Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

#NYDFS

New York Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act Curtails Servicers’ Options

By , , ,

A&B ABstract:

Effective on approval by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 30, 2022, New York Assembly Bill 7737b – the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (the “Act”) became law.  The Act is signifcant because it reverses judicial precedent that permitted a lender, after default, to undo the acceleration of a mortgage and stop the running of the statute of limitations in a foreclosure action through voluntary dismissal, discontinuance of foreclosure actions, or de-acceleration letters. Notably, the Act applies both prospectively and to any foreclosure action filed prior to its effective date that had not been resolved through a final judgment and order of sale. Further, unlike other provisions of New York law, the Act applies to all properties (and not only those that are owner-occupied). Public reaction has been mixed as to whether the measure will benefit consumers – but, regardless, it changes the rules of the game for lenders and servicers in New York State.

Background

Existing New York law establishes a six-year statute of limitations for the commencement of a mortgage foreclosure action, triggered when the borrower defaults on the obligation and the lender accelerates the obligation to pay the secured debt. In 2021, the New York Court of Appeals considered whether a lender can de-accelerate a loan and reset the statute of limitations.

The court decided four cases (with the opinion rendered in Freedom Mtge. Corp. v Engel, 37 N.Y.3d 1 (2021)), “each turning on the timeliness of a mortgage foreclosure claim.” The court held that the lender’s voluntary dismissal of a foreclosure suit constituted a revocation of the lender’s election to accelerate. Such revocation returned the parties to their pre-acceleration rights, reinstated the borrower’s right to repay via installments, and established a new statute of limitations period for any future default payments. According to the court, “[w]here the maturity of the debt has been validly accelerated by commencement of a foreclosure action,” the court opined, “the noteholder’s voluntary withdrawal of that action revokes the election to accelerate, absent the noteholder’s contemporaneous statement to the contrary.”

In the course of deciding Engel, the court also considered what constituted an “overt unequivocal act” sufficient to trigger a valid acceleration of debt and the six-year statute of limitations. Here, the court held that neither the issuance of a default letter nor the filing of complaints in prior discontinued foreclosure actions that failed to reference the pertinent modified loan were sufficient methods to validly accelerate debt.

The Act

Since the Engel decision, mortgagees in New York State have relied on their ability to voluntarily discontinue a foreclosure action – and effectively reset the statute of limitations– in order to engage distressed borrowers in loss mitigation efforts. However, the Act appears to eliminate a mortgagee’s ability to unilaterally reset the limitations period by voluntarily discontinuing a foreclosure action and deaccelerating the loan.

With the express intent of overturning the Engel decision, the Act amends provisions of New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL,” N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law §§ 1301 et seq.), General Obligations Law (“GOL,” N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law §§ 1-101 et seq.), and Civil Practice Law and Rules (“Rules,” N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 101 et seq.) relating to the rights of parties involved in foreclosure actions.

RPAPL:

Under previous law, Section 1301 of the RPAPL prohibited the commencement or maintenance of any action to recover any part of a mortgage debt while another action to recover part of the mortgage debt is already pending or after final judgment has been made for the plaintiff without leave of the court in which the first action was brought. Beyond clarifying that a foreclosure action falls within the scope of that prohibition, the Act provides that procurement of leave from the first court must be a condition precedent to commencing or maintaining the new action. Thus, failure to comply with the leave of court condition precedent may no longer be excused by finding that the prior action was “de facto discontin(ued)” or “effectively abandoned” (see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Humphrey, 173 AD3d 811, 812 (2d Dept 2019)); or that the defendant was not prejudiced thereby (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Irizarry, 142 AD3d 610, 611 (2d Dept 2016)); nor by deeming the pre-action failure a mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity that could be overlooked or disregarded (see id.).

Moreover, failure to obtain leave is a defense to the new action. If a party brings a new action without leave of the court, the section declares that the previous action is deemed discontinued unless prior to the entry of final judgment in the original action the defendant: (a) raises the failure to comply with the condition precedent, or (b) seeks dismissal of the action based upon one of the grounds set forth in Section 3211(a)(4) of the Rules.

Section 1301 of the RPAPL is further amended to provide that if the mortgage securing the bond or note representing the debt so secured by the mortgage is adjudicated as time barred by a court of competent jurisdiction, any other action to recover any part of the same mortgage debt is equally time barred. As a result, if the statute of limitations acts to bar a foreclosure action or any other action to recover on mortgage debt, an investor or servicer cannot bring any other action to recover the same part of the mortgage debt, including another foreclosure action or an action to recover a personal judgment against the borrower on the note.

