Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Mortgage Loans

Evaluating the CFPB’s Proposed Delay of the QM Rule: Timing Considerations

By

A&B ABstract: The CFPB must finalize its proposed QM delay rule in April, likely leaving no room for delay.

Background on ATR/QM and the Delay Rule

On March 3, 2021, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to delay the mandatory compliance date of the General Qualified Mortgage (QM) final rule from July 1, 2021 to October 1, 2022 (the Delay Rule).

As explained in the CFPB’s proposal, the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule) requires a creditor to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay a residential mortgage loan according to its terms. Loans that meet the ATR/QM Rule’s requirements for qualified mortgages (QMs) obtain certain protections from liability. The ATR/QM Rule defines several categories of QMs.

One QM category defined in the ATR/QM Rule is the General QM category. General QM loans must comply with the ATR/QM Rule’s prohibitions on certain loan features, its points-and-fees limits, and its underwriting requirements. Under the original ATR/QM Rule, the ratio of the consumer’s total monthly debt to total monthly income (DTI ratio) could not exceed 43 percent.

General QM Final Rule

In December 2020, the CFPB issued the General QM Final Rule, which among other changes replaced the General QM loan definition’s DTI limit with a limit based on loan pricing. The General QM Final Rule took effect on March 1, 2021, and it provides a mandatory compliance date of July 1, 2021.

In 2013, the CFPB created a second, supposedly temporary category of QMs for mortgages that (1) comply with the same loan-feature prohibitions and points-and-fees limits as General QMs and (2) are eligible to be purchased or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (collectively, the GSEs) while under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). These loans are referred to as Temporary GSE QM loans, and the provision that created this loan category is commonly known as the GSE Patch. Unlike for General QM loans, the ATR/QM rule did not prescribe a DTI limit for Temporary GSE QM loans. Thus, a loan can qualify as a Temporary GSE QM loan even if the consumer’s DTI ratio exceeds 43 percent, as long as the loan is eligible to be purchased or guaranteed by either of the GSEs. Under the original ATR/QM Rule, the Temporary GSE QM loan definition would expire with respect to each GSE when that GSE exits conservatorship or on January 10, 2021, whichever comes first.

Patch Extension Rule

In October 2020, the CFPB issued a final rule (the Patch Extension Rule) to replace the January 10, 2021 sunset date of the Temporary GSE QM loan definition with a provision stating that the Temporary GSE QM loan definition will be available only for covered transactions for which the creditor receives the consumer’s application before the mandatory compliance date of the General QM Final Rule. Therefore, under the CFPB’s current proposal, the Temporary GSE QM loan definition would expire upon the earlier of October 1, 2022 (rather than on the current mandatory compliance date of July 1, 2021) or the date the applicable GSE exits Federal conservatorship.

Timing Considerations

Public comments on the CFPB’s proposed Delay Rule are due on or before April 5, 2021. The CFPB proposes that a final rule based on its proposal be effective “60 days after publication in the Federal Register.” Also, the CFPB “anticipates that this would make the final rule effective before the current July 1, 2021 mandatory compliance date.”

Working backwards from the July 1, 2021 mandatory compliance date, the very last day the final rule could become effective is June 30, 2021. To be effective by that date, the Bureau must publish its final rule in the Federal Register by no later than April 30, 2021.

There is typically a delay between an agency’s public announcement of a final rule and the publication of that final rule in the Federal Register. The length of the delay varies based upon the amount of time required to process an agency’s submission, which mostly depends upon the page number length of the submission, and also on the overall volume of materials submitted by all Federal Departments and agencies for processing at a particular time.  (For example, although the CFPB announced General QM Final Rule on December 10, 2020, it was not published in the Federal Register until December 29, 2020. And although the CFPB announced the Patch Extension Rule on October 20, 2020, it was not published until October 26, 2020.)

Considering the page length and subject matter similarities between the Patch Extension Rule and the Delay Rule, anticipating a minimum six-day delay between announcing the Final Delay Rule and publication of the rule in the Federal Register appears reasonable. Based on this estimate, the CFPB must announce a final Delay Rule by no later than Friday, April 23.

Processing Time

The time period between the close of the April 5 comment period for the proposed Delay Rule and the day by which the CFPB must submit the text of the final Delay Rule to the Federal Register for processing is quite narrow. In fact, the CFPB has provided itself no more than about fourteen business days within which to perform several important and often time-consuming tasks, including:

  • analyzing the public comments, data and research received in response to its proposal;
  • determining whether to revise its proposal in light of relevant points raised by the comments,
  • drafting substantive responses to significant comments;
  • completing the internal divisional clearance process;
  • drafting the text of the final rule; and
  • securing approval of the Acting Director to issue the final rule.

