Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Mortgage Loans

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.

 

CFPB Publishes Fall 2022 Supervisory Highlights

By ,

A&B ABstract:

On November 16, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) released its Fall 2022 Supervisory Highlights (Issue 28) (the “Supervisory Highlights”), which, among other things, announces the creation of a Repeat Offender Unit and highlights supervisory observations from examinations conducted by the Bureau in the first half of 2022.  Below we discuss some of the key takeaways from the Supervisory Highlights.

The Supervisory Highlights

CFPB’s New Repeat Offender Unit

The CFPB announced the creation a Repeat Offender Unit (“ROU”) to focus its supervision on repeat offenders with the intent to recommend specific corrective actions to stop recidivist behavior. The ROU intends to engage in closer scrutiny of repeat offenders’ compliance with certain orders, along with the following activities:

  • 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 review of orders and monitoring that reduces the occurrences of repeat offenders.

The creation of the ROU is not surprising given Director Chopra’s prior statements signaling that the Bureau would focus its efforts on reining in corporate recidivism in the financial services industry. For example, in March 2022, Director Chopra delivered a speech to the University of Pennsylvania Law School, entitled Reining in Repeat Offenders, in which the Director noted that “[a]t the CFPB, we have plans to establish dedicated units in our supervision and enforcement divisions to enhance the detection of repeat offenses and corporate recidivists and to better hold them accountable…[and that] for serial offenders of federal law, the CFPB will be looking at remedies that are more structural in nature, with lower enforcement and monitoring costs…[including] seek[ing] ‘limits on the activities or functions’ of a firm for violations of laws, regulations, and orders.”

Supervisory Observations

The Supervisory Highlights identifies numerous supervisory observations pertaining to consumer reporting, debt collection, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, and payday lending, among other topics. We discuss several of the Bureau’s notable observations below.

Consumer Reporting

With respect to credit reporting, the CFPB found violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and/or Regulation V involving the following issues:

  • Certain nationwide consumer reporting agencies failed to provide reports to the CFPB regarding consumer complaints received from consumers that the Bureau transmits to the credit reporting agency if those complaints are about “incomplete or inaccurate information” that a consumer “appears to have disputed” with the agency;
  • Some furnishers, including third-party debt collection furnishers, continue to: (1) inaccurately report information despite actual knowledge of errors; (2) fail to correct and update furnished information after determining such information is not complete or accurate; and (3) fail to establish and follow reasonable procedures to report the appropriate date of first delinquency on applicable accounts; and
  • Some furnishers also continue to fail to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of furnished information, such as by verifying random samples of furnished information, and fail to conduct reasonable investigations of direct disputes by neglecting to review relevant information and documentation.

Debt Collection

In recent examination activity, the CFPB has identified certain violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, such as:

  • Examiners found that certain larger participant debt collectors engaged in conduct intended to harass, oppress, or abuse consumers during telephone calls by continuing to engage in conversation even after consumers stated that the communication was causing them to feel annoyed, harassed, or abused.
  • Examiners found that debt collectors engaged in improper communication with third parties about a consumer’s debt when communicating with a person who had a similar or identical name to the consumer.

Mortgage Origination

Regarding mortgage origination, the CFPB found violations of Regulation Z and deceptive acts or practices prohibited by the Consumer Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”), such as:

  • Examiners found that certain entities improperly reduced loan origination compensation based on a term of a transaction by failing to use actual costs and fee amounts that were accurate and known to loan originators at the time initial disclosures were provided to consumers. Subsequently at closing, consumers were provided a lender credit when the actual costs of certain fees exceeded the applicable tolerance thresholds, which led entities to reduce loan originator compensation after loan consummation by the amount provided in order to cure the tolerance violation. Notably, the Bureau found that in each instance, the settlement service had been performed and the loan originator knew the actual costs of those services. The loan originators, however, entered a cost that was completely unrelated to the actual charges that the loan originator knew had been incurred, resulting in information being entered that was not consistent with the best information reasonably available. Thus, examiners found that the unforeseen increase exception permitted by Regulation Z did not apply to these situations.
  • Examiners also identified a waiver provision in a loan security agreement, which was used by certain entities in one state, that was determined to be deceptive in violation of the CFPA. The waiver provided that borrowers who signed the agreement waived their right to initiate or participate in a class action. The language was found to be misleading because a reasonable consumer could understand the provision to waive their right to bring a class action on any claim, including federal claims, in federal court, which is expressly prohibited by Regulation Z.

