Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Mortgage Loans

CFPB Requests Input on TRID and Reverse Mortgage Disclosure Requirements: What Mortgage Industry Participants Need to Know

By

On July 9, 2026, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public input on potential changes to several mortgage disclosure requirements, including the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rules and reverse mortgage disclosures. The RFI reflects the CFPB’s broader effort to identify regulatory requirements that may increase costs, create operational burdens, or unnecessarily impede access to mortgage credit while continuing to provide meaningful consumer protections. The RFI follows the President’s March 13, 2026, Executive Order (the “March EO”), which directed the CFPB to consider, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:

(i) proposing amendments to Regulation Z that tailor the following requirements for smaller banks: ATR and QM requirements (including potentially a broader QM safe harbor for portfolio loans) and the requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, Public Law 90-321 (TILA), Real Estate Settlement Procedure[s] Act, Public Law 93-533 (RESPA), and TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rules;

(ii) replacing TRID timing rules with a materiality-based standard that preserves consumer clarity and reduces closing delays; [and]

. . . .

(vii) exempting rate-and-term refinancing (including cash-out refinancing) from rescission rights.”

For mortgage lenders, servicers, and reverse mortgage participants, this development may signal the beginning of a new round of regulatory reform in the mortgage disclosure space.

What Happened?

The CFPB issued an RFI requesting comments on whether existing mortgage disclosure requirements should be revised to reduce burdens on industry participants and consumers. The Bureau specifically seeks feedback regarding three areas:

  1. TRID disclosures;
  2. The right of rescission applicable to certain refinance transactions; and
  3. Reverse mortgage disclosures.

The comment period closes on August 10, 2026.

TRID Is Back on the Table

The TRID rules, which became effective in 2015, integrated disclosures required under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) into two primary forms: the Loan Estimate and the Closing Disclosure. The CFPB’s RFI asks whether certain aspects of the current framework create unnecessary burdens for lenders or confusion for consumers. Areas identified for comment include disclosure timing requirements, tolerance rules, electronic delivery requirements, and whether smaller institutions should be subject to different or more tailored requirements.

Although the CFPB has amended TRID several times over the last decade, industry participants have continued to identify operational challenges associated with disclosure redisclosures, timing requirements, cure processes, and technology implementation. The RFI provides stakeholders an opportunity to raise those concerns directly with the Bureau.

Reverse Mortgages Receive Particular Attention

The RFI also focuses on reverse mortgage disclosures, an area where the disclosure regime remains largely separate from the integrated TRID framework.

Unlike most forward mortgage products, reverse mortgages continue to rely on multiple disclosure forms and calculations, including Truth in Lending disclosures, Good Faith Estimates, HUD-1 settlement statements, and the Total Annual Loan Cost (TALC) disclosure. The CFPB is seeking comment on whether these disclosures continue to serve borrowers effectively or whether a more streamlined approach would improve consumer understanding.

Among other topics, the Bureau asks whether:

  • Reverse mortgage borrowers would benefit from a single integrated disclosure framework similar to TRID;
  • TALC calculations remain useful and understandable;
  • Alternative disclosures showing projected loan balance growth in dollar terms would be more meaningful than annualized cost metrics; and
  • Consumers would benefit from reverse mortgage-specific educational materials.

These questions suggest that the CFPB may be considering a significant modernization of reverse mortgage disclosures.

Why Does It Matter?

This RFI could represent the first step toward meaningful changes in mortgage disclosure regulation.

Potential Changes to Longstanding TRID Compliance Requirements

TRID compliance remains one of the most operationally intensive areas of mortgage origination. Loan origination systems, document preparation vendors, settlement service providers, and lenders have invested substantial resources in implementing and maintaining TRID compliance. Even relatively modest regulatory changes could require system modifications, vendor updates, revised procedures, employee training, and quality-control enhancements.

At the same time, many industry participants have argued that certain aspects of the rules create costs without providing corresponding consumer benefits. The CFPB appears interested in identifying those areas and assessing whether simplification is possible.