Performing all of these tasks within the CFPB’s self-established timetable and in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) will be difficult. For one thing, the time constraints suggest that the CFPB may begin drafting its final rule before the comment period closes, which may potentially raise questions about whether comments are given their due consideration and whether the CFPB maintains an open mind throughout the rulemaking process. For another thing, the CFPB likely cannot extend the comment period for its proposed rule; even a two-week extension would likely make it impossible for the CFPB to finalize a rule with an effective date occurring before July 1. This means that the CFPB likely must deny any extension request it receives, no matter what reason is provided in support of the request.

Takeaway

The availability of the GSE Patch and the continued ability of mortgage originators to make Temporary GSE QM loans depends upon the CFPB’s ability to finalize its proposed Delay Rule in short order. The timetable involved presents significant challenges for the CFPB, as noted above. The CFPB’s success or failure in that endeavor, and by extension the survival or demise of the GSE patch, will no doubt be received differently in different quarters, given the size of the mortgage market and the varied interests involved. This post simply notes that the CFPB is trying to thread a very small needle with its proposed Delay Rule.

Consolidated Appropriations Act Includes Temporary Provisions That May Affect Servicers

By

Among the myriad provisions of H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, is Division FF, Title X, Section 1001, of which mortgage holders and servicers should take note because it may affect activities with respect to borrowers in bankruptcy.  These temporary provisions expire December 27, 2021.

First, Section 1001 provides that a debtor under a Chapter 13 plan may seek (and a court may grant) a discharge if (1) the debtor has missed three or fewer mortgage payments on or after March 13, 2020 because of a “material financial hardship due, directly or indirectly, by the coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-19) pandemic”; or (2) the debtor’s plan provides for the curing of a default and maintenance of payments, and the debtor has entered into a loan forbearance or modification agreement, and. Importantly, unpaid mortgage payments are not discharged if the debtor is granted a discharge, and thus remain owed to the mortgage holder or servicer.

Second, Section 1001 provides that a consumer cannot be denied a CARES Act forbearance or other applicable CARES Act relief if they are a debtor in a pending bankruptcy case.

Third, Section 1001 permits servicers of federally backed mortgage loans to file supplemental proofs of claim for the amounts forborne under a CARES Act forbearance, provided that they are filed no later than 120 days after the expiration of the forbearance. Mortgage holders or servicers may also move to modify the debtor’s bankruptcy plan to provide for the supplemental CARES forbearance claim within thirty days after filing the supplemental claim.

Takeaway

Servicers may wish to consult counsel to determine whether these provisions will affect 2021 operations.

CFPB Delays Implementation of General “QM” Rule, May Jettison the “Seasoned QM” Rule

By

A&B ABstract

In a statement issued on February 23, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) indicated that it intends to delay the General Qualified Mortgage (“QM”) rule’s mandatory July 1 2021 compliance date, and may amend or revoke the “Seasoned QM Rule” that was supposed to become effective on March 1, 2021.

Background

As we previously reported in this blog, on December 10, 2020, the CFPB issued two significant rulemakings. In the first rulemaking, known as the General QM Rule, CFPB terminated the “QM Patch” and significantly revised the criteria for what constitutes a qualified mortgage (“QM”) loan.  Notably, in this rule, the CFPB replaced the dreaded Appendix Q and strict 43% debt-to-income underwriting threshold with a priced-based QM loan definition.  The rule was to take effect on March 1, 2021, with compliance not mandatory until July 1, 2021.  The QM Patch will expire on the earlier of (i) July 1, 2021 or (ii) the date that the GSEs exit conservatorship.

In the second rulemaking, known as the “Seasoned QM Rule”, the CFPB issued an innovative final rulemaking that creates a pathway to “safe harbor” Qualified Mortgage (QM) status for performing non-QM and “rebuttable presumption” QM loans that meet certain performance criteria portfolio requirements over a seasoning period of at least 36 months and that satisfy certain product restrictions, points and fees limits, and underwriting requirements prior to consummation.  The “Seasoned QM” rule was to become effective with respect to applications received on or after March 1, 2021.

The CFPB’s Intension to Delay Compliance Date of the “QM” Final Rule 

In its statement, the CFPB expects to issue a proposed rulemaking that would delay the July 1, 2021 mandatory compliance date of the General QM Rule ostensibly to “ensure consumers have the options they need during the pandemic … as well as to provide maximum flexibility to the market”.  The impact of this rulemaking is significant because, if implemented, lenders will have the option of originating QM loans under the new General QM Rule standards or alternatively, adhering to the preexisting QM rules, that require, among other things, that the loans be underwritten to Appendix Q with a hard 43% debt-to-income ratio or be eligible for sale to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

Notably, the CFPB anticipates that the “QM Patch” will remain in effect until the new mandatory compliance date—unless the GSEs exist conservatorship prior to that date.

Further, the CFPB indicated that at a later date, it may initiate another rulemaking to “reconsider other aspects of the General QM Final Rule”.

