Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

licensing

Maryland Secondary Market Imperiled by Sweeping Regulatory Change Requiring Licensure for All Assignees of Mortgage Loans

By , , , ,

What Happened?

A development with far-reaching consequences for the secondary market, on January 10, 2025, the Maryland Office of Financial Regulation (“OFR”) issued guidance that requires mortgage trusts and their assignees to be licensed in Maryland. The OFR based its guidance on its interpretation of the case, Estate of Brown v. Ward, 261 Md. App 385 (2024). The case involved a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) that was made subject to Maryland’s credit grantor provisions. The court would not consider existing Maryland case law that provides that a securitization trust with a national bank trustee is not subject to licensing because those cases did not involve the credit grantor provisions. The OFR took the opposite approach and reached the conclusion that all assignees, including passive trusts of residential mortgage loans are subject to licensing. OFR issued regulations to accompany the guidance, which are effective immediately, but enforcement will be delayed until April 10, 2025.

The OFR’s unduly expansive interpretation of Estate of Brown and its mandate that all assignees of residential mortgage loans be licensed under the Mortgage Lender Law (“MLL”) or Installment Loan Law (“ILL”) is a radical departure of how Maryland regulates secondary market assignees of residential mortgage loans. Prior to this change, the licensing requirements of both the ILL and the MLL applied exclusively to original creditors and primary market participants, such as brokers and servicers, not their assignees. Up to now, the OFR did not require secondary market purchasers of loans, trusts, and other securitization vehicles to obtain licenses in Maryland. However, the guidance would appear to require licensing for all subsequent assignees, including whole loan purchasers, trusts and other special purpose entities, absent an exemption. This licensing requirement will create a logistical nightmare for the secondary market, especially securitization trusts, and unless Estate of Brown is reversed by the Maryland Supreme Court and the OFR’s regulation and guidance is withdrawn, it could adversely impact the availability of credit to Maryland consumers. While the OFI has suspended enforcement of the regulations until April, the regulations apply to impacted entities as of January 10, 2025. Therefore, these entities should not foreclose on Maryland residential loans without first obtaining an MLL license.

The Maryland Appellate Court Decides Trusts and Other Assignees of Certain Loans Must Be Licensed

In Estate of Brown, a Delaware statutory trust acquired a HELOC on residential real property located in Maryland and sought to foreclose. The personal representative to the borrower’s estate raised several challenges to foreclosure, including that the trust was not properly licensed as the assignee of the HELOC. On appeal from dismissal of those challenges, the appellate court of Maryland reversed and held that the licensing requirements under the Credit Grantor Revolving Credit Provisions (“OPEC”) apply not only to original credit grantors but also to assignees of revolving credit plans. The OPEC subtitle provides that “[a] credit grantor making a loan or extension of credit under this subtitle is subject to [] licensing ….”

The underlying HELOC included an election stating that “[t]his loan is made under Subtitle 9, Credit Grantor Revolving Credit Provisions of Title 12 of the Commercial Law Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland.” The court held that persons, including the Delaware statutory trust, that acquire revolving credit plans made under OPEC are subject to the licensing requirements of that subtitle.

The Maryland appellate court reasoned that OPEC defines a “credit grantor” to include any person who acquires or obtains the assignment of a revolving credit plan made under OPEC. The Court opined that an assignee inherits the rights and obligations of the original lender, including the duty to be licensed.

Maryland Office of Financial Regulation (“OFR”) Seeks to Expand the Maryland Appellate Decision

Although Estate of Brown dealt solely with OPEC, there is also a companion statute for Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (“CLEC”) found at Md. Code, CL § 12-1001, et seq. Like OPEC, under CLEC, a license is required under ILL and/or MLL, unless exempt, for a credit grantor making a closed-end loan or extension of credit under CLEC. In both instances, the licensing requirement is only triggered if the loan is expressly made under OPEC or CLEC. In order for a loan to be subject to OPEC or CLEC, the lender ordinarily makes a written election to do so in the agreement, note, or other evidence of the extension of credit. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 12-913; 12-1013.