Reverse Mortgage Reform Could Be Significant

The reverse mortgage portion of the RFI may prove especially noteworthy. Reverse mortgage disclosures are governed by requirements that predate TRID and often present information differently than consumers encounter in forward mortgage transactions. Critics have long questioned whether the TALC disclosure is useful or understandable to borrowers. The CFPB’s willingness to revisit those requirements suggests that the Bureau may be open to a broader redesign of the reverse mortgage disclosure framework.

If the CFPB ultimately pursues a more integrated disclosure model for reverse mortgages, lenders and technology providers may face substantial implementation projects but could also benefit from a more streamlined and consumer-friendly framework.

The RFI May Signal Broader Deregulatory Efforts

The RFI was issued as part of a broader federal initiative—announced in the March EO—focused on promoting access to mortgage credit and evaluating regulations that may increase lending costs. As a result, stakeholders should view this development not simply as a disclosure review, but as part of a potentially larger conversation regarding mortgage regulation, operational burden, and consumer protection.

What Do I Need to Do?

Mortgage industry participants should not assume that regulatory changes are imminent, but they should take the RFI seriously.

Consider Submitting Comments

Lenders, servicers, investors, settlement service providers, and technology vendors should evaluate whether they have operational experience or data that could inform the CFPB’s review. The most persuasive comments will typically identify specific compliance burdens, quantify costs where possible, and propose practical alternatives that preserve consumer protections.

Identify TRID Pain Points

Organizations should take inventory of recurring compliance challenges, including: disclosure timing issues; redisclosure triggers; tolerance cure processes; electronic delivery requirements; secondary market impacts; and vendor and system implementation costs.

These issues may become particularly relevant if the CFPB moves beyond the information-gathering stage and begins considering proposed rule changes.

Reverse Mortgage Participants Should Engage Early

Reverse mortgage lenders, investors, and servicers should pay particular attention to the CFPB’s questions regarding TALC disclosures, integrated disclosure concepts, and consumer education. Stakeholders with direct experience observing borrower confusion—or disclosure practices that work particularly well—may have a meaningful opportunity to influence future policy.

Monitor for Next Steps

The RFI is only the beginning of the process. Following the comment period, the CFPB may decide to take no action, issue additional guidance, propose targeted amendments, or pursue broader rulemaking initiatives. Stakeholders should continue monitoring developments closely, particularly given the potential implications for mortgage origination systems, disclosure platforms, and compliance management programs.

For now, the message is clear: after more than a decade of living with TRID—and decades of operating under the current reverse mortgage disclosure framework—the CFPB is actively considering whether these requirements should be modernized. Industry participants have a limited window to help shape what comes next.

Fannie Mae Issues Governance Framework on Use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

By

What Happened?

In a little-noticed, but important development, on April 8, 2026, Fannie Mae issued a governance framework for Fannie Mae Seller/Servicers’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) in their origination and/or servicing practices. The requirements that Fannie Mae sets forth in this directive are considerable and apply to all approved single-family seller/servicers utilizing AI/ ML technologies within their loan origination or servicing practices. The directive becomes effective on August 6, 2026, 120 days after publication.

Why Does It Matter?

Fannie Mae observes that while AI/ML is fundamentally altering the mortgage landscape by improving efficiency, strengthening risk management, and delivering more personalized customer experiences, it warns that “as AI/ML models grow more complex and more deeply embedded in critical processes, seller/servicers must ensure these technologies are deployed safely, legally, ethically, and in alignment with Fannie Mae’s expectations.”

Toward that end, Fannie Mae directs all seller/servicers who use AI/ML in connection with the origination of loans sold to or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or serviced on behalf of Fannie to comply with applicable law and to:

  • Promulgate written policies governing the development, implementation, and lifecycle of AI/ML systems.
  • Review and update these policies at least annually by designated owners to align with industry best practices and legal updates.
  • Ensure that system structures incorporate characteristics of trustworthy, unbiased, and ethical AI/ML.
  • Subject third-party, outsourced, or subcontractor-provided AI tools to the same rigorous compliance standards as internal software.
  • Disclose the types of AI deployed, its intended purpose, and active risk safeguards upon request by Fannie Mae.

