Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

#Massachusetts

State Community Reinvestment Acts Reaching Beyond Banks

By

A&B ABstract:

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

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

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

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

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

Takeaway:

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

State Community Reinvestment Acts Reaching Beyond Banks

By

A&B ABstract:

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

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

The Various State CRAs

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

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

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

Takeaway:

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

Massachusetts Enacts Emergency COVID-19 Measure Addressing Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Moratoria, Forbearance, Evictions, Reverse Mortgage Counseling

By

A&B Abstract:

On April 20, 2020, Massachusetts Governor, Charlie Baker, signed into law HB 4647 (2020 Mass. Acts 65), an emergency measure, effective immediately, providing for mortgage forbearances and a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures during the COVID-19 emergency. This measure also waives the in-person counseling requirement for reverse mortgage loans.  This law follows guidance issued by the Division of Banks on March 25, 2020, setting forth the Division’s expectations of mortgage servicers to provide relief to borrowers adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Forbearance

The emergency measure requires a creditor or mortgagee to grant a forbearance on a mortgage loan for residential property if the borrower submits a request to the servicer affirming that the borrower has experienced a COVID-19 hardship, subject to the following terms:

  • the forbearance shall not be for more than 180 days;
  • no fees, penalties or interest beyond the amounts scheduled and calculated as if the borrower made all contractual payments on time and in full under the mortgage contract shall accrue during the forbearance;
  • a payment subject to the forbearance shall be added to the end of the term of the loan, unless otherwise agreed to by the borrower and mortgagee;
  • a borrower and mortgagee are not prohibited from entering into an alternative payment agreement for the mortgage payments subject to forbearance;
  • the mortgagee must not furnish negative mortgage payment information to a consumer reporting agency related to forborne mortgage payments; and
  • a creditor or mortgagee is not required to grant this forbearance if the borrower’s request is made after the expiration of this provision of the emergency measure (the sooner of 120 days from its effective date or 45 days the Governor’s COVID-19 emergency declaration has been lifted).

For purposes of this section, “residential property” includes real property located in the commonwealth, on which there is a dwelling house with accommodations for 4 or fewer separate households that is the borrower’s principal residence; excluding investment property, property taken, in whole or in part, as collateral for a commercial loan, and property subject to condemnation or receivership.

This forbearance provision is similar to a federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) forbearance, with some notably differences.  First, this provision is not limited to federally backed mortgage loans.  Second, the forborne payments are to be tacked on to the end of the mortgage term unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.  Last, the terms differ in two respects.  First, unlike the CARES Act, Massachusetts does not require an additional 180 extension of the forbearance.  Second, the requirement for a servicer to offer a forbearance will remain in effect until the Governor’s COVID-19 emergency declaration is lifted, which at this point is unknown.

Foreclosure

For purposes of foreclosure of “residential property,” as that term is defined above, the emergency measure  imposes a foreclosure moratorium, meaning a mortgagee (or a person acting in the name of a mortgagee) is prohibited from:

  • causing a notice of foreclosure sale to be published;
  • exercising a power of sale;
  • initiating a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure process; or
  • filing a complaint to determine the military status of the borrower under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Vacant or abandoned properties are expressly excluded from this foreclosure moratorium.  The foreclosure moratorium became effective immediately and expires after the sooner of 120 days or 45 days after the COVID-19 emergency declaration has been lifted.  This moratorium appears broader than the moratorium imposed under the CARES Act in that it likely will extend beyond the CARES Act’s moratorium of May 18, 2020 and that it is not limited to “federally backed” loans. Note, most residential mortgage foreclosures are nonjudicial in Massachusetts and begin by sending a delinquent borrower a notice of default and right to cure as required by Mass. General Laws chapter 244, Section 35A.  It is likely that such notice could be viewed as initiating a foreclosure, and thus not allowed during this foreclosure moratorium.

Evictions

 With respect to evictions, the emergency measure provides as follows:

  • notwithstanding any law, rule, regulation or order to the contrary, a landlord or owner of a property shall not, for purposes of a “non-essential eviction” for a residential dwelling unit, terminate a tenancy or send any notice requesting or demanding that a tenant vacate the premises;
  • a landlord shall not impose a late fee for non-payment of rent for a residential dwelling unit;
  • a landlord shall not furnish rental payment data to a consumer reporting agency related to the non-payment of rent if, not later than 30 days after the missed rent payment, the tenant provides notice and documentation to the landlord that the non-payment of rent was due to a COVID-19 financial impact;
  • subject to certain conditions, a lessor who received rent in advance for the last month of tenancy pursuant to Mass. Gen. Law chapter 186, § 15B, may access and utilize the funds received in advance for certain enumerated uses; and
  • nothing in the emergency measure shall be construed to relieve a tenant from the obligation to pay rent or restrict a landlord’s ability to recover rent.