In industry guidance issued by OFR, noting the identical licensing obligations under the two statutes, OFR concluded that a license is required for an assignee of both an OPEC and a CLEC loan. However, OFR also took the extraordinary step of stating that a license is required for ANY assignee of a mortgage loan, even if no OPEC or CLEC election is made. OFR concluded as much despite the Estate of Brown case relying on the licensing requirement applicable to credit grantors, as that term is defined by OPEC and CLEC. The court in Estate of Brown expressly stated that it did not matter that MLL does not impose an independent licensing obligation on an assignee because the “licensing argument is founded entirely on the Credit Grantor Revolving Credit Provisions subtitle. Specifically, [the argument] relies on CL § 12-915 as the source of the licensing obligation.” While OPEC and CLEC define credit grantors to include assignees, the definition of lender for both ILL and MLL is limited to the person making a loan. For example, MLL only requires a license for a “mortgage lender” which is defined as any person who: (1) is a mortgage broker; (2) makes a mortgage loan to any person; or (3) is a mortgage servicer. Md. Code, FI § 11- 501(k)(1). Clearly, an assignee of a loan is not included in the definition of a mortgage lender.

The Guidance and Emergency Regulations

OFR states that persons that acquire or obtain assignments of any mortgage loan, including but not limited to mortgages made under OPEC or CLEC, are subject to licensing, absent an exemption under the ILL and MLL. However, an entity licensed under the MLL and engaged solely in mortgage lending business does not also need an ILL.

In addition to guidance, OFR promulgated emergency regulations applicable to MLL licensing. The regulations define “passive trusts” to include mortgage trusts that acquire, but do not originate, broker, or service, mortgage loans and allow a passive trust to designate the trustee, or a principal officer of the trustee if the trustee is not a natural person, as the passive trust’s qualifying individual. The regulations also allow a passive trust to satisfy the statutory net worth requirement by providing evidence of assets, such as securitized mortgage pools, that will be held within 90 days of licensure.

Why Does it Matter?

The guidance is troubling for several reasons. First, it is inconsistent with the law. Across the nation, secondary market participants recognize that a license is only required if the licensing statute specifically applies to assignees, but the OFR has upended this long held convention by boldly proclaiming that all assignees must carry the same licenses that are required of originators. As a result, based on regulations from OFR, it now appears that all assignees of mortgage loans must obtain a Mortgage Lender License, unless exempt.

Second, its rationale is not limited to mortgages. Although the guidance focuses on mortgage loans, and the regulations only address the MLL, the interpretation suggests that assignees of installment loans must also obtain an Installment Lender License. While the guidance suggests that a license under the ILL will be needed at least for an entity obtaining installment loans, unlike the MLL, there are no corresponding regulatory amendments signaling how a trust may comply with the licensing provisions of the ILL.

Third, it is not clear if an assignee of a mortgage loan could need another license. The OFR’s guidance indicates that an entity licensed under the MLL, and solely engaged in mortgage lending, does not need an ILL license. While it appears that OFR intends for an assignee of mortgage loans to only obtain an MLL license, “mortgage lending” is defined narrowly. A passive holder of mortgage loans would not be engaged in lending, brokering, or servicing as those terms are defined by the MLL. Accordingly, an assignee who is not making, brokering, or servicing mortgage loans is arguably not engaged in mortgage lending, leaving open the possibility that secondary market participants could need to obtain both licenses rather than just the MLL license.

Overall, the licensing process is onerous. Trusts will need to designate a principal officer who meets qualifications such as having three years of experience in mortgage lending. The officer will also be subject to a credit report check, a criminal background check (including fingerprinting), and must submit a resume. Additionally, trusts must obtain a surety bond, register as a foreign entity in Maryland, and provide a business volume statement for the past 12 months. These requirements may impose significant costs and administrative burdens, particularly if bank trustees must become involved. Additionally, licensees are subject to the substantive requirements set forth in the applicable law and regulations.

The OFR’s actions are part of a growing assertiveness by state and federal governments to regulate the secondary market and trusts in particular. For example, the CFPB has successfully asserted the power to investigate and bring enforcement actions directly against securitization vehicles and on October 1, 2024 settled a long standing action against National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts (“NCSL Trusts”), as well as the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (“PHEAA”), the primary student loan servicer for active student loans held by the NCSL Trusts, arising in connection with the NCSL Trusts’ and PHEAA’s alleged improper servicing practices.

What Do I Need to Do?

 Trusts and any entity that acquires Maryland loans should review their portfolios to determine if a license is required under the MLL and/or ILL. Notably, the licensing requirement is effective as of January 10, 2025, although enforcement is paused through April 10, 2025. During this period, entities should become familiar with what it means to be a licensee and gain familiarity with the mortgage lender application requirements that require, among other things, the appointment of a “qualifying individual” who has three years’ experience in mortgage lending.

