Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

HUD

Biden-Harris Administration Announces Extension of COVID-19 Foreclosure Moratorium

By ,

A&B Abstract:

Today, the Biden Administration announced an extension of the foreclosure moratorium for federally-backed mortgage loans (the “Presidential Announcement”). To implement the Presidential Announcement, the federal agencies (i.e., HUD/FHA, USDA, and VA) and GSEs (i.e., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) have announced (or are anticipated to announce) extensions of the foreclosure moratorium until July 31, 2021.

Presidential Announcement

According to the Presidential Announcement, the three federal agencies that back mortgages – the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and Department of Agriculture (USDA) – will extend their respective foreclosure moratorium for one, final month, until July 31, 2021. Similarly, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) will announce that it has extended the foreclosure moratorium for mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until July 31, 2021.

The Presidential Announcement goes on to provide that once the moratoria end, HUD, VA, and USDA will take additional steps to prevent foreclosures on mortgages backed by those agencies until borrowers are reviewed for COVID-19 streamlined loss mitigation options that are affordable, while FHFA will continue to work with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure that borrowers are evaluated for home retention solutions prior to any referral to foreclosure.

In addition, the Presidential Announcement notes that HUD, VA, and USDA will also continue to allow homeowners who have not taken advantage of forbearance to date to enter into COVID-related forbearance through September 30, 2021, while homeowners with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac-backed mortgages who have COVID-related hardships will also continue to be eligible for COVID-related forbearance.

Finally, the Presidential Announcement indicates that HUD, VA, and USDA will be announcing additional steps in July to offer borrowers payment reduction options that will enable more homeowners to stay in their homes.

Federal Agency and GSE Announcements

In addition to the foregoing, the USDA and the GSEs issued the following guidance today implementing the Presidential Announcement:

  • USDA:  Today, the USDA issued a brief press release announcing a one-month extension, through July 31, 2021, of the moratorium on foreclosure from properties financed by USDA Single-Family Housing Direct and Guaranteed loans. Beyond July 31, 2021, the USDA indicated that it would continue to support homeowners experiencing financial hardship due to the pandemic by making loss mitigation options available to help keep them in their homes.
  • Fannie Mae LL-2021-02:  Today, Fannie Mae updated LL-2021-02 to extend the moratorium on foreclosures with respect to Fannie Mae loans through July 31, 2021.  Specifically, servicers must continue the suspension of the following foreclosure-related activities through July 31, 2021. Servicers may not, except with respect to a vacant or abandoned property: (1) initiate any judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process, (2) move for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or (3) execute a foreclosure sale.  All other guidance set forth in LL-2021-02 remains the same.
  • Freddie Mac Guide Bulletin 2021-23:  Similarly, today Freddie Mac issued Guide Bulletin 2021-23, which announces an extended effective date for the COVID-19 foreclosure moratorium.  Specifically, Freddie Mac is extending the foreclosure moratorium last announced in Guide Bulletin 2021-8. Servicers must suspend all foreclosure actions, including foreclosure sales, through July 31, 2021. This includes initiation of any judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process, motion for foreclosure judgment or order of sale. This foreclosure suspension does not apply to mortgages on properties that have been determined to be vacant or abandoned.

As of today, we are not aware of any formal announcement by HUD or VA regarding the implementation of the Presidential Announcement. However, we anticipate that both HUD and VA will issue guidance consistent with the above announcement in short order.

Takeaway 

The takeaway from today’s announcements is that, except with respect to vacant and abandoned properties, all foreclosure-related activities that could constitute the initiation of any judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process, movement for a foreclosure judgement or order of sale, or execution of a foreclosure sale should continue to be paused until the expiration of the extended foreclosure moratorium.  Moreover, the Presidential Announcement suggests that additional guidance will be issued by the federal agencies permitting borrowers who have not yet taken advantage of a COVID-19 forbearance to do so through September 30, 2021 and announcing additional steps in July to offer borrowers additional payment reduction options to enable more homeowners to stay in their homes. Accordingly, servicers should continue to monitor for any additional guidance from the federal agencies and GSEs regarding the foreclosure moratorium or other COVID-19-related borrower relief.

CFPB Rescinds Compliance Bulletin on Marketing Services Arrangements and Issues FAQs on RESPA Section 8

By ,

A&B ABstract: 

On October 7, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) rescinded Compliance Bulletin 2015-05, RESPA Compliance and Marketing Services Agreements (“Bulletin 2015-05”).  In addition, the Bureau published Frequently Asked Questions (“RESPA FAQs”) on the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) Section 8 topics in an effort to “provide clearer rules of the road and to promote a culture of compliance.”

Background on Bulletin 2015-05

The Bureau issued the Bulletin 2015-05 on October 8, 2015, under then-Director Richard Cordray, in an effort to remind participants in the mortgage industry of the prohibition on kickbacks and referral fees under RESPA and to describe “the substantial risks posed by entering into marketing services agreements” (“MSAs”).  At the time, the Bureau characterized Bulletin 2015-05 as a nonbinding general statement of policy that merely articulated considerations relevant to the Bureau’s exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authority.  Consequently, Bulletin 2015-05 was not issued pursuant to the notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. § 553(b)).