GOL:

Under Section 17-105 of the GOL, an agreement to waive the statute of limitations to foreclose on a mortgage is effective if expressly set forth in writing and signed by the party to be charged.

The Act amends Section 17-105 by: (1) clarifying that the GOL is the exclusive means by which parties are enabled to postpone, cancel, reset, toll, revive or otherwise effectuate an extension of the limitations period for the commencement of an action or proceeding upon a mortgage instrument; (2) clarifying that unless effectuated in strict accordance with Section 17-105, the discontinuance of an action upon a mortgage instrument, by any means, shall not, in form or effect, function as a waiver, postponement, cancellation, resetting, tolling, or extension of the statute of limitations; and (3) codifying certain judicial rulings holding as much.

While not included or otherwise referenced in the Act, it is also worth noting that Part 419 of the New York Department of Financial Services’ mortgage loan servicer business conduct rules prohibit a mortgage servicer from requiring a homeowner to waive legal claims and defenses as a condition of a loan modification, reinstatement, forbearance or repayment plan. It is unclear whether Part 419 would be interpreted to prohibit servicers from seeking a waiver of the limitations period pursuant to Section 17-105, especially with respect to loans where the limitations period has already run. To further complicate matters, the New York legislature is currently considering a bill that would (1) create an express private right of action for violations of Part 419; (2) make compliance with Part 419’s requirements a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action; and (3) render failure to materially comply with Part 419 to be a defense to a foreclosure action or an action on the note, even if servicing of the loan has been transferred to a different servicer when a foreclosure action or action on the note is commenced.

Rules:

The Act amends and adds several provisions of the Rules relating to the application of the statute of limitations in actions relating to mortgage debt.

First, the Act adds Section 203(h) to the Rules, which terminates the ability of a lender or servicer to extend the statute of limitations on a foreclosure action by any form of unilateral action. No voluntary discontinuation of an action to enforce a mortgage may “in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute.” In other words, the amended section appears to prohibit a mortgagee from “de-accruing” a cause of action or otherwise effectuating a unilateral extension of the limitations period by suspending a foreclosure action – and providing loss mitigation opportunities to the borrower – once the six-year statute of limitations has begun to run after the loan is accelerated. The methods by which the statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action can be waived or extended are exclusively set forth in Article 17 of the GOL (see GOL 17-105 (express written agreement to extend, waive or not plead as a defense the statute of limitations); 17-107 (unqualified payment on account of mortgage indebtedness effective to revive statute of limitations)). Accordingly, a bare stipulation of discontinuance or a lender’s unilateral decision to revoke its demand for full payment is no longer a permissible method for waiving, extending, or modifying the statute of limitations.

Second, the Act adds Section 205-a to the Rules, limiting reliance on the savings statute for time-barred claims. After termination of an action, the new section permits the original named plaintiff to commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions only if: (a) the plaintiff brings the new action within six months of the termination; and (b) the termination of the prior action occurred in any manner other than a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, dismissal for any form of neglect, for violation of any court rules or individual part rules, failure to comply with any court scheduling orders, failure to appear for a conference or at a calendar call, failure to timely submit any order or judgment, or a final judgment upon the merits. Further, only one six-month extension will be available to the plaintiff.

Under new Section 205-a, a successor-in-interest or an assignee of the original plaintiff can only commence a new action if such party pleads and proves that the assignee is acting on behalf of the original plaintiff. Further, if the defendant has served an answer and the action has been terminated, in a new action based on the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions (whether brought by the original plaintiff or a successor-in-interest or assignee thereof) any cause of action or defense that the defendant asserts will be considered timely “if such cause of action or defense was timely asserted in the prior action.” Section 205-a also provides that, where applicable, the original plaintiff (or a successor-in-interest acting on behalf of the original plaintiff) may only receive one six-month extension and no court shall allow the original plaintiff to receive more than one six-month extension.

Third, the Act amends Section 213(4) of the Rules to clarify that in any action where the statute of limitations is raised as a defense – and if that defense is based on a claim that the indebtedness was accelerated prior to or through commencement of a prior action – a plaintiff will be estopped from asserting that a mortgage instrument was not validly accelerated prior to or by way of commencement of a prior action. An exception exists if the prior action “was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.”

Further, in any quiet title action seeking cancellation and discharge of record of a mortgage instrument, a defendant will be estopped from asserting that the applicable statute of limitations period for commencement of an action has not expired because instrument was not validly accelerated prior to or by way of commencement of a prior action, “unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.”