Industry participants and trade groups should work together closely to advocate against these startling changes, provide comments to the OFR’s regulations, and provide additional pushback against this attempted regulatory overreach.

Alston & Bird’s Consumer Financial Services Team is actively engaged and monitoring these developments and is able to assist with any compliance concerns regarding these sweeping changes to Maryland law.

New York Passes New Removal Procedures for Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Partners of Any Entity Regulated by Department of Financial Services

By ,

What Happened?

On December 21, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, signed into law, S7532, which repealed the existing section of the Banking Law addressing the removal of officers, directors, and trustees of banking organizations, bank holding companies and foreign banks (“covered individuals”), and enacted a new section providing a clearer process for removing such individuals and expanding the scope of the removal authority to apply to all entities regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services (“the Department”).

Repealed Section:

The former provisions regarding the removal of covered individuals were limited to banking organizations, bank holding companies, and foreign banks.

The Superintendent of the Department (“the Superintendent”) was authorized to bring an action to the Banking Board (“the Board”) to remove an officer, director, or trustee whenever it found that such individual:

  • violated any law or regulation of the Superintendent of financial services, or
  • “continued unauthorized or unsafe practices . . . after having been ordered or warned to discontinue such practices.”

Note that the Banking Board has not existed since the Department of Financial Services was created in 2011.

The Board would then serve notice of the action to the covered individual to appear before the Board to show why they should not be removed from office. A copy of this notice would be sent to each director or trustee of the banking organization and to each person in charge of and each officer of a branch of a foreign banking corporation.

If after a three-fifths vote by the Board members the Board found that the individual committed such violations, an order would be issued to remove the individual from office.

The removal became effective upon service of the order. The order and findings were not made public, and were only disclosed to the removed individual and the directors or trustees of the banking organization involved. Any such removed individual that participated in the management of such banking organization without permission from the Superintendent would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Newly Enacted Section:

The new provision expands the removal authority of the Superintendent to apply to all entities regulated by the Department (“covered entities”), including: banks, trust companies, limited purpose trust companies, private banks, savings banks, safe deposit companies, savings and loan associations, credit unions, investment companies, bank holding companies, foreign banking corporations, licensed lenders, licensed cashers of checks, budget planners, mortgage bankers, mortgage loan servicers, mortgage brokers, licensed transmitters of money, and student loan servicers.

The Superintendent is authorized to bring an action to remove such individuals whenever it finds reason to believe that they:

  • caused, facilitated, permitted, or participated in any violation by a covered entity of a law or regulation, order issued by the Superintendent or any written agreement between such covered entity or covered individual and the Superintendent;
  • engaged or participated in any unsafe or unsound practice in connection with any covered entity; or
  • engaged or participated in any willful material act or omitted to take any material act that directly contributed to the failure of a covered entity.

The notice and hearing provisions were changed to allow the Superintendent to serve a statement of charges against the covered individual and a notice of an opportunity to appear before the Superintendent to show cause why they should not be removed from office. A copy of such notice must now be sent to the affected covered entity, instead of the directors or trustees of the covered entity and persons in charge of foreign bank branches.

Additionally, the threshold for removal was changed. Instead of being removed by a three-fifths vote of a board that no longer exists, the covered individual may be removed if, after notice and hearing: (1) the Superintendent finds that the covered individual has engaged in the unlawful conduct, or (2) if the individual waives a hearing or fails to appear in person or by authorized representative.

The order of removal is effective upon service to the individual. The order must also be served to any affected covered entity along with the statement of charges. The order remains in effect until amended, replaced, or rescinded by the Superintendent or a court of competent jurisdiction. Such removed individual is prohibited from participating in the “conduct of the affairs” of any covered entity unless they receive written permission from the Superintendent. If the individual violates such prohibition, they are guilty of a misdemeanor.

Furthermore, the Superintendent is now authorized to suspend the covered individual from office for a period of 180 days pending the determination of the charges if the Superintendent has reason to believe that:

  • a covered entity has suffered or will probably suffer financial loss that impacts its ability to operate in a safe and sound manner;
  • the interests of the depositors at a covered entity have been or could be prejudiced; or
  • the covered individual demonstrates willful disregard for the safety and soundness of a covered entity.

The suspension may be extended for additional periods of 180 days if the hearing is not completed within the previous period due to the request of the covered individual.

Why Does it Matter?

Prior to the update, the Superintendent only had the power to remove individual officers, directors, or trustees from office in various bank organizations. The new law expands this removal power to all entities regulated by the Department.

