Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

#mortgageservicing

GSEs to Require Mortgage Servicers to Obtain and Maintain Fair Lending Data

By , ,

A&B Abstract:

On August 10, 2022, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”) will require mortgage servicers to obtain and maintain fair lending data on their loans, beginning March 1, 2023. That same day, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”) each issued guidance implementing the FHFA announcement.

FHFA and GSEs’ Announcements

In its announcement, the FHFA indicated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will require mortgage servicers to obtain and maintain fair lending data, to include borrower age, race, ethnicity, gender, and preferred language (“Fair Lending Data”), and to ensure that this data transfers with servicing throughout the mortgage term. The announcement follows FHFA’s May 2022 announcement that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will require mortgage lenders to collect borrowers’ language preference data as part of the loan application process via a Supplemental Consumer Information Form (SCIF). Shortly after the FHFA announcement, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each announced that their respective guides had been updated to require servicers to maintain  Fair Lending Data in a “queryable” format for each mortgage loan, if obtained during the origination process, for loans originated on or after Mach 1, 2023. Additionally, in instances of post-delivery servicing transfers, the transferor servicer must deliver to the transferee servicer the Fair Lending Data in a queryable format for each mortgage loan, if obtained during the origination process, for mortgage loans originated on or after March 1, 2023.  In the event of a future transfer of ownership or assumption of the mortgage loan, servicers are authorized, but not required, to update the Fair Lending Data elements.

Of course, many mortgage servicers currently do not receive complete and accurate borrower demographic data from originating lenders in a readily accessible format for all loans in their servicing portfolio. And servicers may have different resources, capabilities, roles (master servicers vs. subservicer), and electronic systems, which may present additional limitations. For example, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) data currently may not transfer to a transferee servicer as part of a servicing transfer. The Fair Lending Data elements generally reflect data that is collected for HMDA-purposes. Therefore, mortgage lenders and servicers will need to ensure that the Fair Lending Data is transferred to the transferee servicer such that the data remains queryable post-transfer. Finally, even where a servicer has access to robust HMDA data, it is unlikely that all the fair lending data elements noted in the FHFA and GSE announcements would be available. For example, mortgage loan originators subject to the data collection requirements of HMDA are required to collect information regarding a consumer’s sex, but not their gender. In this case, it is unclear how much, if any, information a mortgage servicer will ultimately have regarding a consumer’s gender.

Takeaway

Ultimately, even if a servicer is able to obtain and maintain the required Fair Lending Data elements, it remains to be seen what servicers will be expected to do with that information. Depending on the quality and completeness of the data, the servicer may engage in statistical analysis in order to monitor for fairness in servicing outcomes, such as approval rates, foreclosure rates, and processing timelines for loss mitigation evaluations, as well as fee assessment/waiver rates for all serviced loans. Yet this monitoring can only be done if the various parties – originating lender, master servicer, and subservicer – work together to ensure that all necessary data is complete and travels with the servicing of the loan. Thus, mortgage lenders/servicers should begin evaluating their systems to ensure the required Fair Lending Data can be obtained and maintained in a queryable format. Moreover, mortgage lenders/servicers should reevaluate their servicing transfer protocols to ensure Fair Lending Data is transferred and onboarded seamlessly such that the data remains queryable. Finally, it will be interesting to see whether the federal agencies (i.e., HUD, VA, USDA) follow in the GSEs’ footsteps and impose similar fair lending data requirements.

Connecticut and Maryland Adopt Model Mortgage Servicer Prudential Standards

By , ,

A&B Abstract:

On May 24, 2022, Connecticut enacted legislation that, among other things, adds financial condition and corporate governance requirements for certain licensed mortgage servicers (the “CT Standards”). In similar fashion, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation (the “Commissioner”) issued a notice of final action on March 25, 2022 adopting similar standards by regulation (the “MD Standards”).  In both instances, the CT and MD Standards are intended to implement the Model State Regulatory Prudential Standards for Nonbank Mortgage Servicers (the “Model Standards”) drafted and released by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) last July.

The CSBS Model Standards

As mentioned in our prior blog post, the CSBS initially proposed standards for mortgage servicers in 2020. In July 2021, after substantial revision to the proposed standards, the CSBS adopted the Model Standards to provide states with uniform financial condition and corporate governance requirements for nonbank mortgage servicer regulation while preserving local accountability to consumers and to “provide a roadmap to uniform and consistent supervision of nonbank mortgage servicers nationwide.”

The Model Standards cover two major categories that comprise prudential standards: financial condition and corporate governance. The financial condition component consists of capital and liquidity requirements. Corporate governance components include separate categories for establishment of a board of directors (or “similar body”); internal audit; external audit; and risk management.

