Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

TILA

Complying with the “Consider” Requirement Under the Revised Qualified Mortgage Rules

By

A&B Abstract:

Purchasers of residential mortgage loans who are conducting audits of residential mortgages that they buy in the secondary market are struggling to determine what documentation satisfies the “consider” requirement of the revised qualified mortgage (QM) standards that became mandatory on October 1, 2022. In fact, originators of residential mortgage loans are not in agreement regarding what particular written policies and procedures they must promulgate and maintain and the documentation that they should include in the loan files. We set forth what we believe are the policies and procedures and the documentation that creditors must maintain and provide to their counterparties to comply with the consider requirement.

The Revised QM Rules

As a threshold matter, on December 10, 2020, Kathy Kraninger, who was the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), issued the revised QM rules that replaced Appendix Q and the strict 43% debt-to-income ratio (DTI) underwriting threshold with a priced-based QM loan definition. The revised QM rules also terminated the QM Patch, under which certain loans eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not have to be underwritten to Appendix Q or satisfy the capped 43% DTI requirement. Compliance with the new rules became mandatory on October 1, 2022.

Under the revised rules, for first-lien transactions, a loan receives a conclusive presumption that the consumer had the ability to repay (and hence receives the safe harbor presumption of QM compliance) if the annual percentage rate does not exceed the average prime offer rate (APOR) for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more as of the date the interest rate is set. A first-lien loan receives a “rebuttable presumption” that the consumer had the ability to repay if the APR exceeds the APOR for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more but by less than 2.25 percentage points. The revised QM rules provide for higher thresholds for loans with smaller loan amounts, for subordinate-lien transactions, and for certain manufactured housing loans.

To qualify for QM status, the loan must continue to meet the statutory requirements regarding the 3% points and fees limits, and it must not contain negative amortization, a balloon payment (except in the existing limited circumstances), or a term exceeding 30 years.

Consider and Verify Consumer Income and Assets

In lieu of underwriting to Appendix Q, the revised rule requires that the creditor consider the consumer’s current or reasonably expected income or assets other than the value of the dwelling (including any real property attached to the dwelling) that secures the loan, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and DTI ratio or residual income. The final rule also requires the creditor to verify the consumer’s current or reasonably expected income or assets other than the value of the dwelling (including any real property attached to the dwelling) that secures the loan and the consumer’s current debt obligations, alimony, and child support.

In particular, to comply with the consider requirement under the rule, the CFPB provides creditors the option to consider either the consumer’s monthly residual income or DTI. The CFPB imposes no bright-line DTI limits or residual income thresholds. As part of the consider requirement, a creditor must maintain policies and procedures for how it takes into account the underwriting factors enumerated above and retain documentation showing how it took these factors into account in its ability-to-repay determination.

The CFPB indicates that this documentation may include, for example, “an underwriter worksheet or a final automated underwriting system certification, in combination with the creditor’s applicable underwriting standards and any applicable exceptions described in its policies and procedures, that shows how these required factors were taken into account in the creditor’s ability-to-repay determination.”

CFPB Staff Commentary

Paragraph 43(e)(2)(v)(A) of the CFPB Staff Commentary to Regulation Z requires creditors to comply with the consider requirement of the new QM rule by doing the following:

a creditor must take into account current or reasonably expected income or assets other than the value of the dwelling (including any real property attached to the dwelling) that secures the loan, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income in its ability-to-repay determination. A creditor must maintain written policies and procedures for how it takes into account, pursuant to its underwriting standards, income or assets, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income in its ability-to-repay determination. A creditor must also retain documentation showing how it took into account income or assets, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income in its ability-to-repay determination, including how it applied its policies and procedures, in order to meet this requirement to consider and thereby meet the requirements for a qualified mortgage under § 1026.43(e)(2). This documentation may include, for example, an underwriter worksheet or a final automated underwriting system certification, in combination with the creditor’s applicable underwriting standards and any applicable exceptions described in its policies and procedures, that show how these required factors were taken into account in the creditor’s ability-to-repay determination [emphasis added].