What to Do Now

AI/ML is already rapidly changing the mortgage market in unimaginable ways. The Fannie Mae directive augments similar developments across the mortgage industry to supervise automated systems. Notably, on December 3, 2025, Freddie Mac issued Guide Bulletin 2025 16 which promulgated a highly prescriptive set of requirements imposing detailed governance, audit and security requirements for seller/servicers using AI and ML systems. The Freddie Mac Bulletin’s effective date was March 3, 2026.

With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being a bellwether for the mortgage industry, mortgage originators and servicers should heed these directives, among others issued by governmental authorities.

Maryland Update: Legislature Clarifies Licensing Treatment for Passive Trusts and Loan Assignees Through SB 784

By

What Happened?

In April 2026, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 784 (Chapter 40 of the Laws of 2026), a measure addressing the application of licensing requirements under the Maryland Financial Institutions Article. SB 784 repeals Section 11‑102, a provision addressing whether entities that acquire or are assigned mortgages, mortgage loans, or installment loans are subject to Maryland consumer credit licensing requirements.

The General Assembly expressly characterized SB 784 as a “clarifying corrective measure” intended to repeal a provision of law that was “erroneously enacted” in 2025. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026.

SB 784 follows a period of uncertainty triggered by the Maryland Appellate Court’s 2024 decision in Estate of H. Gregory Brown v. Carrie M. Ward, et al., No. 1009 (App. Ct. Sept. Term 2023), and the Legislature’s subsequent emergency response through the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025.

As we previously discussed, in Brown, the court concluded that a statutory trust holding a defaulted HELOC was required to be licensed before proceeding to foreclosure. Following that decision, the Maryland Office of Financial Regulation issued guidance suggesting that assignees of certain Maryland loans—including trusts—could be subject to licensing requirements.

The 2025 Legislative Response

In April 2025, Governor Moore signed the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025 (HB 1516 and its companion SB 1026) with an immediate effective date. We covered that legislation and its regulatory impact in detail here.

As enacted, HB 1516 was intended to be the controlling law. It took a targeted approach by:

  • Defining and expressly exempting “passive trusts” from Maryland mortgage lender licensing requirements; and
  • Making conforming amendments to ensure that securitization and similar trust vehicles that acquire Maryland mortgage loans—but do not originate or service them—would not be required to obtain licenses.

Although similar language appeared in SB 1026 adding new Section 11‑102, market participants and regulators generally treated HB 1516 as reflecting the Legislature’s operative intent. SB 784 confirms that understanding.

What SB 784 Does—and Does Not Do

SB 784 repeals Section 11‑102 and states expressly that the provision was erroneously enacted. Importantly, SB 784 does not disturb the passive trust exemption adopted in 2025. The definition of “passive trust” and the express exemption for such trusts remain part of Maryland law.

In practical terms, SB 784 eliminates a stand‑alone statutory provision that could be read to create a broad exemption for all loan assignees, while preserving the narrower exemption the General Assembly intended to adopt in 2025.

Current State of Maryland Law

Following SB 784:

  • Passive trusts—as defined in the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law—remain exempt from Maryland mortgage lender licensing requirements.
  • Other entities that acquire or hold loans do not appear to require licensure solely by virtue of assignment, consistent with historical practice and legislative intent, provided they are not otherwise engaged in lending or servicing activity.
  • The analysis remains fact‑specific, and licensing exposure will continue to depend on an entity’s role in the credit lifecycle.

Although the Legislature has now clarified its intent, the area remains somewhat unsettled and could be subject to further judicial or regulatory scrutiny, particularly given the reasoning in Brown and the possibility of future challenges.

Why Does It Matter?

SB 784 provides welcome clarity for securitization sponsors, trustees, and other secondary‑market participants holding Maryland loan assets. By confirming that Section 11‑102 was a drafting error, the Legislature has reduced the risk that passive trust structures will again be drawn into licensing disputes based on technical anomalies.

At the same time, SB 784 underscores that Maryland has not adopted a blanket statutory exemption for all assignees. Licensing risk remains tied to actual conduct, not merely loan ownership.

What Do I Need to Do?