Related to residential dwelling units, a “non-essential eviction” is an eviction: (i) for non-payment of rent, (ii) resulting from a foreclosure, (iii) for no fault or cause, or (iv) for cause that does not involve allegations of: (a) criminal activity that may impact the health and safety of other residents, health care workers, emergency personnel, persons lawfully on the property or general public, or (b) lease violations that may impact the health and safety of other residents, health care workers, emergency personal, persons lawfully on the subject property or the general public. The Massachusetts executive office of housing and economic development has authority to issue emergency regulations to implement this section and develop forms for notice and documentation to a landlord that the non-payment of rent was due to COVID.  Also note that the measure contains similar restrictions for landlords of small business premises and limits the ability of a court, sheriff or others to process or enforce non-essential evictions.

Temporary waiver of In-Person Counseling for Reverse Mortgage

Massachusetts is temporarily waiving the in-person counseling requirement set forth in Mass. Gen. Law chapter 167E, § 7A and chapter 171, § 65C1/2 for reverse mortgage loans during the state-declared COVID-19 emergency and until such emergency has been lifted.  In lieu of in-person counseling, the requirement is satisfied by a written certification from a counselor with a third-party organization indicating that a borrower has received counseling via a synchronous, real-time videoconferencing or telephone counseling, provided that the counselor is approved by the executive office of elder affairs for purposes of such counseling.  The measure does not specifically address the reverse mortgage counseling regulation set forth in 209 CMR 55.04. However, given that the regulation is provided under the statutory authority cited above, there is reason to believe that it should also be covered by this temporary waiver.

Takeaway

In addition to ensuring compliance with the federal CARES Act, mortgage servicers need to monitor newly enacted state measures responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and develop policies and procedures to ensure compliance.

Massachusetts Poised to Regulate Student Loan Servicers

By

A&B ABstract: Amid growing concerns of a student loan crisis, proposed Massachusetts H. 3977 is worth watching. If enacted, it would provide the Division of Banks and the Attorney General additional regulatory and enforcement authority over student loan servicers. It also would establish a new Consumer Assistance Unit to help consumers address complaints in any area enforced by the Division of Banks.

Discussion

As reported in Housing Wire, student loan debt has reached $1.5 trillion, enough to buy every home in the United States twice.  In response to the foreclosure crisis, Massachusetts enacted robust laws over mortgage servicers and continues to be active in enforcing those laws.  It should come as no surprise then that the Commonwealth is turning its attention to student loan servicers and proposing additional oversight by Office of Attorney General (“Office”) and the Division of Banks (“Division”). While Massachusetts legislators have proposed multiple measures to regulate student loan servicers, H. 3977 is the one to watch in 2019.

A New Licensing Obligation

Effective in January 2021 H. 3977 would  provide that “[n]o person shall directly or indirectly act as a student loan servicer” without obtaining a license from the Division unless exempt. A “student loan servicer” is defined broadly to include

companies that collect payments on a student loan, respond to customer service inquiries, and perform other administrative tasks associated with maintaining a student loan, disburse money from the student loan track student loans while borrowers are in school, process payments, respond to borrower inquiries and information requests, accept applications and process changes in repayment plans, deferments, forbearances, or other activities to prevent default, maintain student loan records, ensure the administration of loans in compliance with federal regulations and other legal requirements.

An exemption is available for banks, credit unions and their wholly owned subsidiaries as well as operating subsidiaries where each owner of the operating subsidiary is wholly owned by the same bank or credit union. It is unclear if the Commonwealth will require passive investors to become licensed.

Other Provisions of Note

While the measure doesn’t impose substantive practice requirements, it includes other provisions of note.

First, it imposes a minimum two-year record retention requirement and requires a servicer to produce records within five business days of a request from the Commissioner of Banks (“Commissioner”) or the Student Loan Ombudsman.

Second, it gives the Commissioner broad investigation and enforcement authority. Of note, the Commissioner may revoke or refuse to renew a student loan servicer licensed if he finds two or more violations during a one-year licensing period.  Further, a violation of federal law would constitute a violation of Massachusetts law. The Commissioner also may impose an administrative penalty of up to $50,000 per incident.;

Third, the measure prohibits a student loan servicer from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts. A violation of this law is also a violation of Chapter 93A, the Commonwealth’s UDAP law that allows for treble damages.

The Student Loan Ombudsman

Following the examples set by other states (including Maine, Maryland, New Jersey and New York) and the CFPB, the measure would establish as of September 1, 2020, a “student loan ombudsman” within the Office .  The Ombudsman’s responsibilities include helping borrowers explore repayment options, apply for federal programs, avoid or remove a default, resolve billing disputes or garnishments, obtain loan account details, stop harassing collection calls and apply for discharges.  The Ombudsman also would disseminate educational materials and share information with the Division.

The Consumer Assistance Unit

As of September 1, 2020, the measure would establish a new Consumer Assistance Unit housed within the Division.  The Unit would have broad authority to help consumers address complaints in (i) any area the Commissioner has authority to regulate involving state-chartered banks and credit unions, check cashers, foreign transmittal companies, sales finance companies, mortgage lenders, brokers, originators, and student loan servicers, or (ii) other areas as the Commissioner deems appropriate.

Takeaway

Student loan servicing is on the radar of Massachusetts regulators.  Companies should be mindful of H. 3977. Additionally, with the creation of the Consumer Assistance Unit and with H. 3977 granting broad investigation and enforcement authority to the Commissioner, we expect to see increased scrutiny and enforcement actions relative to student loan servicers.