The amended statute creates an additional penalty for individuals who caused, facilitated, permitted, or participated in the violation of the Banking Law in their positions of power of a regulated entity. Such individuals may be removed from their positions and prohibited from participating in the management of any regulated entity, until they receive written permission from the Superintendent. If they violate the prohibition, they are guilty of a misdemeanor, which can be punished by imprisonment for up to 364 days or by a fine set by the Superintendent.

What Do I Need To Do?

Entities regulated by the Department that are now covered under this section should be aware that violations of law by a licensee may also lead to the removal of certain high-level individuals within the organization. If removed, such individuals would also be prohibited from managing any regulated entity until the Superintendent provides written permission to do so. Affected entities and individuals should take care to ensure compliance with the law to avoid these new penalties.

Majority of States Now Permit Remote Work for MLOs and Mortgage Company Employees

By

A&B Abstract:

On June 9, Illinois became the latest state in a growing trend to authorize remote work for mortgage loan originators and mortgage company employees. This makes five states joining the list of jurisdictions legislatively permitting MLOs to work remotely since Montana enacted similar legislation in March, with more states expected during the 2024 legislative sessions.

The Illinois amendments to The Residential Mortgage License Act of 1987, signed by Governor Pritzker on June 30, 2023, take effect on January 1, 2024 and specifies requirements that licensed MLOs must follow to allow employees to work from remote locations. These changes include:

  • Requiring the licensee to have written policies and procedures for supervising mortgage loan originators working from a remote location;
  • Restricting access to company platforms and customer information in accordance with the licensee’s comprehensive written information security plan;
  • Prohibiting in-person customer interactions at a mortgage originator’s residence unless the residence is a licensed location;
  • Prohibiting maintaining physical records at a remote location;
  • Requiring customer interactions and conversations about consumers to be in compliance with state and federal information security requirements.
  • Mandating mortgage loan originators working from a remote location to use a secure connection, either through a virtual private network (VPN) or other comparable system, to access the company’s system;
  • Ensuring the licensee maintains appropriate security updates, patches, or other alterations to devices used for remote work;
  • Requiring the licensee to be able to remotely lock, erase, or otherwise remotely limit access to company-related contents on any device; and
  • Designating the loan originator’s local licensed office as their principal place of business on the NMLS.

Nevada, Virginia, and Florida passed legislation resembling the Illinois law, mandating similar security, compliance, and surveillance requirements.

Temporary Guidance Ending

Remote work flexibility is now the majority stance for the industry. The four states mentioned above are the most recent since Montana passed similar legislation in March. Of the 53 U.S. jurisdictions tracked by the Mortgage Bankers Association (including Washington, D.C., Guam, and Puerto Rico), 30 have implemented permanent statutes or regulations allowing remote work, with 9 more jurisdictions still operating under temporary guidance permitting remote work.

Of the states still operating under temporary guidance, Oklahoma’s guidance expires December 31, 2023. The state government will need to take further action, whether legislative or regulatory, to continue to allow MLOs to work remotely. Louisiana issued temporary guidance in July 2020, which would stay active, “as long as there is a public health emergency relating to COVID-19, as declared by Governor Edwards of the State of Louisiana, or until rescinded or replaced.” Governor Edwards ended the emergency in March 2022 when he did not renew the expiring order. Remote work in Louisiana is now operating in a grey zone with regards to whether the temporary order is still in effect due to the, “until rescinded” language.

Different Methods, Similar Results

Although remote work is the new norm, states are taking different routes to allow MLOs to work remotely. Many statehouses passed legislative statutes, which allow for stable policies but can be difficult to revise through the legislative process. These statutes tend to follow similar structures and have similar requirements. Illinois, Virginia, Florida, and Nevada require MLOs to work from home so long as certain records are not maintained in remote locations, professionals do not meet with customers outside of licensed facilities, employees are properly supervised as required by the license, and the company maintains adequate cybersecurity measures to protect customer data.

Nebraska’s state legislature did not pass specific guidance regarding remote work for MLOs, but rather, passed authorization to allow the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance to promulgate regulations allowing remote work for MLOs. The Department has not yet issued permanent guidance for local MLOs regarding remote work requirements. Although using the regulatory system to implement rules may take longer to implement, it is also more flexible to changing circumstances and generally permits regulators to revise guidance faster than it takes a state legislature to convene, draft, and pass appropriate amendments to existing legislation.