Mortgage Servicing

The Bureau indicated that its mortgage servicing examinations focused on servicers’ actions as consumers experienced financial distress related to COVID-19. Mortgage servicing findings by the CFPB included the following:

  • Servicers engaged in abusive acts or practices by charging sizable phone payments fees when consumers were unaware of the fees’ existence and, if disclosures were provided, providing general disclosures indicating that consumers “may” incur a fee did not sufficiently inform consumers of the material costs;
  • Servicers engaged in unfair acts or practices by:
    • charging consumers fees during a CARES Act forbearance plan, in violation of the CARES Act’s prohibition on the imposition of “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 mortgage contract”; and
    • failing to timely honor requests for forbearance from consumers;
  • Servicers engaged in deceptive acts or practices by misrepresenting that certain payment amounts were sufficient for consumers to accept a deferral offer at the end of their forbearance period, when in fact, they were not due to updated escrow payments; and
  • Servicers violated Regulation X by failing to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to:
    • inform consumers of all available loss mitigation options, which resulted in some consumers not receiving information about options, such as deferral, when exiting forbearances; and
    • properly evaluate consumers for all available loss mitigation options, resulting in improper denial of deferral options.

Payday Lending

Regarding payday lending, examiners found that some lenders failed to maintain records of call recordings that were necessary to demonstrate compliance with certain conduct provisions in consent orders, e.g., prohibiting certain misrepresentations. The consent order provisions required creation and retention of all documents and records necessary to demonstrate full compliance with all provisions of the consent orders. The Bureau determined that the failure to maintain the call recordings violated the consent orders and federal consumer financial law.

Although this finding was specific to payday lenders, it may have broader implications for entities subject to an active CFPB consent order, as the provision relied upon by the Bureau in making its finding is routinely found in CFPB orders.

Takeaway

The compliance issues noted in the Supervisory Highlights emphasize the importance of maintaining a strong and continually updated compliance management system. Entities should review the Bureau’s supervisory observations against their current policies, procedures, and processes to ensure consistency with the Bureau’s compliance expectations, and to determine whether enhancements and/or proactive consumer remediation may be appropriate. Finally, entities subject to active CFPB consent orders should pay particular attention to whether their current policies, procedures, and processes are sufficient to ensure compliance with applicable law and the terms of the consent order, in order to mitigate against the risk of being deemed a repeat offender and potentially subject to increased penalties or broader structural remedies such as “seek[ing] ‘limits on the activities or functions’ of a firm for violations of laws, regulations, and orders.”

FHA Issues Final Rule on Acceptance of Private Flood Insurance Policies

By

A&B ABstract:

 On November 21, 2022, the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) announced a final rule to provide for the acceptance of private flood insurance in connection with FHA-insured loans.

FHA to Permit Private Flood Insurance Policies

Effective December 21, 2022, the FHA has adopted a long-awaited final rule (the “FHA Rule”) permitting the acceptance of private flood insurance policies in connection with FHA-insured loans.  Proposed nearly two years ago, the regulations align requirements for the acceptance of private flood insurance for FHA-insured loans with those that apply to loans made by federally regulated financial institutions (“federally regulated lenders”).