Finally, the Act amends Section 3217 of the Rules, by adding a new Subsection (e), which clarifies that if the statute of limitations is raised as a defense in an action, and if the defense rests on a claim that the instrument was accelerated prior to or by virtue of the commencement of a prior action, the plaintiff cannot stop the tolling of the statute of limitations by asserting that the instrument was not validly accelerated unless the prior action was dismissed based on an express judicial determination regarding invalid acceleration.

Takeaway

In light of the Act’s curtailment of a servicer’s or investor’s ability to unilaterally suspend a foreclosure action, we recommend that mortgagees carefully review their pending mortgage foreclosure actions in New York state. At a minimum, the Act removes the ability of a holder or servicer in New York state to voluntarily discontinue a foreclosure action after acceleration of the indebtedness triggers the running of the statute of limitations.

Whether this will interfere with servicers’ contractual rights and ability – and obligations under the CFPB rules and New York Part 419 – to offer meaningful loss mitigation opportunities to borrowers remains to be seen. At least one judge thinks so. In a recent Order to Show Cause, a New York Supreme Court judge concluded that the Act violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and included an invitation for the New York Attorney General to weigh in.

NYDFS Reports Major Cybersecurity Settlement

By ,

In early March, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced a settlement involving a $1.5M penalty and mandatory remediation in response to a mortgage lender’s alleged failure to report a cyber breach, and other alleged cybersecurity failures. This enforcement action marks the second public enforcement action under 23 NYCRR Part 500 (the “Cybersecurity Regulation”) (see our post on the prior action here).

It is noteworthy that the settlement follows a routine safety and soundness exam by the regulator which included a review of security issues under the Cybersecurity Regulation.  This settlement provides an example of both the alleged failure to have reported a security incident and the potential that any such failure will later be detected by the NYDFS in routine examinations.

The consent order noted two major cybersecurity failings on the part of the licensee, Residential Mortgage Services, Inc. (“Residential Mortgage”), according to the NYDFS:

  • Failure to Adequately Investigate and Respond to a Cybersecurity Event. The consent order recounts a successful phishing attack that resulted in a “cyber intruder” accessing an employee’s email account. Residential Mortgage’s IT staff determined that improper access had occurred and quickly took steps to prevent further unauthorized access. However, the consent order faults Residential Mortgage for failing to conduct any further investigation to determine (1) whether the compromised inbox “contained private consumer data,” (2) “which consumers were impacted,” and then (3) “apply the applicable state notice requirements triggered by the breach.” The consent order notes that, following the NYDFS’s examination and investigation of the Cybersecurity Event, Residential Mortgage did determine that it was obligated to notify individuals under various state laws based on a review of all data elements “that could have been accessed” during the intrusion. According to the consent order, Residential Mortgage subsequently made notifications to individuals as required by those laws.
  • Lack of “Comprehensive Cybersecurity Risk Assessment.” The consent order states that Residential Mortgage “was missing a comprehensive cybersecurity risk assessment.” Such risk assessments are required under the Cybersecurity Regulation to periodically evaluate vulnerabilities and inform operation of the cybersecurity program.

In addition to assessing a $1.5M civil penalty, the settlement provisions require Residential Mortgage to make the following submissions to the NYDFS within 90 days:

  • “a comprehensive written Cybersecurity Incident Response Plan;”
  • a comprehensive risk assessment;
  • “Policies, procedures and controls” relating to monitoring user activity and detecting unauthorized access or use of personal or confidential information; and
  • “Cybersecurity awareness training for all personnel, updated to reflect risks identified by Residential Mortgage in its Cybersecurity Risk Assessment.”

Residential Mortgage also agreed to “fully cooperate” with the NYDFS “regarding all terms of this Consent Order,” and the NYDFS reserved all rights to take further action in the event of noncompliance. The consent order notes Residential Mortgage’s “commendable cooperation” with the investigation and remediation efforts, including “devoting significant financial and other resources to enhance its cybersecurity program.”

NYDFS Issues Guidance to Mortgage Servicers Regarding Assessment of Registration Fees

By ,

A&B ABstract:

On September 1, 2020, the Deputy Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”), issued guidance (the “Guidance”) to New York State regulated mortgage lenders and servicers (collectively referred to as “Servicers”) regarding fees paid to register mortgages in default. The Guidance reminds Servicers of the restrictions on fees and charges set forth under Part 419 of the Superintendent of Financial Services Regulations (“Part 419”) and directs Servicers to reverse and/or refund and credit registration fees impermissibly charged to New York borrowers and to create a log of all borrowers who were either charged, or paid any registration fee to a Servicer.

