, it appears that lenders, and more so mortgage servicers, will need to prepare for a potential increase in mortgage assumption volume. Below are several key considerations with respect to mortgage assumptions.

Servicer Capabilities

Servicers generally will need to diligently evaluate the assuming buyer’s creditworthiness. In certain cases, servicers may need to offer and service home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) and second liens to support the cost difference between the amount of the loan to be assumed and the cost of the property. Further, as servicers will likely have to evaluate the assuming consumer’s credit eligibility in connection with the processing of most mortgage assumptions, such activities may give rise to additional state mortgage lender and/or loan originator licensing obligations. While the federal SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act and its implementing Regulation G and H generally do not consider mortgage loan origination activity to encompass a servicer’s activities in connection with the processing of a loan modification, when the borrower is reasonably likely to default, there is no such exemption for mortgage assumptions. Moreover, states that license mortgage loan origination activities may vary as to whether a license is required to process an assumption.

 Investor Restrictions

Even if a buyer is deemed creditworthy to assume the seller’s mortgage payments, the agency or investor backing the seller’s mortgage loan must approve the assumption. Most government-backed mortgage loans, such as those guaranteed or insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are assumable, provided specific requirements are met.  On the other hand, conventional mortgages (i.e., loans meeting the requirements for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”)) may be more difficult to assume.

It is important to note that the requirements for processing and/or approving an assumption vary from agency to agency and among the GSEs. By way of example:

  • FHA loans are assumable if the buyer meets certain credit requirements, according to FHA guidelines. Buyers who assume FHA mortgages pay off the remaining balance at the current rate, and the lender releases the seller from the loan.
  • VA mortgage assumption guidelines are similar to FHA, with some notable differences. The VA or the VA-approved lender must evaluate the creditworthiness of the buyer, who generally must also pay a VA funding fee of 0.5% of the loan balance as of the transfer date. Unlike new loans, buyers can’t finance the funding fee when assuming a loan, it must be paid in cash at the time of transfer. Moreover, the only way the seller can have their VA entitlement restored would be to have the home assumed by a fellow eligible active-duty service member, reservist, veteran, or eligible surviving spouse.
  • USDA permits loan assumptions but operates differently from FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed loans. For example, according to USDA guidelines, when most buyers assume a USDA loan, the lender will generally issue new terms, which may include a new rate.
  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may permit an assumption under certain circumstances. For example, Fannie Mae may permit the assumption of certain first-lien adjustable-rate mortgage (ARMs) loans that have not been converted to a fixed-rate-mortgage loan.

Due-on-Sale Clauses

Many conventional mortgages today contain “due-on-sale” clauses that authorize a lender, at its option, to declare due and payable sums secured by the lender’s security interest if all or any part of the property, or an interest therein, securing the loan is sold or transferred without the lender’s prior written consent. However, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act prohibits a lender from exercising its option pursuant to a due-on-sale clause in connection with certain exempt transfers or dispositions, including, among others: (1) a transfer by devise, descent, or operation of law on the death of a joint tenant or tenant by the entirety; (2) a transfer to a relative resulting from the death of a borrower; (3) a transfer where the spouse or children of the borrower become an owner of the property; and (4) a transfer resulting from a decree of a dissolution of marriage, legal separation agreement, or from an incidental property settlement agreement, by which the spouse of the borrower becomes an owner of the property. 12 U.S.C. § 1701j–3(d).

Fees

Whether an assumption fee can be charged, and the amount of such fee, will depend on many factors including application of the Garn-St. Germain Act, the CFPB mortgage servicing rules, investor and agency guidelines, and state laws. Further, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) may impact whether a servicer may assess and collect an assumption fee. While most states neither expressly permit nor prohibit assumption fees, several other states, such as Idaho and Michigan, explicitly recognize and permit assumption fees in limited cases (e.g., only where the fee is included in the purchase contract or other agreement). Other states may regulate the amount of an assumption fee. For example, Colorado law limits assumption fees to one-half of 1% of the outstanding principal mortgage amount.

General Federal Consumer Financial Compliance

Assumption transactions also raise compliance considerations under federal consumer financial laws. Under TILA and Regulation Z, an assumption occurs if the transaction meets the following elements: (1) includes the creditor’s express acceptance of the new consumer as a primary obligor; (2) includes the creditor’s express acceptance in a written agreement; and (3) is a “residential mortgage transaction” as to the new consumer. 12 C.F.R. § 1026.20(b). A “residential mortgage transaction” is a transaction: (a) in which a security interest is created or retained in the new consumer’s principal dwelling; and (b) which finances the acquisition or initial construction of the new consumer’s principal dwelling. 12 C.F.R. 1026.2(a)(24). If the transaction is an assumption under Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. § 1026.20(b)), then, as noted by the CFPB in its TILA-RESPA Factsheet, creditors must provide a Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure, unless the transaction is otherwise exempt. Moreover, the assumption transaction may also trigger requirements under Regulation Z’s loan originator compensation and ability-to-repay rules.