Background

In 2012, Congress enacted the Biggert-Waters Act Flood Insurance Reform Act, amending the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (collectively, the “Flood Act”) to clarify the obligations of federally regulated lenders to accept private flood insurance – among other provisions.  Specifically, Biggert-Waters included a provision requiring the federal banking regulatory agencies  – the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Farm Credit Administration, and the National Credit Union Administration (the “Agencies”) – to adopt a rule directing regulated lenders to accept private flood insurance policies meeting statutory criteria, and to notify borrowers of the availability of private flood insurance coverage as an alternative to that available through the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”).  The Agencies first proposed such a rule in October 2013, and finalized it in February 2019 – with the provisions taking effect on July 1 of that year.

The FHA Rule

Neither the Biggert-Waters provision addressing private flood insurance nor the Agencies’ rule on the same topic, however, applies to FHA-insured loans.  As a result, as of July 2019, there existed a significant disparity between most loans made by federally regulated lenders and those insured by the FHA:  Private flood insurance was an option for the former, but prohibited for the latter because it did not comport with the requirements of FHA regulations. To address the differences, in November 2020, the FHA proposed to amend its regulations (24 CFR Parts 201, 203, and 206) to permit the acceptance of private flood insurance policies and provide other clarification on mortgagees’ obligation to ensure that appropriate flood insurance coverage is in place for FHA-insured loans.

Definition of Private Flood Insurance

Amending 24 C.F.R. 203.16a, the FHA Rule mirrors the definition of “private flood insurance” found in the Agencies’ rule, which includes four prongs.  First, such a policy must be issued by an insurance company that is:

    • Licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located; or
    • Recognized, or not disapproved, as a surplus lines insurer by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property.

Second, the policy must provide flood insurance coverage that is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an NFIP Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”) for the same type of property, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer (and as further specified in the definition).

Third, the policy must include:

    • A requirement for the insurer to give written notice 45 days before cancellation or non-renewal of flood insurance coverage to the insured and the federally regulated lender that made the designated loan secured by the property covered by the flood insurance, or the servicer acting on its behalf;
    • Information about the availability of flood insurance coverage under the NFIP;
    • A mortgage interest clause similar to the clause contained in an SFIP; and
    • A provision requiring an insured to file suit not later than one year after the date of a written denial of all or part of a claim under the policy.

Finally, the policy must contain cancellation provisions that are as restrictive as the provisions contained in an SFIP.  The Agencies’ rule also gives a federally regulated lender discretion to accept a policy offered by a private insurer that does not meet all of the above criteria – such as a policy offered by a mutual aid society.

Like the Agencies’ rule, the FHA Rule includes a compliance aid intended to help mortgagees identify whether a private flood insurance policy meets the regulatory standard.  The FHA Rule makes clear, however, that regardless of the presence of the compliance aid statement, a mortgagee may make its own determination of whether a private flood insurance policy meets the definition above.  Unlike the Agencies’ counterpart, the FHA Rule does not provide discretion for a lender to accept a policy that does not meet the definition of (or other criteria for) private flood insurance as set forth in the rule.  As a result, in its Federal Register notice of the rule adoption, the FHA emphasized that a policy acceptable under the Agencies’ rule may not satisfy the FHA standard.

Other Provisions

The FHA Rule includes other important clarifications regarding the maintenance of flood insurance on FHA-insured loans.

First, under the Flood Act and the Agencies regulations, the minimum amount of coverage that must remain in place on property securing a loan throughout the life of the loan is the lesser of: (1) the outstanding principal balance of the loan; (2) the maximum limit of coverage available for the particular type of property under the Flood Act; or (3) the insurable value of the property.  The FHA Rule states that for an FHA loan, the insurable value should be calculated as “100 percent replacement cost of the insurable value of the improvements, which consists of the development of project cost less estimated land cost.”

Second, the FHA Rule clarifies the application of flood insurance obligations to Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs), adding language to mirror the loss payee and compliance aid provisions of the rule applicable to forward mortgages.

Takeaway

The FHA Rule provides long-awaited clarity for lenders, brings FHA requirements relating to the acceptance of private flood insurance policies more into line with those applicable to federally regulated lenders, and expands the options that FHA borrowers have when their properties are located in special flood hazard areas.