Takeaway

The post-COVID workforce is clinging onto the last bit of convenience that the pandemic forced upon us. Surveys show that remote work flexibility is now the primary perk that would drive people to different employers. Since the technology needed to safely conduct business remotely is now proven, states are realizing that the easiest way to retain qualified mortgage professionals is to allow remote work flexibility. The American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators (AARMR) expressed concern over a lack of remote work options in 2022 before states started passing permanent legislation. State legislatures embraced AARMR’s concern that a lack of remote work options could cause professionals to leave the industry, further widening the access gap for already underserved communities. The remote work trend has touched other industries that were previously in-person only and is likely to grow in those other industries (e.g., remote notarization) as far as practically feasible.

* We would like to thank Associate, CJ Blaney, for their contributions to this blog post.

States Continue Trend Supporting Remote Work for MLOs and Mortgage Company Employees

By ,

A&B ABstract:

Effective July 1, Montana will become the latest jurisdiction to codify authorization for mortgage loan originators and mortgage company employees to engage in remote work. That legislation follows a general trend over the past year – and, more so, since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic – to allow remote operations.

No longer a temporary measure necessitated by pandemic lockdowns, remote work is increasingly acknowledged by regulators as an acceptable permanent option for today’s working environment. Last year, 18 jurisdictions took action to extend temporary permission for, or permanently authorize, the practice, and the trend continues in 2023.

Updates to the Montana Mortgage Act

On February 16, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 30, substantively amending the Montana Mortgage Act and adding requirements relating to the conduct of mortgage business from a remote location. Specifically, the measure requires that each employee or independent contractor engaged in remote work:

  • Does not meet with the public at an unlicensed personal residence;
  • Does not maintain physical or electronic business records at the remote location;
  • Does not display any signage or advertising of the entity or the MLO at a remote location;
  • Takes reasonable precautions to protect confidential information in accordance with state and federal laws; and
  • Ensures that their NMLS records designate a properly licensed location as the MLO’s official workstation and a manager as a supervisor.

Further, the amended Act mandates that a licensed entity must:

  • Have written policies and procedures for working remotely, and supervise and enforce those policies and procedures;
  • Ensure that any device used to engage in the mortgage business has appropriate security, encryption, and device management controls to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information;
  • Maintain its computer systems and customer information in accordance with its information technology security plan and all state and federal laws; and
  • Annually review and certify that its employees and independent contractors engaged in the mortgage business from remote locations meet specific requirements, and, upon request, provide the Department of Administration with written documentation of such review.

As discussed further below, the Montana measure follows a pattern established by other states, where remote work requirements have been established by regulatory guidance, and by temporary and then permanent legislation, since mid-2020.

Remote Work Authorization Trends 2020 to Present

The purpose of the legislative and regulatory guidance on remote work has changed since the spring of 2020. Remote work was already considered increasingly viable prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Permissions and adaptations for remote work accelerated drastically with the onset of the pandemic in the spring of 2020. Today, guidance initially necessitated as an emergency response has become a permanent approach to regulating remote work in many states, enabling mortgage companies to take advantage of the benefits of a new mode of operations.

Throughout the evolution of the remote work trend, industry associations have stepped in to survey the regulatory choices being made across states and to recommend best practices. In July 2020, the Mortgage Bankers Association (“MBA”) issued a letter to the Conference of State Bank Supervisors addressing near- and long-term considerations for allowing remote work. Since that letter, there has been much activity across states in implementing permanent and temporary remote work authorization. In recognition of the significant changes to the mortgage business resulting from the new normal of remote work, on June 7, 2022, the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators (“AARMR”) issued guidance on best practices for permitting employees to work remotely.

In general, the guidance requires licensed mortgage entities to:

  1. Develop policies and procedures for adequate supervision of MLOs working remotely;
  2. Ensure that MLOs refrain from meeting with consumers in their homes (unless, if applicable, the MLO’s home is licensed as a branch);
  3. Ensure that MLOs use a VPN or similar system of authentication for access to the company’s secure origination system;
  4. Maintain and update security for devices used to access the company’s secure origination system;
  5. Ensure that MLOs refrain from storing physical business records at any location other than the company’s licensed main office; and
  6. Ensure that documents are available at a licensed location for regulators to conduct examinations.

The majority of legislation enacted, and guidance adopted, by jurisdictions reflects the framework set out by the MBA and AARMR.