Part 419 Fee Restrictions

In December 2019, the NYDFS finalized amendments to Part 419, nearly 10 years after its initial adoption. Part 419, which sets forth business conduct requirements for mortgage loan servicers operating in the state, was amended to include expansive obligations that, in certain instances, exceed obligations under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s mortgage servicing rules.

Under Section 419.5 of the amended regulations, servicers may only collect certain specified types of fees from a borrower, subject to certain conditions.  Such fees include attorney’s fees, late and delinquency fees, and property valuation fees.  In addition, a servicer may collect a fee if it is for a service that is actually rendered to the borrower, reasonably related to the cost of rendering that service, and is: (1) expressly authorized and clearly and conspicuously disclosed by the loan instruments and not prohibited by law; (2) expressly permitted by law and not prohibited by the loan instruments; or (3) not prohibited by law or the loan instruments and is for a specific service requested by the borrower that is assessed only after disclosure of the fee is provided and the borrower expressly consents to pay the fee in exchange for the service.

NYDFS Guidance

The Guidance indicates that the NYDFS has become aware that “certain counties, cities and other municipalities in New York State, by ordinance or otherwise, are requiring mortgage lenders and servicers…to register mortgages declared to be in default…with the county, city or other municipality in which the real property is situated” and that some Servicers have charged borrowers, or collected from their account, the fee for such registrations.

The Guidance reminds Servicers that Section 419.5 of Part 419 “only permits [a servicer] to collect certain specified types of fees from a [borrower], consisting of attorney’s fees, late and delinquency fees, property valuation fees, and fees for services actually rendered to a mortgagor when such fees are reasonably related to the cost of rendering the service to the borrower.” Because a “[r]egistration [f]ee is neither an attorney fee, late or delinquency fee, property valuation fee, or fee for a service rendered to a [borrower],” Servicers are prohibited from charging or collecting such a fee from a borrower under Part 419.

Servicers subject to the requirements of Part 419 who, at any time, collected any registration fees from a borrower, are directed to refund and credit the full amount of such registration fees to the account of the borrower. If the registration fee was charged to a borrower’s account, but was not collected, the Servicer must remove and reverse any and all registration fees charged to the borrower’s account.

Finally, Servicers are directed to create a log of all borrowers that were either charged, or paid any registration fee to the servicer “at any time.” The log must contain details of the full amounts of the registration fees, whether such fees were collected or charged, and the date(s) the full amounts of collected registration fees were refunded and credited to or, in instances where the fee was charged but not collected, removed and reversed from borrowers’ accounts.  The Guidance indicates that the NYDFS plans to inspect the log during its next examination of Servicers.

 Takeaway

The Guidance is a reminder to Servicers to ensure compliance with the fee restrictions under the amended Part 419 regulations.  Servicers should review their portfolio of New York loans to ensure borrowers who paid, or were charged, a registration fee are provided appropriate remediation, as the NYDFS has already flagged this as an issue that will be scrutinized in upcoming servicing examinations.

New York Laws Require Forbearance for Private Mortgage Loans During COVID Emergency

By

A&B ABstract

On June 17, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law two measures, effective immediately, providing for mortgage forbearances for privately backed residential mortgage loans during the COVID-19 emergency. Senate Bill 8243 (2020 N. Y. Laws 112) amends the N. Y. Banking Law by adding new Section 9-x, “Mortgage Forbearance.”  Senate Bill 8428 (2020 N. Y. Laws 126) relates to state disaster emergency and, among other provisions, amends Section 9-x as added by Senate Bill 8243. These measures apply during the covered period, beginning on March 7, 2020 and ending when no Executive Order issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic relating to restricting public or private businesses or required postponement or cancellation of all non-essential gatherings of individuals apply in the county of the borrower’s residence.

Mortgage Forbearance

New Section 9-x of the Banking Law imposes new requirements on any New York regulated banking organization, including banks, trust companies, private bankers, savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and investment companies) and regulated mortgage servicers  (collectively, “regulated entities”)subject to supervision by the New York Department of Financial Services (the “Department”).

First, regulated entities must make applications for forbearance widely available to any qualified mortgagor who, during the covered period is in arrears or on a trial period plan or who has applied for loss mitigation. A qualified mortgagor is a natural person who (i) demonstrates financial hardship as result of COVID-19 during the covered period, (ii) whose loan is from or serviced by a regulated entity, and (iii) whose loan meets the following criteria: the loan is incurred for personal, family or household purposes, s secured by mortgage on a 1-4 family property located in New York, and is the borrower’s primary residence.  Forward and reverse mortgage as well as co-operative units are within scope.