With respect to RESPA and Regulation X, however, assumptions are exempt unless the mortgage instruments require lender approval for the assumption and the lender approves the assumption. Specifically, Regulation X expressly exempts from its coverage any “assumption in which the lender does not have the right expressly to approve a subsequent person as the borrower on an existing federally related mortgage loan.” 12 C.F.R. § 1024.5(b)(5). By way of example, the Fannie/Freddie Uniform Security Instrument provides that:

Subject to the provisions of Section 18, any Successor in Interest of Borrower who assumes Borrower’s obligations under this Security Instrument in writing, and is approved by Lender, shall obtain all of Borrower’s rights and obligations under this Security Instrument.  Borrower shall not be released from Borrower’s obligations and liability under this Security Instrument unless Lender agrees to such release in writing.  The covenants and agreements of this Security Instrument shall bind (except as provided in Section 20) and benefit successors of Lender.

Finally, with respect to the CFPB’s Mortgage Servicing Rules, if a successor in interest assumes a mortgage loan obligation under state law or is otherwise liable on the mortgage loan obligation, the protections that the consumer enjoys under Regulation X go beyond the protections that apply to a confirmed successor in interest. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.30(d).

Takeaway

The processing of mortgage assumptions involves many of the same regulatory considerations as originating a new loan. However, because of varying requirements under agency and investor guidelines, there are several unique aspects to processing assumptions, which may pose challenges for servicers that do not regularly engage in mortgage origination. The economic climate appears to be ripe for an uptick in mortgage loan assumption activity. Accordingly, servicers should ensure their compliance management systems are prepared to manage the associated compliance risks.

HELOCs On the Rise: Is Your Servicing CMS Ready?

By ,

A&B ABstract:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) has moved to clarify its regulatory authority at a time when the economic climate is ripe for a resurgence in HELOC lending. In an amicus brief filed by the CFPB on November 30, 2022 (the “Amicus Brief”), the Bureau acknowledged that its Mortgage Servicing Rules, which, in 2013, amended Regulation X, RESPA’s implementing regulation, and Regulation Z, TILA’s implementing regulation, do not apply to home equity lines of credit (“HELOCs”).  This is consistent with the Bureau’s guidance in the preamble to the CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rules under RESPA, wherein the Bureau recognized that HELOCs have a different risk profile, and are serviced differently, than first-lien mortgage loans, and that many of the rules under Regulation X would be “irrelevant to HELOCs” and “would substantially overlap” with the longstanding protections under TILA and Regulation Z that apply to HELOCs.

During this past refinance boom, consumers refinanced mortgage loans at record rates. Moreover, according to a recent report by the Federal Reserve, consumers are sitting on nearly 30 trillion dollars in home equity.  HELOCs allow consumers the opportunity to extract equity from their homes without losing the low interest rate on their first-lien loan. Generally, a HELOC is a revolving line of credit that is secured by a subordinate mortgage on the borrower’s residence that typically has a draw period of 5 or 10 years.  At the end of the draw period, the outstanding loan payment converts to a repayment period of 5 to 25 years with interest and principal payments required that fully amortize the balance.

Issues to Consider in Servicing HELOCs

Servicing HELOCs raise unique issues given the open-end nature of the loan, the typical second lien position, and the different regulatory requirements.  HELOC servicers will need to ensure their compliance management systems (“CMS”) are robust enough to account for a potential uptick in HELOC lending. Among many other issues, servicers will want to ensure their operations comply with several regulatory requirements, including:

Offsets: In the Amicus Brief, the CFPB argues that HELOCs accessible by a credit card are subject to the provisions of TILA and Regulation Z that prohibit card issuers from using deposit account funds to offset indebtedness arising out of a credit card transaction.

Disclosures: Long before the CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rules, TILA and Regulation Z contained disclosures applicable to HELOCs. As a result, the provisions of the CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rules under Regulation Z governing periodic billing statements, adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) interest rate adjustment notices, and payment crediting provisions do not apply to HELOCs as these provisions are specifically limited to closed-end consumer credit transactions. However, the payoff statement requirements under Regulation Z are applicable both to HELOCs and closed-end consumer credit transactions secured by a dwelling. In addition to certain account-opening disclosures, a HELOC creditor (or its servicer) must make certain subsequent disclosures to the borrower, either annually (e.g., an annual statement) or upon the occurrence of a specific trigger event, such as the addition of a credit access device, a change in terms or change in billing cycle, or a notice to restrict credit. It is also worth noting that Regulation Z’s mortgage transfer notice (commonly referred to as the Section 404 notice) applicable when a loan is transferred, sold or assigned to a third party, applies to HELOCs. In contrast, RESPA’s servicing transfer notice does not apply to HELOCs.