Through Bulletin 2015-05, however, the Bureau presented an ostensibly novel interpretation of RESPA Section 8 to caution against MSAs altogether.

For example, RESPA Section 8(c)(2) expressly provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting… the payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed.”  Similarly, Regulation X, 12 CFR § 1024.14(g)(iv), provides that “Section 8 of RESPA permits . . . payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed.”  Moreover, HUD’s long-standing interpretation of Section 8(c)(2) provided that Section 8(c)(2) only allows “the payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or services actually performed,” i.e., permitting only that compensation which is reasonably related to the goods or facilities provided or services performed” (HUD RESPA Statement of Policy 2001-1).

In contrast, the Bureau’s prior interpretive position was that the opportunity to enter into an MSA by contract was itself a thing of value, regardless of whether the resulting agreement provided for payment for bona fide services at fair market value.  The Bureau relied on this interpretive theory in issuing Bulletin 2015-05, which effectively took the position that if a person is in a position to receive referrals from a third party, they could not otherwise do business with that party because the CFPB would attribute compensation paid to that party to be for referrals, even if the person paid fair market value for services actually rendered, because, the CFPB believed MSAs “are designed to evade” RESPA, such that engaging in MSAs poses a “substantial legal and regulatory risk of violating RESPA,” even where the MSA is “technically compliant with the provisions of RESPA.”

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court, in PHH Corp. v. CFPB, rejected the Bureau’s theory, as it unanimously overturned then-Director Cordray’s interpretation of RESPA, holding that tying arrangements are ubiquitous and that Section 8 permits captive reinsurance arrangements so long as mortgage insurers pay no more than reasonable market value for reinsurance. The Court noted that the “CFPB’s interpretation of Regulation X is a facially nonsensical reading of Regulation X,” since Regulation X makes clear that, if a provider “makes a payment at reasonable market value for services actually provided, that payment is not a payment for a referral.” (emphasis in original).

The inconsistency between the Bureau’s apparent misinterpretation of Section 8, as espoused in Bulletin 2015-05, and longstanding HUD interpretations (and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in PHH Corp.), led to calls for rescission of Bulletin 2015-05.

Bureau’s Rescission of Bulletin 2015-05

 In rescinding Bulletin 2015-05, the Bureau acknowledged that the bulletin “does not provide the regulatory clarity needed on how to comply with RESPA and Regulation X.”  Consistent with the rescission, Bulletin 2015-05 no longer has any force or effect.  The Bureau noted that its rescission of Bulletin 2015-05 does not mean that MSAs are per se or presumptively legal.  Rather, whether a particular MSA violates RESPA Section 8 will depend on specific facts and circumstances, including the details of how the MSA is structured and implemented.  The Bureau made clear that MSAs remain subject to scrutiny, and that the CFPB remains committed to vigorous enforcement of RESPA Section 8.

RESPA FAQS

Contemporaneous with its rescission of Bulletin 2015-05, the Bureau issued FAQs pertaining to compliance with RESPA Section 8.  The FAQs provide an overview of the provisions of RESPA Section 8 and respective Regulation X sections, and address the application of certain provisions to common scenarios described in Bureau inquiries involving gifts and promotional activities, and MSAs.

With respect to MSAs, the FAQs provide guidance on the following questions:

  1. What are MSAs?
  2. What is the distinction between referrals and marketing services for purposes of analyzing MSAs under RESPA Section 8?
  3. How do the provisions of RESPA Section 8 apply when analyzing whether an MSA is lawful?
  4. What are some examples of MSAs prohibited by RESPA Section 8?

Notably, the FAQs provides that under RESPA Section 8(c)(2), if the MSA or conduct under the MSA reflects an agreement for the payment for bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed, the MSA or the conduct is not prohibited. Thus, RESPA Section 8 does not prohibit payments under MSAs if the purported marketing services are actually provided, and if the payments are reasonably related to the market value of the provided services only.

Takeaway

While rescission of Bulletin 2015-05 is likely to be welcomed by the industry and help to restore confidence in the viability of MSAs under the current legal landscape, it remains to be seen how the Bureau’s priorities on RESPA Section 8 enforcement will change.  Companies should consider reviewing existing MSAs to ensure compliance with the Bureau’s new guidance.  Moreover, it should be noted that the Bureau specifically designated its new FAQs as “compliance aids” as opposed to official interpretations. Under the Bureau’s policy statement on Compliance Aids issued earlier this year, the Bureau states only that it “does not intend to sanction, or ask a court to sanction, entities that reasonably rely on Compliance Aids.” An interpretive rule issued by the Bureau, to the contrary, affords market participants a clear legal safe harbor from liability under RESPA.