Is the DOJ (De Facto) Enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act?

By

A&B Abstract:

Furthering the Justice Department’s Combating Redlining Initiative, the Department of Justice has announced another redlining settlement.  But this settlement is different – this one involves a bank that has received top marks by its prudential regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for its compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a statute enacted to reduce redlining, for the same years that the DOJ alleged the bank engaged in redlining.

The DOJ’s Allegations

Lakeland Bank is a northern New Jersey-based, state chartered bank with more than $10 billion in assets.  The DOJ alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)/Regulation B, and specifically “that Lakeland engaged in illegal redlining by avoiding providing home loans and other mortgage services, and engaged in discrimination and conduct that would discourage mortgage applications from prospective applicants who are residents of or seeking credit in majority Black and Hispanic census tracts” located in its northern New Jersey assessment area.  In entering the more than $13 million settlement, the Bank did not admit to any of the DOJ’s allegations.  It agreed to various requirements to strengthen its fair lending compliance program, including investing in a loan subsidy fund, opening additional branches, and expanding its CRA assessment area.

The FDIC’s Findings

What is curious, however, is that in its latest CRA performance evaluation, the FDIC determined that Lakeland “exhibits a good record of serving the credit needs of the most economically disadvantaged areas of its assessment area, low-income individuals, and/or very small businesses, consistent with safe and sound banking practices.”  It determined that there is in fact strong competition for lending in the area, but that the bank nonetheless showed good penetration to borrowers of low- and moderate-income levels and in low- and moderate-income areas.  Further, the FDIC determined that the bank “makes extensive use of innovative and/or flexible lending practices in order to serve assessment area credit needs,” noting that the bank’s programs provide lower down payments, lower interest rates, down payment assistance, first-time homebuyer programs, and unsecured small dollar loan programs, for lower-income individuals and small businesses.  The FDIC also called Lakeland “a leader in making community development loans.”  In fact, Lakeland received a rating of “Outstanding,” the highest rating which only a small number of banks achieve, in each of its CRA exams for more than a decade.

CRA versus Fair Lending Laws

The rub is that the CRA is not a fair lending statute, as it focuses on income disparity and not racial disparity, though it often goes hand in glove with the fair lending laws.  For example, a failure to comply with fair lending laws (e.g., the Fair Housing Act, ECOA/Regulation B) can result in a downgrade of a bank’s CRA rating, despite its satisfactory or better performance in its CRA evaluation.  The CRA is enforced by the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve Board.  The fair lending laws are typically enforced by the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, CFPB, NCUA, FTC, and HUD (along with state regulators).  The threshold for an agency’s referral to DOJ for enforcement proceedings is low, requiring reason to believe there is a pattern or practice of discrimination.

Takeaway

In practice, the Lakeland settlement shows how a bank can be susceptible to fair lending risk with respect to redlining, and yet still pass its (anti-redlining) CRA examination with flying colors.  Maybe that is a reason to revise the CRA regulations (spoiler alert: that’s already in the works).  Or maybe it is a reminder to banks to mind the forest and the trees.  Focusing on CRA is necessary but not sufficient, and a bank needs to ensure it is regularly monitoring its lending activity for potential redlining.

State Community Reinvestment Acts Reaching Beyond Banks

By

A&B ABstract:

When Congress passed the federal Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) in 1977 to address redlining, it imposed affirmative requirements on insured depository institutions to serve the credit needs of the communities where they receive deposits. At that time, banks were extending the vast majority of mortgages nationally. However, non-banks have become the dominant mortgage lenders, by some estimates accounting for more than two thirds of residential mortgage loans in 2021.