Periodic Statements: TILA and Regulation Z contain a different set of periodic statement requirements, predating the CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rules, which are applicable to HELOCs. Under TILA, a servicer must comply with the open-end periodic statement requirements. That is true even if the HELOC has an open-end draw period followed by a closed-end repayment period, during which no further draws are permitted. Such statements can be complex given that principal repayment and interest accrual vary based on draws; there will be a conversion to scheduled amortization after the draw period ends; and balloon payments may be required at maturity, resulting in the need for servicing system adjustments.

Billing Error Resolution: Instead of having to comply with the Regulation X requirements for notices of error, HELOCs are subject to Regulation Z’s billing error resolution requirements.

Crediting of Payments: A creditor may credit a payment to the consumer’s account, including a HELOC, as of the date of receipt, except when a delay in crediting does not result in a finance or other charge, or except as otherwise provided in 12 C.F.R. § 1026.10(a).

Restrictions on Servicing Fees: Regulation Z restricts certain new servicing fees that may be imposed, where such fees are not provided for in the contract, because the credit may not, by contract or otherwise, change any term except as provided in 12 C.F.R § 1026.40.  With the CFPB’s increased focus on fees, this provision may be an area of focus for the Bureau and state regulators.

Restriction on Changing the APR: The creditor may not, by contract or otherwise, change the APR of a HELOC unless such change is based on an index that is not under the creditor’s control and such index is available to the general public.  However, this requirement does not prohibit rate changes which are specifically set forth in the agreement, such as stepped-rate plans or preferred-rate provisions.

Terminating, Suspending or Reducing a Line of Credit: TILA and Regulation Z restrict the ability of the creditor to prohibit additional extensions of credit or reduce the credit limit applicable to an agreement under those circumstances set forth in 12 C.F.R § 1026.40.  Similarly, TILA and Regulation Z impose restrictions on when the creditor may terminate and accelerate the loan balance.

Rescission: Similar to closed-end loans, the consumer will have a right of rescission on a HELOC; however, the right extends beyond just the initial account opening. During the servicing of a HELOC, the consumer has a right of rescission whenever (i) credit is extended under the plan, or (ii) the credit limit is increased. But there is no right of rescission when credit extensions are made in accordance with the existing credit limit under the plan. If rescission applies, the notice and procedural requirements set forth in TILA and Regulation Z must be followed.

Default: Loss mitigation and default recovery actions may be limited by the firstien loan. That’s because default or acceleration of the first-lien loan immediately triggers loss mitigation and default recovery to protect the second-lien loan.  The protection of the second-lien loan may involve advancing monthly payments on the first-lien loan.  Foreclosure pursued against the first-lien loan will trigger second lien to participate and monitor for protection and recovery. Even though not applicable to HELOCs, some servicers may consider complying with loss mitigation provisions as guidelines or best practices.

ECOA and FCRA: Terminating, suspending, or reducing the credit limit on a HELOC based on declining property values could raise redlining risk, which is a form of illegal disparate treatment in which a lender provides unequal access to credit or unequal terms of credit because of a prohibited characteristic of the residents of the area in which the credit seeker resides or will reside or in which the residential property to be mortgaged is located. Thus, lenders and servicers should have policies and procedures in place to ensure that actions to reduce, terminate or suspend HELOCs are carried out in a non-discriminatory manner.  Relatedly, the CFPB’s authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to prohibit unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices will similarly prohibit certain conduct in connection with the servicing of HELOCs that the CFPB may consider to be harmful to consumers.  It is also important to remember that ECOA requires that a creditor notify an applicant of action taken within 30 days after taking adverse action on an existing account, where the adverse action includes a termination of an account, an unfavorable change in the terms of an account, or a refusal to increase the amount of credit available to an applicant who has made an application for an increase.  Similar to ECOA, FCRA also requires the servicer to provide the consumer with an adverse action notice in certain circumstances.

State Law Considerations: And let’s not forget state law issues. While most of the CFPB’s Mortgage Servicing Rules do not apply to HELOCs, many state provisions may cover HELOCs.  As most HELOCs are subordinate-lien loans, second lien licensing law obligations arise. Also, sourcing, processing and funding draw requests could implicate loan originator and/or money transmitter licensing obligations. Also, at least one state prohibits a licensee from servicing a usurious loan.  For HELOCs, the issue is not only the initial rate but also the adjusted rate (assuming it is an ARM).  There may also be state-specific disclosure obligations, as well as restrictions on product terms (such as balloon payments or lien releases), fees, or credit line access devices, to name a few.

Takeaway

The servicing of HELOCs involve many of the same aspects as servicing first-lien residential mortgage loans.  However, because of the open-end credit line features and the typical second-lien position, there are several unique aspects to servicing HELOCs.  And, because there are no industry standard HELOC agreements, the terms of the HELOC (e.g., the length of draw and amortization periods, interest-only payment features, balloon, credit access, etc.) can vary greatly.  The economic climate is poised for a resurgence in home equity lending.  Now is the time to ensure your CMS is up to the task.