The Model Standards apply to nonbank mortgage servicers with portfolios of 2,000 or more 1 – 4-unit residential mortgage loans serviced or subserviced for others and operating in two or more states as of the most recent calendar year end, reported in the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (“NMLS”) Mortgage Call Report. For purposes of determining coverage under the Model Standards, “residential mortgage loans serviced” excludes whole loans owned and loans being “interim” serviced prior to sale. Additionally, the financial condition requirements in the Model Standards do not apply to servicers solely owning and/or conducting reverse mortgage servicing or the reverse mortgage portfolio administered by forward mortgage servicers that may otherwise be covered under the standards. The capital and liquidity requirements also have limited application to entities that only perform subservicing for others. Moreover, the whole loan portion of portfolios are not included in the calculation of the capital and liquidity requirements.

While CSBS drafted the Model Standards, they are implemented only through individual state legislation or other rulemaking.

Connecticut’s and Maryland’s Implementation of the Model Standards

The CT and MD Standards both track the Model Standards in many respects, including the following:

  • Covered servicers are required to satisfy the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (“FHFA”) Eligibility Requirements for Enterprise Single-Family Seller/Servicers for minimum capital ratio, net worth and liquidity, whether or not the mortgage servicer is approved for servicing by the government sponsored enterprises (i.e., Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac) (the “GSEs”), as well maintain policies and procedures implementing such requirements; these requirements do not apply to servicers solely owning and/or conducting reverse mortgage loan servicing, or the reverse mortgage loan portfolio administered by covered institution that may otherwise be covered under the standards, and do not include the whole loan portion of servicers’ portfolios.
  • With respect to corporate governance, covered servicers are required to establish and maintain a board of directors responsible for oversight of the servicer; however, for covered servicers that are not approved to service loans by one of the GSEs, or Ginnie Mae, or where a federal agency has granted approval for a board alternative, a covered servicer may establish a similar body constituted to exercise oversight and fulfill the board of directors’ responsibilities.
  • A covered mortgage servicer’s board of directors, or approved board alternative, must (1) establish a written corporate governance framework, including appropriate internal controls designed to monitor corporate governance and assess compliance with the corporate governance framework, (2) monitor and ensure institutional compliance with certain established rules, and (3) establish internal audit requirements that are appropriate for the size, complexity and risk profile of the servicer, with appropriate independence to provide a reliable evaluation of the servicer’s internal control structure, risk management and governance.
  • Covered mortgage servicers must receive an annual external audit, which must include audited financial statements and audit reports, conducted by an independent accountant, and which must include: (1) annual financial statements, (2) internal control assessments, (3) computation of tangible net worth, (4) validation of MSR valuation and reserve methodology, (5) verification of adequate fidelity and errors and omissions insurance, and (6) testing of controls related to risk management activities, including compliance and stress testing, as applicable.
  • Covered mortgage servicers must establish a risk management program under the oversight of the board of directors, or the approved board alternative, that addresses the following risks: credit, liquidity, operational, market, compliance, legal, and reputation.
  • Covered mortgage servicers must conduct an annual risk assessment, concluding with a formal report to the board of directors, which must include evidence of risk management activities throughout the year including findings of issues and the response to address those findings.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CT Standards appear to deviate from the Model Standards in a few notable ways. First, with respect to coverage, the CT Standards differ from the Model Standards, in that the CT Standards can apply to a servicer who only services Connecticut residential mortgage loans, whereas the Model Standards do not apply unless the servicer operates “in two or more states as of the most recent calendar year end, reported in the [NMLS] Mortgage Call Report.” Additionally, the capital and liquidity requirements under the Model Standards have limited application to entities that only perform subservicing for others, including limiting the definition of “servicing liquidity or liquidity” to entities who own servicing rights. The comments to the Model Standards explain that “[f]inancial condition requirements for subservicers are limited under the FHFA eligibility requirements due to the lack of owned servicing. For example, net worth add-on and liquidity requirements apply only to UPB of servicing owned, thereby limiting the financial requirements for subservicers, and servicers who own MSRs and also subservice for others. However, the base capital and operating liquidity requirements … apply to subservicers.” On the other hand, the capital and liquidity requirements under the CT Standards explicitly do not apply to an entity that solely “performs subservicing for others with no responsibility to advance moneys not yet received in connection with such subservicing activities.”

The MD Standards, on the other hand, largely adopt the Model Standards. However, with respect to internal audit requirements, the MD Standards contain additional guidance, specifying that “[u]nless impracticable given the size of the licensee, internal audit functions shall be performed by employees of the licensee who report to the licensee’s owners or board of directors and who are not otherwise supervised by the persons who directly manage the activities being reviewed.” That said, it is worth noting that in an accompanying notice to servicers and lenders, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation clarified that the purpose of the MD Standards is “aligning Maryland regulations with nationwide model standards and creating uniform standards regarding safety and soundness, financial responsibility, and corporate governance for certain mortgage service providers.”