Attorneys General Urge FHFA and HUD to Take Additional Measures to Protect Borrowers Affected by COVID-19

By ,

A&B Abstract:

On April 23, 2020, the attorneys general of 33 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (the “Attorneys General”) sent two letters, one to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) and the other to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD” and collectively with FHFA, the “Agencies”), respectively, noting that the “national response must recognize the unique challenges presented by the unprecedented number of homeowners who are affected by COVID-19, including the fact that all of these homeowners need relief at the same time..[and that] [m]eeting this challenge will require straightforward and consistent guidance that can be quickly operationalized.”  As a result, the Attorneys General urged the Agencies to make changes to their respective guidelines addressing COVID-19-related mortgage and foreclosure relief.

Revision of Forbearance Programs

The Attorneys General acknowledged that forbearance plans are a critical first response to borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.  However, the Attorneys General expressed concern that both the mortgage servicing industry and homeowners will become overwhelmed if changes are not made.   The Attorneys General recommended or encouraged that:

  • the Agencies “issue simple, self-executing guidance that servicers can easily implement to meet demand while providing an immediate, responsive resolution to borrowers.” The Attorneys General specifically expressed concern about HUD guidelines requiring an individualized evaluation for every borrower who receives a CARES Act forbearance, as well as guidelines issued by both of the Agencies requiring an individualized evaluation for borrowers coming out of forbearance, due to “grave doubts about servicers’ abilities to effectively manage the unprecedented number of borrowers who will be emerging from forbearance plans related to COVID-19 if individualized evaluations are required for each borrower.”
  • the Agencies amend their forbearance programs so that the obligation to repay forborne payments is automatically placed at the end of the loan term in the form of additional monthly payments that will follow the current term of the loan.  The Attorneys General noted that “there can be no reasonable expectation that a borrower who has experience a loss of employment or a reduction in income will be able to repay the forborne payments in a lump sum at the end of the forbearance period.” FHFA subsequently clarified its repayment requirements for its forbearance program on April 27, 2020.
  • the Agencies issue guidance allowing these post-forbearance agreements to occur without requiring borrowers to execute any additional documents, such as a loan modification agreement or a promissory note for the forborne payments, or at least waiving or easing those requirements until the pandemic abates.
  • FHFA to clarify that a borrower may receive a forbearance based on the borrower’s verbal attestation of a hardship related to COVID-19, and to encourage servicers to proactively notify borrowers of their right to verbally request a forbearance.

Expanded Eligibility for Disaster Relief-Related Modifications and Loss Mitigation Programs

The Attorneys General urged the Agencies to expand their eligibility standards for post-forbearance loss mitigation programs to enable a greater number of borrowers to qualify.  The Attorneys General urged HUD to reconsider its decision to remove the Disaster Loan Modification option for borrowers affected by COVID-19.  Further, the Attorneys General requested that the Agencies revise their respective loan modification eligibility criteria to ensure these programs have the same reach as the forbearance program mandated by the CARES Act, as the Agencies’ current guidelines impose several delinquency-related eligibility requirements.  For example:

  • Under current Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines, borrowers affected by COVID-19 are eligible for any one of three modification programs. Currently, however, a borrower is only eligible for such programs if the borrower was current or less than 31 days delinquent as of March 13, 2020. Additional delinquency-related eligibility criteria apply for the Cap and Extend Modification and Flex Modification programs.
  • Under current HUD guidelines, a borrower is only eligible for the COVID-19 Partial Claim if the borrower was current or less than 30 days delinquent as of March 1, 2020 and the partial claim amount does not exceed 30 percent of the unpaid balance. If a borrower is ineligible for the COVID-19 Partial Claim, then the borrower will be reviewed for HUD’s FHA-HAMP program. The Attorneys General noted that the FHA-HAMP program has additional seasoning requirements, such as requiring the borrower to have made at least 4 payments and the loan to have aged at least 12 months.

The Attorneys General urged the Agencies to waive the delinquency status requirements of these modification programs and noted that post-forbearance modification programs should be commensurate with the forbearance plans required by the CARES Act, as the CARES Act requires forbearance for any borrower experiencing a COVID-19 financial hardship regardless of delinquency status.  Moreover, the CARES Act authorizes forbearances of up to 360 days, so many borrowers receiving CARES Act forbearances will be more than 360 days delinquent by the end of the forbearance period.

Eviction and Foreclosure Moratoriums

Finally, the Attorneys General urged the Agencies to “instruct servicers that they also must suspend all foreclosures and evictions currently in process and cannot move forward to complete any step in the judicial or non-judicial foreclosure or eviction process while the moratorium is in place,” to address differences in various states’ foreclosure and eviction processes.

Currently, the CARES Act states that servicers of federally backed mortgages may not initiate any judicial or non-judicial foreclosures process, move for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or execute a foreclosure-related eviction or foreclosure sale until at least May 17, 2020. The Attorneys General asserted that advancing any step of the eviction or foreclosure process during a forbearance related to COVID-19 will only lead to borrower confusion and harm.