State Response

Following the issuance of the MBA and AARMR guidance, several states have focused on effective implementation of key processes for remote operations. For example, jurisdictions including California, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington require licensees to develop a written information security plan to ensure that the security goals for remote work are met.

States such as California provide specific requirements on the safeguards that must be included in the policy. In another common trend, California, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington explicitly note that a remote location should not be advertised or represented to consumers as an operating location. Across states, licensees should ensure that consumer and licensee information and records remain accessible for regulatory oversight and exams.

2022 State Activity on Remote Work Authorization

In 2022, eight states (California, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania (Amendment), Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Tennessee) enacted legislation addressing remote work. In addition to passing legislation, Pennsylvania enacted an amendatory measure and Rhode Island issued related guidance. Georgia, Oregon, and Washington adopted regulations implementing previous statutory measures. Finally, nine jurisdictions issued guidance, or extended temporary guidance, regarding remote operations: Colorado, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

As of February 2023,  there were significant developments in remote work guidance and legislation in Montana and California. Montana amended the Montana Mortgage Act to permit and establish the requirements for mortgage business employees to work remotely effective July 1, 2023. The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued guidance permitting remote work by employees of a licensee under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act.

Outliers and Special Considerations

Jurisdictions have not implemented remote work guidance uniformly. Mortgage companies and MLOs should be aware of unique requirements and restrictions in certain states.

Security and Data Privacy

Mortgage industry regulators and companies are particularly concerned with ensuring responsible handling of data and maintaining the security of company systems and consumer information in connection with remote operations. Reflecting this concern, California’s legislation requires companies to provide employees working remotely with appropriate equipment to perform the work and safeguard records and personal information. In addition to the prohibition on storing physical records at a remote location, California prohibits the receipt of business-related mail at a remote location.

Similarly, the new South Dakota and Rhode Island provisions on remote work mandate employee training on the confidentiality of conversations with, or relating to, consumers that are conducted from the remote location.

Location Requirements

Mortgage companies and MLOs should be aware of particular requirements for the location of an eligible remote work site. Pennsylvania expressly requires that the location where the remote work takes place is not owned or controlled by the licensee. Pennsylvania’s legislation would allow remote work from a location that is under the control of a subsidiary or affiliate of the licensee, if the location is only used by the licensee or on an incidental basis for consumer convenience. Note that under Pennsylvania’s provisions, in-person consumer interaction is permitted at a remote location if that location is not a personal residence.

Regulators may not apply all of these requirements as written. Rhode Island’s provisions include the requirement that the remote location be within a reasonable distance of the licensed place of business or branch location. Despite the text of the statute and regulations, the Department of Business Regulation issued regulatory guidance indicating that “MLOs are not required to live within a certain distance” of a main office or branch location. Instead, companies are required to provide proof of effective supervision of MLOs.

Supervisory Requirements

Some jurisdictions permit remote locations to be licensed as branches, even when the location is a personal residence. Georgia will consider a personal residence to be a branch and subject it to branch licensing requirements when the following conditions are met: (1) advertising the location as place of business; (2) receiving consumers; (3) maintaining physical files; or (4) arranging for the licensee to reimburse rent, utilities, or other expenses for the location. If none of the conditions are met, a personal residence that is a remote work location will not be considered a branch.

As an additional oversight measure, Kansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee require licensees to annually review and certify that employees engaged in remote work meet the applicable requirements under the relevant legislation.

Takeaways

As the Montana measure evidences, the trend towards authorizing and regulating remote work has not stopped in 2023. First, in January, the Nebraska and Virginia legislatures introduced bills related to allowing remote work. Second, more of the jurisdictions that in 2022 updated their remote work statutes are expected to adopt corresponding regulations or issue guidance to implement or supplement the new requirements for remote work authorization. For example, Vermont has announced that it will adopt regulations to implement the changes to its mortgage licensing statute that allow remote work in the coming months.

Further, some states that have not yet authorized remote work for MLOs and mortgage company employees have passed legislation authorizing remote work by employees of companies holding certain non-mortgage licenses. Colorado passed legislation in 2022 to permanently allow supervised lender licensees to work remotely. Colorado is one of the states that has also opted to extend temporary authorization for regulated entities that are not covered by the new legislation, including mortgage licensees into 2023. Based on the activity we have seen so far this year, and announcements regarding anticipated rulemaking activity, MLOs and mortgage company employees should expect future developments in this area.

* We would like to thank Associate, Rachel Myers, for their contribution to this blog post.

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.