Takeaway

Connecticut and Maryland are the first two states to adopt implementing laws or regulations following the CSBS’s adoption of the Model Standards. Connecticut-licensed mortgage servicers subject to the CT Standards must comply by October 1, 2022, the section’s effective date. The MD Standards took effect on June 27, 2022. Servicers subject to the CT and/or MD Standards should review the standards and ensure their business satisfies the applicable requirements. As with any model law, the Model Standards require states to adopt implementing laws or regulations. Accordingly, we expect to see additional states begin to adopt similar measures.

Fourth Circuit Rules That a Mortgage Servicer Can Be Liable for FDCPA Violations Even if Not Subject to the FDCPA

By

A&B ABstract:

Putative class action plaintiffs recently prevailed on appeal in a case involving mortgage servicing fees charged to Maryland borrowers. In doing so, the opinion opens the door for FDCPA liability for all mortgage servicing activity and other collection activity in Maryland, even if such activity is otherwise exempt from FDCPA liability.

The Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act

The case is a putative class action challenging certain fees charged by the borrowers’ mortgage servicer in the ordinary course of business. Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the servicer violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA). Specifically, the MCDCA prohibits a “collector” from “engag[ing] in any conduct that violates §§ 804 through 812 of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” The plaintiffs alleged that the attempt to collect certain mortgage servicing fees violated the FDCPA’s proscription for a “debt collector” to engage in “[t]he collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.”

The MCDCA applies to any “collector,” defined as any “person collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt arising out of a consumer transaction.” The FDCPA, on the other hand, uses the term “debt collector” which is defined with several limitations and exceptions, including for debt that was not in default when obtained. Despite the narrower scope of the FDCPA, plaintiffs in the case argued that a servicer could engage in conduct that violated the FDCPA, and thereby be in violation of the MCDCA, even if the servicer was not a “debt collector” subject to the FDCPA.

The district court dismissed the case before considering class certification, determining that the servicer was not a “collector” under the MCDCA and, likewise, was not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA.

The Fourth Circuit’s Decision

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the servicer was a collector under the MCDCA. Critically, the court determined that the servicer could be held liable for engaging in conduct that violated the FDCPA, even if it was not actually subject to the FDCPA. The court reasoned that even though the FDCPA only applies to “debt collectors” and, even though the MCDCA, in turn, only prohibits conduct that violates the FDCPA, an entity could still be in violation of the MCDCA even if it was not engaging in debt collection under the FDCPA. The court concluded that “[t]he MCDCA’s broader definition controls here, as it is not displaced by the federal definition.” The court stated that the MCDCA only incorporated the FDCPA’s “substantive provisions” contained in §§ 804 through 812, thus the FDCPA’s applicable definitions and exemptions, contained in §§ 803, 818 were to be disregarded in determining if a violation of the FDCPA occurred for purposes of the Maryland law.

Takeaway

This decision subjects several otherwise exempt and excluded actors to potential liability for FDCPA violations via the MCDCA within Maryland. In addition to mortgage servicers, who are typically exempt from the FDCPA under normal circumstances, the FDCPA contains a number of other exemptions including for entities collecting their owns debts, process servers, and certain nonprofit organizations performing credit counseling. Under the reasoning of the Fourth Circuit’s decision, all of these actors could now potentially be held liable under the MCDCA for FDCPA violations within Maryland. Furthermore, all such actors arguably need to comply with the strictures of the FDCPA in communicating with consumers. This would include restrictions on the timing, frequency, and format of communications with consumers that do not apply to communications outside the scope of the FDCPA. On February 15, 2022, the court denied a Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, thus finalizing the decision.

Following this decision, recent legislation introduced in the Maryland General Assembly may delay foreclosure proceedings in Maryland. On February 3, 2022 a delegate introduced HB 803, which would allow borrowers to file counterclaims in response to foreclosure proceedings, would make additional procedural requirements applicable to such actions, and would prevent a foreclosure from proceeding if a borrower files such a counterclaim. Under the Fourth Circuit’s decision, servicers could experience increased MCDCA challenges alleging violations of the FDCPA that would otherwise not apply, and, combined with the additional procedural requirements and delays contemplated by HB 803, foreclosure proceedings could face significant delays as a result.

While some state laws offer state remedies for a violation of federal law, we are unaware of any case that has interpreted such a law to expand the scope of liability under the incorporated federal law. While states can and have adopted consumer statutes that are more expansive than federal law, it remains to be seen if other courts will now interpret simple incorporation of federal law as something more expansive as well.