Takeaway

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect homeowners and the mortgage servicing industry, there will likely be continued political pressure on the Agencies to further revise servicer loss mitigation guidelines. Servicers will need to be vigilant to stay on top of the rapidly evolving market conditions and regulatory environment.

 

Federal and State Guidance Regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic

By

A&B Abstract:

The Alston & Bird Consumer Finance team recognizes that this is a period of great uncertainty both for the nation and our clients. We have received numerous questions and concerns regarding what federal and state regulators are doing in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and how their response may affect day-to-day business. We have been monitoring both the federal and state guidance that has been released in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and have provided a summary of what has been released thus far.  We are continuing to monitor for new developments and will update this blog post accordingly.

Federal Guidance

Federal Administrative Agencies:

  • HUD/FHA: On March 18, 2020, HUD released Mortgage Letter 2020-4, which placed a foreclosure and eviction moratorium on all FHA-insured Single Family mortgages for a period of 60 days. The moratorium applies both to the initiation of foreclosures and to the completion of foreclosures in process.  Similarly, evictions of persons from properties secured by FHA-insured single-family mortgages are suspended for 60 days.  Deadlines of the first legal action and reasonable diligence timelines for Home Equity Conversion Mortgages are extended by 60 days.  In light of the broad language of the Mortgagee Letter, it does not appear that HUD intended to carve out vacant and abandoned properties from the foreclosure moratorium.  HUD has informally confirmed this interpretation.
  • USDA: On March 19, 2020, the USDA issued SFH Guaranteed Servicing Notice (March 19, 2019) which, effective immediately, provides that borrowers with USDA guaranteed loans are subject to a moratorium on foreclosure for a period of 60 days. The moratorium applies to the initiation of foreclosures and to the completion of foreclosures in process.  In addition, deadlines of the first legal action and reasonable diligence timelines are extended by 60 days. Similarly, evictions of persons from properties secured by USDA guaranteed loans are also suspended for a period of 60 days.
  • VA: On March 18, 2020, the VA issued Circular 26-20-8, which strongly encourages loan holders to establish a sixty-day moratorium beginning March 18, 2020, on completing pending foreclosures or imitating new foreclosures on loans.  Additionally, due to the widespread impact of COVID-19, loan holders should consider the impact of completing an eviction action when choosing to retain the property instead of conveying to VA.  VA requests holders not to expose Veterans and their families to additional risk through an eviction, if at all feasible.  Previously, on March 16, 2020, the VA issued Circular 26-20-7, which provides, in relevant part, that (1) lenders should have continuity of operation plans in place to support its ongoing ability to conduct business operations in the event of an interruption to business operations and processes; (2) servicers may employ the following relief to veterans impacted by COVID-19: (a) forbearance, (b) late charge waivers on affected loans, and (c) suspension of credit bureau reporting on affected loans; and (3) appraisers should continue to conduct business as outlined in Chapter 10 of the M26-7, Lenders Handbook.

Federal Government-Sponsored Entities:

  • Fannie Mae: Fannie Mae released a Bulletin for borrowers detailing its response to the COVID-19. Fannie Mae has placed a moratorium on foreclosure sales and evictions for sixty (60) days. In conjunction with the Bulletin, Fannie Mae also issued Lender Letter LL-2020-02, which sets forth guidance for lenders in responding to COVID-19.  The letter provides guidance for lenders concerning topics such as (1) forbearance plan eligibility for borrowers, (2) evaluating borrowers for mortgage modifications, (3) credit bureau reporting, and (4) suspension of foreclosure sales.
  • Freddie Mac: Freddie Mac released a Bulletin for mortgage servicers detailing its response to the COVID-19 and new guidelines for Freddie Mac mortgage servicers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to Fannie Mae, the Bulletin provides guidance for lenders concerning topics such as (1) forbearance plan eligibility for borrowers, (2) evaluating borrowers for mortgage modifications, (3) credit bureau reporting, and (4) suspension of foreclosure sales.

State Guidance

State Legislatures:

  • Enacted Legislation and Executive Orders
    • District of Columbia: On March 17, 2020 Mayor Bowser signed the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, which expires on June 15, 2020. The act provides for, among other things, a prohibition on evictions for as long D.C. is under a public health emergency.
    • New Hampshire: On March 17, 2020, New Hampshire Governor Christopher Sununu issued Emergency Order #4 pursuant to Executive Order 2020-04, which (1) prohibits an owner of non-restricted property or restricted property, as those terms are defined in RSA 540:1-a, from initiating eviction proceedings under RSA 540, and (2) prohibits all judicial and non-judicial foreclosure actions under RSA 479 or any other applicable law, rule or regulation, during the State of Emergency declared in Executive Order 2020-04.
    • New Jersey: The New Jersey Legislature passed Assembly Bill 3859, which allows the New Jersey governor to issue an executive order during a Public Health Emergency, pursuant to the New Jersey Emergency Health Powers Act, prohibiting the removal of any lessee, tenant, or homeowner from a residential property as the result of an eviction or foreclosure action.  Governor Philip Murphy subsequently issued Executive Order No. 106, which prohibits any lessee, tenant, homeowner or any other person from being removed from a residential property as a result of an eviction or foreclosure proceeding.
    • Kansas: On March 17, 2020, Governor Laura Kelly issued Executive Order No. 20-06, which orders all financial institutions operating in Kansas to temporarily suspend the initiation of any mortgage foreclosure efforts or judicial proceedings and any commercial or residential eviction efforts or judicial proceedings until May 1, 2020.
  • Pending Legislation
    • Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Legislature is considering House Docket No. 4935, which, if enacted, would impose a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures during the COVID-19 emergency.
    • Virginia: Currently, Virginia House Bill 340 is on Governor Northam’s desk, and he has until April 11th to take action on the bill. If passed, the bill would provide foreclosure and eviction protections for federal workers upon the closure of the federal government.

State Regulators:

In addition to state legislation and executive order, state regulators across the country have released guidance to regulated entities concerning the COVD-19 pandemic and indicating what the state regulators are doing in response. The Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (“NMLS”) has compiled state regulator guidance issued in response to COVID-19. The NMLS has posted this document to their website, and it is updated regularly. Below, we have included a summary of the information released by state regulators as of (March 20, 2020):

  • Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (“Department”): The Department posted guidance on its website stating that licensed mortgage-broker lenders may require licensed mortgage loan originators to work and undertaken licensed activities from home. The Department stated that it would not take administrative or other punitive action against a licensed mortgage loan originator or the sponsoring licensed company if the mortgage loan originator conducts activities requiring licensure from home. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Alabama State Banking Department (“Department”): The Department released guidance for any entity licensed by the Department. The Department instructed that licensees need to comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and data security regulations. The Department noted that not all licenses may be able to work from home if their home location does comply with the applicable statutes, regulations, and data security regulations. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Arkansas Securities Department (“Department”): The Department released guidance for licensed mortgage loan companies, mortgage loan officers, and branch managers. The Department stated that mortgage loan companies may have mortgage loan officers work from home at unlicensed locations as long as state and federal data security standards are upkept. This guidance is in effect until June 1, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Colorado Department of Real Estate (“Department”): The Department released guidance that since Colorado law is silent as to the location at which mortgage loan originators are required to work. Therefore, the Department instructed that licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Connecticut Department of Banking (“Department”): The Department released guidance for all consumer credit licensees. The Department is allowing consumer credit licensees to work from home during the CORVID-19 pandemic as long as the licensee follows applicable law, notifies the Department in writing, and that no licensable activity can take place at home with a member of the public. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020.
  • Iowa Division of Banking (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all entities that it regulates. The Division stated that all licensees may work from home during the CORVID-19 pandemic even if their home is an unlicensed office as long as appropriate data security measures are put into place. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Idaho Department of Finance (“Department”): The Department released guidance for all entities that it regulates. The Department is allowing licensed and registered entities to allow their employees to work from home even if that location is not a licensed location. Licensed and registered entities must keep up data security, may not advertise the unlicensed location as a licensed location, and may not meet with consumers or have consumers come to an unlicensed location. This guidance is in effect until June 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”): The DFI issued temporary guidance offering licensees the ability to take precautions deemed necessary to avoid the risk of exposure or to comply with requirements of voluntary or mandated quarantines and is effective through June 30, 2020, unless otherwise modified or withdrawn.
  • Kansas Office of the State Bank Commissioner (“Commissioner”): The Commissioner released guidance for all entities that it regulates. The Commissioner is allowing licensed and registered entities to allow employees to work from home even if that location is not a licensed location. Licensed and registered entities must keep up adequate data security protection and may not take physical records out of the licensed location if they have confidential information. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”): The DFI released guidance to Kentucky-chartered financial institutions recommending that such institutions take certain actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Such actions include, among others, (1) working with customers affected by the coronavirus to meet their financial needs, which may include waiving overdraft and/or minimum balance fees, restructuring existing loans, extending loan repayment terms, and easing terms for new loans, (2) managing COVID-19 related staffing issues, and (3) making sure business continuity plans include pandemic planning.
  • Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions Non-Depository Division (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all licensed mortgage lenders, brokers, and originators. The Division is allowing entities to close their licensed locations and work from home, but entities that do so much provide the Division with notice of the new location. This guidance is in effect until April 9, 2020, but is subject to revision.
  • Massachusetts Division of Banks (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all licensed entities. The Division is allowing licensed entities to work from home as long as the unlicensed location is not advertised to the public and licensed entities do not meet with consumers at unlicensed locations. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation (“Commissioner”): The Commissioner released guidance for all licensed mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers. The Commissioner is allowing licensed mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers to work from home provided that the work would not require the location to be licensed as a branch office under Maryland law. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.  In addition, the Commissioner issued an Industry Advisory on March 19, 2020, advising the industry of Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera’s March 18, 2020 order, which immediately stays all residential foreclosure and eviction actions in Maryland.
  • Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services (“DIFS”): The DIFS is seeking information regarding responses to the COVID-19 pandemic from all Michigan consumer finance licensees and registrants.  Responses were due on Friday, March 20, 2020 by 5:00pm and were required to address  whether (1) the licensee/registrant had temporarily or permanently reduced any services provided in their office locations or by your business, (2) whether the licensee/registrant had implemented a program to allow staff to work remotely and, if so, certain additional information about such program, (3) whether and in what way the licensee/registrant had communicated with their customers to provide them with information regarding any changes the licensee/registrant had implemented in response to the pandemic and how those changes may affect them, and (4) whether the licensee/registrant had proactively reached out to their customers to provide them with information concerning what they should do if they are having trouble making their loan payment.
  • Minnesota Department of Commerce (“Department”): The Department has issued separate guidance to Minnesota Industrial Loan & Thrift Companies, Licensed Mortgage Originators and Servicers (companies and individuals), Licensed Non-Depository Financial Institutions, and Regulated Loan Companies.  The guidance is intend to address certain issues and questions related to changes in branch locations or employees working from home as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance (“DBCF”): The DBCF released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators. The DBCF is allowing licensed mortgage loan originators to work from home provided that data security measures are put in place and the licensed mortgage loan originator does not have consumers meet with the licensed mortgage loan originator at their home. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision. The DBCF also issued separate guidance to Mississippi Mortgage Licensees and Consumer Finance Licensees regarding industry pandemic preparedness and outline flexibility in DBCF processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Montana Division of Banking and Financial Institutions (“DBFI”): On March 19, 2020, the DBFI issued a Supervisory Memorandum on Operations During Novel Coronavirus Situation, in which the DBFI provides the industry with answers to FAQs regarding preferred methods of communication as well as notification requirements for branch and loan production office closures and hours changes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Nebraska Department of Baking and Finance (“DBF”): The DBF released guidance for licensed mortgage bankers and sponsored/licensed mortgage loan originators. The DBF is allowing mortgage bankers and mortgage loan originators to work from home provided that they notify the DBF and the DBF approves the new location. All physical documents must remain at a licensed location, but licensees may access information digitally. This guidance is in effect until December 31, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • New Hampshire Banking Department (“Department”): The Department released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators. The Department is allowing licensed mortgage loan originators to work from home even if that location further than 100 miles from their supervisory office as would otherwise be required under New Hampshire law. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • New Mexico Financial Institutions Division (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all mortgage licensees. The Division is allowing all mortgage licensees to work from home provided that data security measures are put in place and no mortgage licensee advertise from or meet with consumers from their home if it is an unlicensed location. This guidance is in effect until May 31, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Nevada Division of Mortgage Lending (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all licensed mortgage companies and mortgage loan originators. The Division is allowing licensed mortgage companies and mortgage loan originators to work from home even if it would be considered an unlicensed location. This guidance is in effect until May 31, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • New York Department of Financial Services (“NY DFS”): The NY DFS has asked licensees to submit plans to the NY DFS on how they plan to address the CORVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the NY DFS issued guidance to New York State regulated and exempt mortgage servicers regarding support for borrowers impacted by COVID-19.
  • Oklahoma Department of Consumer Credit (“Department”): The Department has released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators and their employees. The Department has stated that licensed mortgage loan originators and their employees may work from home as long as they put in place appropriate data security measures. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Oregon Division of Financial Regulation (“Division”): The Division has released guidance for all licensed entities. Licensed entities can work from home provided that the entity provides notice to the department, the entity has procedures in place for data security and more broadly for working from home, and no consumers at met with at unlicensed locations. Mortgage loan originators must keep all physical records at a licensed location. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities (“Department”): The Department issued FAQs related to compliance with Governor Wolf’s Order that non-life-sustaining businesses shut down their physical operations.
  • Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (“OCFI”): The OCFI issued Circular Letter CIF Number CC-2020-002 to all financial institutions required to file reports with the OCFI, which extends the deadlines for filing such reports in light of the governmental closure ordered by Governor Garced, due to the State of Emergency declared in response to COVID-19.
  • Rhode Island Division of Banking (“Division”): The Division has released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators, mortgage lenders, loan brokers, and exempt company registrants. The Division is allowing licensed mortgage loan originators to work from home if they and their sponsoring entities have adequate data security measure in place. Consumers are not allowed to visit any unlicensed location including the home of a mortgage loan originator if it is not a licensed location. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • South Carolina Consumer Finance Division of the Board of Financial Institutions (“Division”): The Division has released guidance for licensed mortgage origination and servicing companies. Licensed mortgage origination and servicing companies can work from home provided that they have a contingency plan in place, adequate data security measures, and do not remove any physical records from licensed offices. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • South Dakota Division of Banking (“Division”): The Division had released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators and their sponsoring entities. Licensed mortgage loan originators can work from home provided that they have adequate data security measures in place and do not take any physical records out of licensed locations. This guidance is in effect until June 5, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (“Commissioner”): The Commissioner has released guidance for licensed regulated lenders. All licensed regulated lenders can work from home provided that they prepare a written plan describing the steps it is taking, have adequate data security measures, and ensure that all physical records remain in a licensed location. This guidance is in effect until May 31, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Texas Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending (“Department”): The Department has issued guidance temporarily suspending any requirement that a physical office be open to the public during posted normal business hours.  Additionally, licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home or another remote location, whether located in Texas or another state, even if the home or remote location is not a licensed branch.  The guidance provides certain requirements in the event that a licensed residential mortgage loan originator or mortgage loan staff work remotely.  These allowances do not amend Texas Financial Code, Chapter 156 and/or 157 and are being allowed strictly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Vermont Department of Financial Regulation (“Department”): The Department has released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators and their sponsoring entities. All licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home provided that no licensable activity is taken place with a consumer at an unlicensed location, adequate data security measures are put into place, and a plan is contingency plan is put in place. This guidance does not have a current expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Washington Department of Financial Institutions (“Department”): The Department released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators and their sponsoring entities. All licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home provided that adequate data security measures are put in place. Consumers are not allowed to visit licensed mortgage loan originators at unlicensed locations. This guidance is effective until June 5, 2020 but is subject to change.  The DFI also issued guidance to Washington regulated and exempt residential mortgage loan servicers regarding support for borrowers impacted by COVID-19.  The guidance urges such institutions to take reasonable and prudent actions, subject to the requirements of any related guarantees or insurance policies, to support those adversely impacted by COVID-19.
  • Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (“Department”): The Department released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators. All licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home provided that their sponsoring entity notify the Department, a list is kept of all mortgage loan originators who elect to work from home where the home is not a licensed branch, appropriate data security measures are taken, and no physical records are present at unlicensed locations. Consumers are not allowed to visit unlicensed locations. This guidance does not have a current expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • West Virginia Division of Financial Institutions (“DFI”): The DFI issued guidance to West Virginia Regulated Financial Institutions allowing employees of regulated entities to temporarily work from home or some other remote location approved by the financial institutions, whether located in West Virginia or another state. Regulated financial institutions may permit employees to work at home or from a designated remote location, to the extent that the position allows, as long as privacy and security issues may be adequately addressed.  The guidance is in effect from March 13, 2020 through May 1, 2020.