The Secondary Market’s Review of Creditors’ Policies and Procedures and File Documentation

The revised rules suggest that, at a minimum, to ensure that the creditor has satisfied the “consider” requirement, a creditor must promulgate and maintain policies and procedures for how it takes into account the underwriting factors enumerated above as well as retain documentation showing how it took these factors into account in its ability-to-repay determination. Ideally, the creditor should make these written policies and procedures available to the creditor’s secondary market counterparties.

Further, and more importantly, the revised rules indicate that the individual loan files should contain a worksheet, Automated Underwriting Systems (AUS) certification, or some other written evidence documenting how the enumerated factors were taken into account in meeting the enhanced ability-to-repay standards. The underwriters should document their use of applicable exceptions to the creditor’s general policies and procedures in underwriting the loan.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is our understanding that compliance with these requirements has been uneven in the industry and that certain creditors have not promulgated the requisite written policies and procedures related to the consideration of income, assets, and debt. In addition, documentation (i.e., worksheets and AUS certifications) of these factors in individual loan files has been haphazard and inconsistent.

In March 2023, the Structured Finance Association convened an ATR/QM Scope of Review Task Force, comprising rating agencies, diligence firms, issuers, and law firms, to develop uniform best practice testing standards for performing due diligence on QM loans. Discussion topics included the documentation of the consider requirement of the revised QM rules.

In its early meetings, the participants in the task force confirmed that creditors have not uniformly developed written policies and procedures documenting the consider requirement. Participants have focused more on the creditor’s actual documentation of income, assets, and debt in individual loan files they believe would demonstrate substantive compliance with the underwriting requirements of the revised rules.

At this early juncture (compliance with the revised rule became mandatory in October 2022), it may be premature for secondary market purchasers of residential mortgage loans to cite their sellers or servicers for substantive noncompliance with the revised QM rules if these entities have not developed robust written policies and procedures that show how they consider income, assets, and debt.

It may be more fruitful for the secondary market to focus on the actual file documentation itself and determine whether the creditors have satisfied the consider requirement by properly underwriting the loans in accordance with the requisite elements and documenting the file with the appropriate worksheets and other written evidence.

The creditor’s failure to maintain the general policies and procedures does not necessarily render the subject loans non-QM if the loan files are adequately underwritten and amply documented. Compliance with the new QM rules and the documentation of the consider requirement is still at a rudimentary stage, and the secondary market will have to periodically revisit the way it audits mortgage loans.

Oh Snap! CFPB Sues Fintech Company under CFPA and TILA

By

A&B Abstract:

On July 19, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued a Utah-based fintech company and several of its affiliates (the Company) for allegedly deceiving consumers and obscuring the terms of its financing agreements in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and other federal regulations.

The Allegations

The Company provides lease-to-own financing, through which consumers finance purchases from merchants though the Company’s “Purchase Agreements,” and, in turn, make payments back to the Company.  The Company allegedly provides the merchants with advertisement materials and involves them heavily in the application and contracting process.

According to the CFPB, the Company’s advertising and servicing efforts were deceptive.  As part of its marketing efforts, the Company allegedly provided its merchant partners with display advertisements that featured the phrase “100 Day Cash Payoff” without further explanation of the terms of financing.  Consumers who received financing from the Company reasonably believed they had entered into a 100-day financing agreement, where their automatically scheduled payments would fulfill their payment obligations after 100 days.  But, in fact, consumers had to affirmatively exercise the 100-day early payment discount option, and if they missed the deadline pay significantly more than the “cash” price under the terms of their Purchase Agreements.  Additionally, as part of its servicing efforts, the Company allegedly threatened consumers with collection actions that it does not bring.

From the CFPB’s perspective, these efforts constituted deceptive acts or practices under the CFPA.  The marketing efforts were deceptive because the Company’s use of this featured phrase was a (1) representation or practice; (2) material to consumers’ decision to take out financing; and (3) was likely to mislead reasonable consumers as to the nature of the financing agreement, while the servicing efforts were deceptive because the Company threatened actions it does not take.