The CFPB Will Amend or Reject the “Seasoned QM” Rule

 In its statement, the CFPB ominously noted that it may initiate a new rulemaking to “revisit” the Seasoned QM Rule.  The CFPB indicated that if promulgated, this rulemaking would consider whether “any potential final rule revoking or amending the Seasoned QM Final Rule should affect covered transactions for which an application was received during the period from March 1, 2021, until the effective date of such a final rule”.

 Takeaways

The CFPB issued the General QM Rule and the Seasoned QM Rule in the waning days of the Trump Administration, and the Biden CFPB clearly wants to reexamine these rulemakings.  While it is likely that in the short-term, the General QM Rule will be implemented as enacted, albeit with a delayed mandatory compliance date, it is possible that the CFPB could ultimately amend the rule at a later date.  It is also noteworthy that the impact of this delay will be an extension of the controversial “QM Patch”.

By contrast, the CFPB is likely to substantively amend the Seasoned QM Rule or jettison the rulemaking altogether.  In the comments to the final Seasoned QM Rule, consumer groups opposed not only significant aspects of the rule but also the concept of a “Seasoned QM”.  These groups will likely have a sympathetic ear in the Biden CFPB, and hence the rule faces an uncertain fate at best.

New York State Revises Restrictive HECM Foreclosure Law

By

A&B ABstract

On December 15, 2020, New York State enacted legislation amending the New York Real Property Law that would have placed various restrictions and requirements on the servicing of Home Equity Conversion Mortgages secured by New York properties effective as of April 14, 2021 (the “Foreclosure Law”).  The new law would significantly hinder a servicer’s ability to foreclose on a defaulted HECM, and could conflict with existing default procedures promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) relating to the foreclosure of HECMs.

On January 6, 2021, legislation was introduced in the New York State Senate to eliminate certain of these burdensome provisions (the “Revised Law”).  Both the Senate and the New York State General Assembly have approved this measure, and it currently awaits Governor Cuomo’s signature.

The Foreclosure Law as Enacted

As enacted, the Foreclosure Law would impose a series of requirements on foreclosures comments on or after April 14, 2021.

First, the law would, among other things, upon the commencement of a foreclosure proceeding of a HECM secured by real property in New York State, require transmission to the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) of

  • proof that HUD has granted prior approval to accelerate the loan,
  • proof of the default leading to the foreclosure action and notice to the mortgagor, and
  • any other information required by the NYDFS.

Second, the Foreclosure Law would require mortgagees to engage in mandatory loss mitigation activities to be specified in regulations promulgated by the NYDFS before commencing a foreclosure action.

Third, the Foreclosure Law would prohibit the making of advance payments for any obligation arising from the related Mortgaged Property and provide that payments by the Servicer for insurance premiums and taxes may only be made when they are in arrears.

The Revised Foreclosure Law

The Revised Law would eliminate many of these burdensome provisions.  Specifically, the Revised Law would:

  • require lenders to send a notice to consumers that will be promulgated by the NYDFS relating to the borrower’s rights in foreclosure,
  • authorize the NYDFS to regulate the notice of such rights,
  • require lenders to send the NYDFS proof that they received permission from HUD to foreclose on a reverse mortgage,
  • require lenders to maintain policies on loss mitigation to ensure compliance with all applicable law, and
  • require lenders to maintain certain loss mitigation and foreclosure records.

If signed by Governor Cuomo, the Revised Law would take effect 120 days after enactment.

Significant Penalties for Failure to Comply

Under both the Foreclosure Law and the Revised Law, consumers “injured” by a violation of the law are entitled to recover treble damages in a private right of action.  Further, adherence to the requirements of the law is a condition precedent to filing the foreclosure in New York State, and failure to comply with these provisions constitutes a complete defense to such foreclosure.

Takeaway

Even as amended, the legislation is cumbersome and creates additional hurdles for servicers foreclosing on delinquent HECMs in New York State.  Arguably, the existing HUD HECM pre-foreclosure procedures provide ample consumer protection.  Nevertheless, with many consumers struggling financially during the COVID pandemic, New York State seeks to provide additional consumer protections to elderly New Yorkers who have HECMs.

CFPB Brings Action Against Connecticut Mortgage Lender

By

The number of enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) more than doubled from 2019 to 2020. The CFPB made clear that cracking down on deceptive and unfair acts and practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) remains a core focus, with 11 of the 15 complaints it filed last year alleging such violations.

Earlier this month, the CFPB filed another lawsuit alleging unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA. At the dawn of a new year and a new Administration, this litigation may be the proverbial canary in the coalmine for others in the financial services industry. As the case proceeds and briefing is filed, the tone and focus of the new Administration may be brought to light.

In a Client Advisory, our Financial Services Litigation Team examines the latest effort by the CFPB to crack down on deceptive and unfair acts and practices.