Companies that acquire or hold Maryland mortgage or consumer loan assets should:

  • Confirm whether their structures qualify as passive trusts under Maryland law;
  • Review servicing and operational arrangements to ensure borrower‑facing activity is conducted by appropriately licensed entities;
  • Monitor ongoing developments, including any additional guidance from the Office of Financial Regulation or future litigation interpreting Brown in light of the Legislature’s corrective actions; and
  • Reassess licensing strategies adopted during the 2024–2025 period of uncertainty.

Alston & Bird’s Consumer Financial Services Team continues to monitor these developments and can assist with licensing analysis, transaction structuring, and risk assessments related to secondary‑market and servicing activity in Maryland.

Executive Order Targets Smaller Bank Participation in Mortgage Markets

By

What Happened?

On March 13, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Promoting Access to Mortgage Credit,” addressing factors that may have negatively impacted the ability of community banks and other smaller financial institutions to participate in mortgage lending and servicing.

In order to expand access to mortgage credit, the Executive Order directs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and other financial regulators (the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the National Credit Union Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, the “Regulators”)) to take action to reduce regulatory burdens, modernize reporting requirements, and utilize digital mortgage processes, among other actions.

Why Does it Matter?

The Executive Order includes broad directives to the Regulators to update regulations and processes that impact the mortgage markets, including:

  • Changes to Origination Regulations: The Executive Order directs the CFPB to consider regulatory changes including tailoring Regulation Z requirements as applicable to smaller banks (including ATR and QM, TILA, RESPA, and TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (TRID) rules), updating TRID timing rules, modifying or exempting small mortgage loans from caps on QM points and fees, and amending rescission rights.
  • HMDA Modernization: The Executive Order requires the CFPB to consider proposing amendments to Regulation C to increase the asset threshold for exemption from HMDA data collection and reporting requirements for smaller banks, exclude inquiries from the scope of HMDA, and reduce burdens related to disclosures.
  • Alignment of Capital and Liquidity Standards: The Executive Order directs the Regulators to consider: (a) updating capital regulations and collateral valuation and transfer systems between the Federal Reserve and Federal Home Loan Banks; (b) expanding access to longer‑dated FHLB advances tied to residential mortgage assets; (c) creating targeted FHLB liquidity programs for entry‑level housing, owner‑occupied purchase loans, and small residential builders; and (d) modernizing collateral boarding and valuation processes.
  • Construction and Housing Supply: The Executive Order directs the Regulators to consider revising supervisory guidance to: (a) exclude one-to four-family residential development and construction lending from commercial real estate concentration guidance; and (b) ensure that supervisory expectations support responsible construction lending by community banks.
  • Appraisal Modernization: The Executive Order directs the Regulators to consider certain changes to appraisal processes, including with respect to valuations performed in connection with FHA-insured and VA-guaranteed loans and with respect to the use of alternative valuations (AVMs, desktop and hybrid appraisals, and artificial intelligence valuation tools).
  • Digital Mortgage Modernization: The Executive Order requires the Regulators to consider certain changes to facilitate digital mortgages, namely eliminating unnecessary wet signature requirements, standardizing acceptance of electronic signatures, e-notes, and remote online notarization, and promoting digital mortgage standards.
  • Servicing and Supervisory Certainty: The Executive Order directs the Regulators to consider supervisory changes relating to mortgage loan servicing, including: (a) aligning supervisory expectations to support portfolio mortgage servicing as a core community banking function; (b) extending cure‑first standards to good‑faith servicing errors; (c) simplifying loss mitigation requirements; (d) issuing a proposed rule providing exemptions from complex mortgage services for smaller banks; and (e) ensuring that supervisory evaluations of performing, prudently underwritten portfolio loans do not focus on technical defects or rely on evolving supervisory interpretations.
  • Duplicative or Unnecessary Licensing Requirements: The Executive Order requires the Regulators to consider eliminating duplicative or unnecessary requirements regarding licensing or registration (i.e., MLO licensing) for mortgage loan officers of any smaller bank.

What Do You Need to Do?