Indeed, the non-bank mortgage market share has been increasing steadily since 2007, when non-banks were originating approximately 20 percent of mortgage loans. That year, Massachusetts became the first state to extend the scope of its state CRA to non-bank mortgage lenders, notwithstanding the proviso of the federal statute that tied credit obligations to depository activities.  Historically, deposits were gathered primarily from areas surrounding bank branches, and thus a bank’s CRA performance responsibilities were likewise focused on those same areas.  But today, both lending and depository activities can be conducted nationally.  In recognition of the more attenuated connection between bank branches serving the credit needs of communities, the Massachusetts CRA became the first state to impose CRA responsibilities on non-bank lenders.

In March 2021, Illinois passed its CRA which also applies beyond banks to non-bank mortgage lenders, followed shortly by New York in November 2021.  (Note that this expansion has not taken mortgage servicers into the fold, as CRA is more focused on an institution’s loan originations and purchases than its loan servicing.)  Relatedly, other state CRA statutes apply to credit unions and banks, though not to other financial institutions.  Below is a brief update on where various state CRAs currently stand:

  • Connecticut.  Connecticut’s CRA initially applied only to banks but was amended in 2001 to cover state credit unions as well.  It does not cover any other financial institutions, however.  Its provisions are similar to the federal CRA.
  • District of Columbia.  The District of Columbia’s CRA applies to deposit-receiving institutions, which includes federal, state, or District-chartered banks, savings institutions, and credit unions.  It is also similar to the federal CRA.
  • Illinois.  The Illinois CRA applies to financial institutions, which includes state banks, credit unions, and non-bank mortgage entities that are licensed under the state’s Residential Mortgage Lending Act that lent or originated 50 or more residential mortgage loans in the previous calendar year.  Following the expansion of its CRA (205 ILCS 735) last year, Illinois solicited comments and facilitated roundtables to assist the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation in developing rulemaking for non-bank entities. In particular, the Department’s August 31, 2021 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought comment on whether the assessment areas of these non-bank entities should include the entire state of Illinois.  Importantly, the Department has referenced the potential suitability of either the federal CRA rules or Massachusetts’ CRA rules as a model for Illinois.  No proposed rule has been published as of the date of this writing.
  • Massachusetts.  Despite mortgage lender concerns raised today regarding the feasibility and inapplicability of different elements of the general CRA examination framework, Massachusetts has imposed meaningful CRA requirements on non-bank lenders for more than a decade.  Indeed, Massachusetts has succeeded in implementing and conducting separate CRA examination processes for banks and non-banks. Yet despite this distinction, Massachusetts CRA exams for mortgage companies remain rigorous.
  • New York.  In November last year, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation (S.5246-A/A.6247-A) to expand the scope of the state’s CRA to cover non-bank mortgage lenders. Specifically, the legislation creates a new section, 28-bb of the New York Banking Law, that requires non-depository lenders to “meet the credit needs of local communities.” Further, section 28-bb provides for an assessment of lender performance by the Superintendent that considers the activities conducted by the lender to ascertain the credit needs of its community, along with the extent of the lender’s marketing, special programs, and participation in community outreach, educational programs, and subsidized housing programs. This assessment also may consider the geographic distribution of the lender’s loan applications and originations; the lender’s record of office locations and service offerings; and any evidence of discriminatory conduct, including any practices intended to discourage prospective loan applicants.  The provisions of section 28-bb will go into effect on November 1, 2022.

Worth noting also is that while these state CRAs are generally aligned with the federal CRA requirements, the regulations implementing the federal CRA are expected to change.  The Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC are currently working on promulgating a modernized interagency CRA framework.  Once the federal CRA regulations change, the state CRAs may follow or risk subjecting their banks and any other covered financial institutions to the burden of complying with two different regulatory regimes.

Takeaway:

Much like in Massachusetts, non-bank lenders originating a significant number of loans in Illinois and New York should be developing a CRA compliance strategy that makes sense for their size and business model to comply with the state CRAs.  That said, all non-bank lenders would do well to contemplate whether Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York are a harbinger of what is to come.  Finally, state CRA covered financial institutions in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York should be planning for potential compliance framework shifts once the federal CRA regulations are revised.