Takeaway

As the federal government and the states work feverishly to address the growing concerns surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the financial services industry must stay abreast of the rapid changes in the legal and regulatory landscape.  We will continue to monitor for new developments and will update this post to highlight additional federal or state guidance that is issued.

Slaying the Monster? Reduced Risk of False Claims Act Prosecution for FHA Lenders

By , , ,

A&B Abstract:  In an effort to incent large depository institutions to return to FHA lending, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), on October 28, 2019, that delineates HUD’s process for determining whether violations of FHA guidelines should be referred to the DOJ for prosecution under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).  In recent years, HUD and the DOJ have used the FCA to obtain approximately $7 billion in recoveries from FHA lenders, driving depository lenders away from FHA lending.[1]  Since 2010, the percentage of FHA-insured mortgages made by these institutions has dropped from approximately 45% to below 14%.[2]  The result of the MOU, according to HUD Secretary Carson, is that “[t]he monster [of the FCA] has been slayed.”[3]

An Overview of the Memorandum of Understanding

The MOU describes “HUD’s process for determining whether certain conduct by FHA-approved mortgagees should be enforced through administrative proceedings or other remedies directly available to HUD or referred to DOJ to pursue under the FCA.”[4]  To do so, it details a five-step process for how FCA enforcement will be handled going forward.  This process will apply to origination and servicing activities in connection with all single-family mortgage insurance programs, including forward and reverse FHA-insured mortgage loans.  The MOU does not address referral of criminal activity, which is out of scope.

The Five-step Process

(1) Preference for Administrative Action – HUD will review FHA violations to determine whether they are best addressed by administrative action.  “HUD expects that violations will be enforced primarily through HUD’s administrative proceedings, except when action beyond HUD’s administrative capabilities is warranted.”[5]  This would potentially result in administrative fines, though any such fines would be drastically smaller than the civil liability imposed by the FCA.