While the Executive Order does not directly impose obligations on mortgage lenders and servicers, it has the potential to significantly impact the mortgage market by changing the rules of the game, particularly for community banks and smaller banks. Industry participants appear open to the possibility of reform – for example, Mortgage Bankers Association President and CEO Bob Broeksmit issued a statement applauding the focus on “addressing costly mortgage regulations that have increased costs and limited access to credit,” and supporting efforts to address other structural factors (including valuations and construction regulations) impacting access to housing.

We will continue to monitor the Regulators’ activities to implement the directives of the Executive Order, particularly as the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (which includes provisions on some of the same topics) advances in Congress; we encourage mortgage market participants to do the same.

Expansion of New York’s Community Reinvestment Act Via New Regulation

By ,

Last week, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced a new regulation designed to ensure that licensed nonbank mortgage bankers in New York (“mortgage lenders”) meet the needs of the communities they serve in the state, particularly low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods and borrowers. Under New York law, “low-income” means income that is less than 50% of the area median income, in the case of an individual, or a median family income that is less than 50% of the area median income, in the case of a geography. Further, “moderate-income” means income that is at least 50% and less than 80% of the area median income, in the case of an individual, or a median family income that is at least 50% and less than 80% of the area median income, in the case of a geography.

By way of background, in November 2021, New York amended the state’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which at the time mirrored the federal Community Reinvestment Act, to expand coverage to New York state-licensed mortgage bankers. This made New York the third state (after Illinois and Massachusetts) to pursue such action.

The new regulation, effective July 7, 2026, takes things further by imposing following parameters and requirements on mortgage lenders as set forth below.

Origination Threshold

Non-depository mortgage bankers that have made at least 200 HMDA-reportable originations in the preceding year are subject to performance evaluation under the new regulation and will receive a rating of Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs Improvement, or Substantial noncompliance.

No Branches, No Problem

A mortgage banker with one or more branches within the state must delineate one or more branch-based assessment areas for evaluating performance. However, “branchless” lenders will be evaluated based on where they do a substantial portion of their business. Specifically, the lender must delineate a lending-based assessment area in each MSA or nonmetropolitan area in which it originated, in each of the two preceding calendar years, at least 100 mortgage loans outside of any branch-based assessment areas.

Performance Tests

The regulation imposes a lending test and service test on non-bank mortgage lenders, to arrive at a performance rating. Notably, the DFS, when reviewing a mortgage lender’s change of control, branch, or other application, will consider the mortgage lender’s record of CRA performance.

  • Lending test. The lending test assesses how well mortgage bankers serve all borrowers and neighborhoods within their assessment areas, particularly LMI communities. The lending test considers the geographic distribution of loans in LMI tracts and to LMI borrowers. In addition, the lending test considers the lender’s innovative and flexible lending practices, carried out safely and soundly, to meet the needs of these communities.
  • Service test. The service test evaluates whether mortgage lenders offer programs and services that promote community development. Unlike banks, however, mortgage bankers will not be required to make community development investments or grants, recognizing the differences in how these institutions operate. Nevertheless, mortgage lenders will be evaluated on the extent and innovativeness of their community development services, qualified investments, community outreach, marketing, and educational programs; each of which are defined terms under the regulation.

Discrimination and Other Illegal Credit Practices

The evaluation of a mortgage banker’s performance in meeting the credit needs of the community is adversely affected by evidence of discriminatory or other illegal credit practices in any geography by the mortgage lender, including violations of (1) Section 5 of the FTC Act, (2) Section 8 of RESPA, (3) TILA’s right of rescission, (4) HOEPA or New York’s high cost lending law, or (5) ECOA, Fair Housing Act or section 296-a of New York Executive Law.

Given the above, New York-licensed mortgage lenders should prepare for these CRA obligations by conducting preliminary analysis of their lending in LMI census tracts and to LMI borrowers, to ensure that both marketing efforts and loan product offerings are meeting the needs of these communities. While federal redlining enforcement may currently be deprioritized, state-level CRA inquiries and investigations are likely to ramp up. Alston & Bird is able to assist mortgage lenders with proactive efforts to ensure compliance with New York’s CRA law.