Second, regulated entities must grant forbearance of all monthly payments due on a New York residential mortgage secured by a qualified mortgagor’s primary residence for up to 180 days with the option to extend the forbearance for up to an additional 180 days provided the borrower continues to demonstrate a financial hardship. Such forbearances may be backdated to March 7, 2020.

Third, any mortgage forbearance granted by a regulated entity to a qualified mortgagor as a result of a financial hardship pursuant to Executive Order 202.9 the regulation promulgated thereunder (3 NYCRR Part 119) or Section 9-x of the Banking Law subject to post forbearance repayment requirements. Specifically, the qualified mortgagor shall have the following four options:

  • Extend the term of the loan for the length of the period of forbearance with no additional interest or late fees or penalties incurred on the forborne payment
  • Have the arrears accumulated during the forbearance period payable on a monthly basis for the remaining term of the loan without being subject to penalties or late fees as a result of the forbearance
  • Negotiate a loan modification or any other option that meets the changed circumstances of the borrower, or
  • If the borrower and regulated entity cannot reasonably agree on a mutually acceptable loan modification, the regulated entity must offer to defer arrears accumulated during the forbearance period as a non-interest bearing balloon loan payable at the maturity of the loan, or at the time the loan is satisfied through a refinance or sale of the property.  Late fees accumulated as a result of the forbearance must be waived.

The measure prohibits a regulated entity from reporting negatively to any credit bureau that the borrower has exercised any of the four post forbearance options

Significantly, Section 9-x of the Banking Law does not apply to any mortgage loan made, insured, purchased or securitized by: (i) any agency or instrumentality of the United States (such as FHA, VA or USDA); (ii) any government sponsored enterprise  (such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac); (iii) a federal home loan bank;  (iv) a corporate governmental  agency of the state constituted as a political subdivision and public benefit corporation; or (iv) “the rights and obligations of any lender, issuer, servicer or trustee of such obligations, including servicers for” Ginnie Mae.

Privately backed mortgage loans are also subject to New York Executive Order 202.9, which modified Subdivision two of Section 39 of the Banking Law to provide that it is an unsafe and unsound business practice for any financial institution subject to the jurisdiction of the Department to, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, fail to grant a forbearance to any person or business who has a financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic for a period of ninety days. The Executive Order also directed the Superintendent of the Department to promulgate emergency regulations to require that the application for such forbearance be made widely available for consumers, and such application shall be granted in all reasonable and prudent circumstances solely for the period of such emergency. These regulations are set forth in new Part 119 to 3 NYCCR. The covered period of Executive Order 202.9 was extended by subsequent executive order to be valid through July 6, 2020, unless further extended.

Capital and Liquidity

New Section 9-x of the Banking Law provides that the obligation to grant the forbearance relief required by Section 9-x is subject to the regulated entity “having sufficient capital and liquidity to meet its obligations and to operate in a safe and sound manner.” If a regulated entity determines it is not able to offer the forbearance to any qualified mortgagor, it must notify the Department within five business days of making such determination. Any such notice filed with the Department must include: (1) information about the mortgagor; (2) the reason the regulated entity determined that it was unable to offer any forbearance relief pursuant to Section 9-x; (3) information about the institution’s financial condition supporting the its determination; and (4) any other information required by the Department. Additionally, when such a notice is provided to the Department, the regulated entity must advise the mortgagor that the application for relief was denied and provide a statement that the applicant may file a complaint with the New York state department of financial services at 1-800-342-3736 or http://www.dfs.ny.gov if the applicant believes the application was wrongly denied.

Defense to Foreclosure

Section 9-x of the Banking Law, provides that adherence with Section 9-x is a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action stemming from missed payments which would have otherwise been subject to this section, and that a defendant may raise the violation of this section as a defense to such a foreclosure action commenced on the defendant’s property.

Takeaway

These New York measures provide protections to New York borrowers who aren’t otherwise covered by the CARES Act.  Servicers should take note of these provisions as well as similar ones in other states, such as the District of Columbia, Massachusetts and Oregon.  In the immediate term, servicers will need to quickly operationalize these new protections.  In the longer term, questions may be raised as to whether these types of measures infringe upon any private investors’ rights.

Federal and State Guidance Regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic

By

A&B Abstract:

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

Federal Guidance

Federal Administrative Agencies:

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

Federal Government-Sponsored Entities:

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

State Guidance

State Legislatures:

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

State Regulators:

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

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

Takeaway

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