Application Deadline Looms Under California Debt Collection Licensing Act

By

On September 25, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill 908 – enacting the Debt Collection Licensing Act (DCLA). The DCLA, which takes effect January 1, 2022, requires a person or entity engaging in the business of debt collection in California to be licensed and provides for regulatory oversight of debt collectors by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI). Pursuant to the DCLA, debt collectors who submit an application by Dec. 31, 2021 may continue to operate in California pending the denial or approval of their application. On April 23, 2021, the Commissioner of the DFPI (the Commissioner) issued proposed regulations (the Regulations) to adopt procedures for applying for a debt collection license under the DCLA. On June 23, 2021, after consideration of public comments, the Commissioner issued a Notice of Modifications to the Regulations (the Modifications). On November 15, 2021, the Commissioner issued a second Notice of Modifications to the Regulations (the Additional Modifications).

The Regulations

The Regulations – among other things –  define relevant terms, include information regarding application procedures, and contain other miscellaneous information regarding licensing. The definition of “debt collector” was substantially the same as the broad definition under the enacted DCLA (which in turn is very similar to the Rosenthal FDCPA definition) and encompasses a wide array of activity in relation to consumer debt, including mortgage debt. Likewise, the regulations define “debt buyer” identical to the existing definition in Section 1788.50 of the Civil Code, which contains an exception for purchasers of a loan portfolio predominantly consisting of consumer debt that has not been charged off. See our prior post on the DCLA for more information regarding the scope of the licensure requirement.

The Regulations designate NMLS for the submission and processing of applications and reference and rely upon uniform NMLS forms and procedures. The application process includes completion of the NMLS uniform licensing form (MU1), including by any affiliates to be licensed under the same license. The application process includes collection of information regarding other trade names, web addresses used by the applicant, contact employees, organizational information (including information on any indirect owners), a detailed statement of business activities, certificates of good standing, and sample dunning letters. Applicants do not need to provide bank account information in Section 10 of Form MU1 or information on a qualifying individual in Section 17 of Form MU1. Fingerprinting (which is processed outside of NMLS), criminal history checks, and credit report authorizations are required for certain related individuals, including officers, directors, managing members, trustees, responsible individuals, and any individual owning directly or indirectly 10% or more of the applicant. An investigative background report is also required for any such individual who is not residing in the United States. Branches must also be licensed through NMLS uniform forms (MU3). Notice and additional filing requirements apply upon any change in the information submitted. The Regulations also contain surety bond requirements and outline the Commissioner’s authority in reviewing and examining applicants.

First Notice of Modification to the Regulations

On June 23, 2021 the Commissioner issued the Modifications which made several changes to the Regulations including, revising the definition of “applicant” to make clear that an affiliate who is not applying for a license is not an “applicant” – this revision, however, does not seem to impact the ability of applicants to include affiliates under a single license. Further, the Modifications added an English language requirement for documents filed with the DFPI. The Modifications also eliminated certain requirements to provide the Commissioner with additional copies of documents submitted through NMLS and otherwise revised requirements to allow information to be processed predominately through NMLS. The Modifications also eliminated the need to file certain fingerprinting documents in NMLS. Additionally, the Modifications added a requirement to explain derogatory credit accounts for any individual subject to credit reporting requirements. The Modifications also removed requirements that applicants provide information concerning compliance reporting and audit structure, the extent to which they intend to use third parties to perform any of their debt collection functions, that applicants file a copy of their policies and procedures with the NMLS, and certain annually collected financial information. The Modifications also eliminate the Commissioner’s ability to modify surety bond amounts.

Second Notice of Modification to the Regulations

On November 15, 2021 the Commissioner issued the Additional Modifications to the Regulations which amended the definitions of “branch office” and “debt collector.” “Branch office” was amended to mean any location other than the applicant’s or licensee’s principal place of business so long as “activity related to debt collection occurs” at that location and that the location is “held out to the public as a business location or money is received at the location or held at the location.” The Additional Modifications state that “holding a location out to the public” includes the receipt of postal correspondence and meeting with the public at the location, placing the location on letterhead, business cards, and signage, or making “any other representation to the public that the location is a business location.”

The definition of “debt collector” was amended to reference the definition set forth in the DCLA, rather than actually defining the term. Thus, any future revisions to the DCLA definition will automatically apply to the regulations as well.

Conclusion  

Debt Collection agencies and participants in California should anticipate additional regulations from the DFPI as aspects of the DCLA continue to be hammered out – in the interim any entity subject to licensing who has not done so already should submit an application before end of year to ensure continued operations.