The CFPB also alleges that the Company’s application and contracting process was abusive.  The Company allegedly designed and implemented a Merchant Portal application and contracting process that frequently resulted in merchants signing and submitting Purchase Agreements on behalf of consumers without the consumer’s prior review of the agreement.  Further, the Company relied on merchants to explain the terms of the agreements but provided them with no written guidance for doing so.  And as part of the process, the Company required consumers to pay a processing fee before receiving a summary of the terms of their agreement and before seeing or signing their final agreement.

Altogether, the CFPB views these acts and practices as abusive under the CFPA because they “materially interfered” with consumers’ ability to understand the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreements.

Lastly, the CFPB alleges that the Company’s Purchase Agreements did not meet TILA and its implementing Regulation Z’s disclosure requirements.  On this point, the CFPB is careful in alleging that the Purchase Agreements are not typical rent-to-own agreements to which TILA does not apply.  Rather, the CFPB alleges they are actually “credit sales” because the agreements permitted consumers to terminate only at the conclusion of an automatically renewing 60-day term, and only if consumers were current on their payment obligations through the end of that term.

Takeaways

This suit serves as a good reminder to every lending program to: (i) have counsel carefully vet all advertisements to ensure that they are not inadvertently deceptive or misleading to consumers; (ii) ensure that the mechanics of its application process facilitate rather than interfere with consumers’ ability to understand the terms and conditions; and (iii) consult with counsel regarding whether their agreements are subject to TILA and Regulation Z’s disclosure requirements.

Georgia, Florida, Connecticut Enact Commercial Financial Disclosure Laws

By ,

A&B Abstract:

Georgia, Florida, and Connecticut are among a growing list of states, including California, New York, Utah, and Virginia, that have enacted laws requiring consumer-style disclosures for commercial financing transactions. These laws are part of a burgeoning trend by state legislatures to impose burdensome disclosures, like those required by the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), on providers of small-balance commercial loans and financings. These laws apply to business-purpose transactions but not to transactions having a consumer, family, or household purpose.

The Georgia Law

On May 1, 2023, Georgia amended its Fair Business Practices Act to require certain providers of commercial financings of $500,000 or less to furnish various disclosures to small-business borrowers before the consummation of the transactions. The statute, known as Senate Bill 90, applies to covered commercial financings consummated on or after January 1, 2024.

The Georgia law requires providers of commercial credit in amounts of $500,000 or less to provide TILA-like disclosures to small-business borrowers before the consummation of the transaction but does not specify the time period. The Georgia law defines “provider” as “a person who consummates more than five commercial financing transactions” in Georgia during any calendar year, including participants in commercial purpose marketplace lending arrangements. “Commercial financing transactions” include both closed-end and open-end commercial loans as well as accounts receivable purchase transactions but do not include real-estate-secured transactions.

Exemptions

The Georgia law exempts federally insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, affiliates, and holding companies; Georgia-licensed money transmitters; captive finance companies; and institutions regulated by the federal Farm Credit Act. The law also exempts purchase money obligations.

Required Disclosures

The Georgia law requires providers of commercial financing transactions to furnish the following information prior to consummation:

  • Total funds provided to the business.
  • Total funds disbursed.
  • Total amount paid to the provider.
  • Total dollar cost of the transaction.
  • Payment schedule.
  • Costs associated with prepayment.

Penalties

Providers who violate these disclosure requirements face civil penalties ranging from $500 per violation to $20,000 with possible additional penalties for continued violations. Notably, violations do not affect the enforceability of the transactions, and there is no private right of action under the law.

The Florida Law

On June 26, 2023, Florida enacted the Florida Commercial Financing Disclosure Law, which requires covered providers to furnish consumer-oriented disclosures to businesses for certain commercial non-real-estate-secured financing transactions exceeding $500,000. The Florida law takes effect July 1, 2023 and becomes mandatory for transactions consummated on or after January 1, 2024.