(2) Referral to MRB – HUD identifies violations of FHA requirements under HUD’s Defect Taxonomy, which is the assessment methodology that categorizes violations of FHA requirements into four severity tiers. When a violation meets HUD’s FCA Evaluation Standards, as discussed below, the violation will be referred to the Mortgage Review Board (“MRB”), which is made up of senior HUD personnel, including personnel from HUD’s office of general counsel and office of the inspector general (“OIG”).  The MRB will evaluate the matter for potential action under the FCA.[6]  The MRB intends to refer FHA mortgagees to DOJ for potential FCA litigation where the following standards are met: (1) Tier 1 (i.e., evidence of fraudulent or materially misrepresented information about which the mortgagee knew or should have known) or equivalent violations exist in at least 15 loans or in loans with unpaid principal balance or claims of at least $2.0 million; and (2) there are aggravating factors warranting pursuit of FCA litigation, such as evidence that the violations are systemic or widespread (collectively, the “FCA Evaluation Standards”).[7]

HUD indicated that it intends to “provide a written referral for FCA litigation to DOJ for any allegations approved by the MRB.”[8] HUD’s position is that it will refer “FCA matters [to] be pursued only where such action is the most appropriate method to protect the interests of FHA’s mortgage insurance programs, would defer fraud against the United States, and would generally serve the best interests of the United States.”[9]

(3) Referred Cases – Where a party other than HUD, such as a qui tam relator (i.e., a private party) or HUD’s OIG, refers a matter to DOJ for potential FCA litigation, or DOJ directly initiates a matter that is based on alleged FHA violations, DOJ will confer with HUD prior to initiating FCA litigation.  The purpose of this step is to ensure DOJ confers and works with HUD during the investigative, litigation, and settlement phases of the matter to obtain HUD’s input, such as whether HUD supports or opposes FCA litigation.  Ultimately, the MOU contemplates that HUD “will make known to DOJ whether and to what extent any alleged defects or violations regarding the relevant FHA requirements are material or not material to the agency so that DOJ can determine whether the elements of the FCA can be established.”

(4) Relator Cases – Where a case is filed by a qui tam relator, HUD may recommend that DOJ seek dismissal of the case if HUD does not support the FCA litigation.  Among other reasons, the MOU contemplates that HUD may recommend dismissal where the:

    • Alleged conduct fails to meet the HUD FCA Evaluation Standards;
    • Alleged conduct does not represent a material violation of FHA requirements; or
    • Litigation threatens to interfere with HUD’s policies or the administration of its FHA lending program and dismissal would avoid these effects.

The MOU makes clear that “[w]hile the decision of whether to seek dismissal remains the exclusive authority of DOJ, DOJ will consult with HUD in making such a decision.”[10]

(5) MRB Action – Where the MRB decides to decline referral or recommends against FCA litigation, the MRB may still exercise its discretion to seek administrative action, indemnification, or civil money penalties for any FHA violations.  For example, “HUD may request DOJ approval to file a complaint under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act.”[11]

Takeaway:

Given the focus of the MOU, institutions managing regulatory risk and the risk of potential investigations should consider whether alleged FHA violations fall within HUD’s Defect Taxonomy and, if so, whether the violations meet HUD’s FCA Evaluation Standards, as such violations will be referred to the MRB to determine whether FCA litigation is warranted.

Also, the MOU likely provides a new lens for settlement negotiations with HUD and the DOJ.  Disproving systemic or widespread FHA violations could potentially take an investigation off the path towards FCA litigation, dramatically decreasing the cost of settlement.

The MOU is a significant development concerning both HUD’s and DOJ’s approach to FCA litigation.  It could signal reduced FCA litigation related to violations of FHA requirements in the future.  That said, even though the risk of potential FCA prosecution appears to be reduced, it is not eliminated.  Accordingly, it has yet to be seen if Secretary Carson is correct in his prediction that the “monster” of the FCA has been slain.[12]

[1] Ben Lane, Housing Wire, HUD, DOJ changing use of False Claims Act in order to bring big banks back to FHA lending (referencing call with reporters by FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery) (Oct. 28, 2019).
[2] DOJ Press Release, Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development Sign Interagency Memorandum on the Application of the False Claims Act (Oct. 28, 2019).
[3] Ben Lane, Housing Wire, Exclusive: HUD’s Carson on False Claims Act – “The monster has been slayed” (Oct. 28, 2019).
[4] MOU at 2.
[5] MOU at 2-3.
[6] MOU at 3.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] MOU at 3-4.
[11] MOU at 4.  The Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (“PFCRA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801 et seq., is an administrative remedy designed to reach cases of fraud not selected for False Claims Act cases.  The PFCRA imposes civil money penalties and an assessment, of up to twice the claim amount, on “[a]ny person who makes, presents, or submits, or causes to be made, presented, or submitted, a claim that the person knows or has reason to know (A) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent; (B) includes or is supported by any written statement which asserts a material fact which is false, fictitious, or fraudulent; (C) includes or is supported by any written statement that (i) omits a material fact; (ii) is false, fictitious, or fraudulent as a result of such omission; and (iii) is a statement in which the person making, presenting, or submitting such statement has a duty to include such material fact; or (D) is for payment for the provision of property or services which the person has not provided as claimed.”  31 U.S.C. § 3802(a).
[12] See Ben Lane, Housing Wire, Exclusive: HUD’s Carson on False Claims Act – “The monster has been slayed” (Oct. 28, 2019).