The Florida law applies to providers of commercial financing transactions and defines “provider” as a “person who consummates more than five commercial financings” in Florida during any calendar year. “Commercial financing transactions” include commercial loans, open-end lines of credit, and accounts receivable purchase transactions. The Florida law exempts the following entities and transactions: federally insured depository institutions, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and holding companies; licensed money transmitters; real-estate-secured loans; loans exceeding $500,000; leases; and certain purchase money transactions.

Required Disclosures

The provider is required to disclose in writing the following at or before the consummation of a commercial financing transaction:

  • The total amount of funds provided to the business.
  • The total amount of funds disbursed to the business if less than the total amount of funds provided because of any fees deducted or withheld at disbursement and any amount paid to a third party on behalf of the business.
  • The total amount to be paid to the provider.
  • The total dollar cost of the commercial financing transaction, calculated by subtracting the total amount of funds provided from the total amount of the payments.
  • The manner, frequency, and amount of each payment or, if there are variable payments, an estimated initial payment and the methodology used for calculating it.
  • Certain information about prepayments.

Prohibited Acts

The Florida law prohibits a broker arranging a consumer financing transaction from engaging in any of the following acts:

  • Assessing, collecting, or soliciting an advance fee from a business to provide services to a broker. However, this prohibition would not preclude a broker from soliciting a business to pay for, or preclude a business from paying for, actual services necessary to apply for commercial financial products, such as a credit check or an appraisal of security, if certain conditions are met.
  • Making or using any false or misleading representations or omitting any material facts in the offer or sale of the services of a broker or engaging in any act that would “operate as fraud or deception upon any person in connection with the offer or sale of the services of the broker, notwithstanding the absence of reliance by the business.”
  • Making or using any false or deceptive representations in its business dealings.
  • Offering the services of a broker by any advertisement without disclosing the actual address and telephone number of the business of the broker.

Penalties 

Like the Georgia law, the Florida law punishes violations with civil fines ranging from $500 per incident to $20,000 with possible additional penalties for “aggregated violations.” Notably, violations do not impair the enforceability of the transactions or create a private right of action.

The Connecticut Law

On June 28, 2023, Connecticut enacted “An Act Requiring Certain Financing Disclosures,” which requires (1) lenders offering certain types of commercial purpose “sales-based financing” in amounts of $250,000 or less to provide specified consumer-like disclosures to applicants; and (2) mandates that lenders offering such credit register annually with the Connecticut Department of Banking starting by October 1, 2024. The Connecticut law authorizes the state banking commissioner to adopt promulgating regulations, and the law takes effect on July 1, 2024.

The Connecticut law applies to providers of commercial financings and defines “provider” as “a person who extends a specific offer of commercial financing to a recipient and includes, unless otherwise exempt … a commercial financing broker.”

“Commercial financing” means any extension of sales-based financing by a provider not exceeding $250,000. Under the statute, “sales-based financing” is a “transaction that is repaid by the recipient to the provider over time” (1) as a percentage of sales or revenue, in which the payment amount may increase or decrease according to the recipient’s sales or revenue, or (2) according to a fixed payment mechanism that provides for a reconciliation process that adjusts the payment to an amount that is a percentage of sales or revenue.

Notably, the Connecticut law exempts the following entities and transactions:

  • Banks, bank holding companies, credit unions, and their subsidiaries and affiliates.
  • Entities providing no more than five commercial financing transactions in a 12-month period.
  • Real-estate-secured loans.
  • Leases.
  • Purchase money obligations.
  • Technology service providers acting for an exempt entity as long as they do not have an interest in the entity’s program.
  • Transactions of $50,000 or more to motor vehicle dealers or rental companies.
  • Transactions offered in connection with the sale of a product that the person manufactures, licenses, or distributes.

Required Disclosures

The Connecticut law requires that before making a “specific offer” (i.e., a binding offer of credit) providers must furnish certain disclosures to borrowers, in a form prescribed by the state banking commissioner, including:

  • The total amount of the commercial financing.
  • The disbursement amount, which is the amount paid to the recipient or on the recipient’s behalf, excluding any finance charges that are deducted or withheld at disbursement.
  • The finance charge.
  • The total repayment amount, which is the disbursement amount plus the finance charge.
  • The estimated repayment period.
  • A payment schedule.
  • A description of fees not included in the finance charge such as draw fees, and late charges.
  • A description of any collateral requirements.
  • Information about brokerage compensation.

The Connecticut banking commissioner is expected to promulgate implementing regulations and model disclosures before the effective date of July 1, 2024.

Registration Requirement

The Connecticut law requires providers and brokers to register with the state banking commissioner by October 1, 2024 and to qualify to “do business” in the state. The registration must be renewed annually.

Penalties

The statute authorizes the banking commissioner to impose civil penalties of up to $100,000 for violations of the law as well as enjoin those violating the statute.

Takeaway

The three state laws recently enacted in Georgia, Florida, and Connecticut are part of a growing trend among states to regulate small-balance commercial non-real-estate-secured loans. The burdens imposed by the laws will be the lenders’ cross to bear unless they can avoid triggering the coverage of the statutes.

CFPB Issues Preemption Determination that State Commercial Financing Disclosure Laws Are Not Preempted By TILA

By ,

A&B Abstract:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently announced that it issued a final preemption determination concluding that certain state disclosure laws applicable to commercial financing transactions in California, New York, Utah, and Virginia are not preempted by the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). As covered in a previous post, we note that the California, Utah, and Virginia laws have already gone into effect, and New York’s is set to become effective on August 1, 2023.

State Commercial Lending Laws

After examining the state disclosure laws in California, New York, Utah, and Virginia, the CFPB recently affirmed that there is no conflict with TILA because the state laws extend disclosure protections to businesses seeking commercial financing, which are beyond the scope of TILA’s statutory consumer credit protections.  Specifically, the CFPB determined that TILA only preempts state laws under conflict preemption, which the CFPB interprets to mean that TILA preempts state laws only if they are “inconsistent” with TILA.

In California, New York, and Utah, state laws require lenders to issue disclosures in certain commercial financing transactions, the purpose of which is generally defined to mean primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes.  This is in contrast to TILA’s application to consumer credit, which is extended primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.  In December 2022, the CFPB made a preliminary determination that New York’s commercial financing disclosure law was not preempted by TILA because the state law regulates commercial financial transactions rather than consumer-purpose transactions.

In Virginia, disclosures are required in connection with “sales-based financing,” which is defined generally as a transaction in which the financing is repaid by the recipient based on a percentage of sales or revenue.  “Recipient” means a person whose principal place of business is in Virginia and that applies for sales-based financing and is made a specific offer of sales-based financing by a sales-based financing provider.  Based on these definitions, it appears that the Virginia law would not apply to a consumer credit transaction.  However, the CFPB generally noted that, to the extent state law could apply to a consumer credit transaction, there would still be no inconsistency with TILA.

Accordingly, the CFPB found that the four states’ commercial financing disclosure laws are not inconsistent with and, therefore, not preempted by the federal TILA.

Takeaway

As states continue to propose and enact similar laws requiring disclosures in commercial financing transactions, an argument that federal law preempts such state laws is unlikely to succeed.  Thus, companies should monitor ongoing state regulatory trends in commercial financing transactions to ensure compliance with the consumer-style disclosure requirements that may apply.

Alston & Bird Adds Consumer Finance Partner Aldys London in Washington, D.C.

By

Alston & Bird has strengthened and expanded its capabilities for advising companies on state and federal consumer finance regulatory compliance issues with the addition of partner Aldys London in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Her clients include mortgage companies, consumer finance and FinTech companies, secondary market investors, real estate companies, home builders, insurance companies, banks, and other financial institutions and settlement service providers.

“It’s a pleasure to welcome Aldys, who brings deep experience and a sterling reputation for counseling consumer financial service entities as they navigate complex regulatory issues, including licensing, the intersection of state and federal regulatory compliance, and key approvals for transactions,” said Nanci Weissgold, Alston & Bird partner and co-chair of the firm’s Financial Services & Products Group. “With our shared emphasis on collaboration and excellent service, we are confident that she will successfully draw on our firm’s vast resources and expertise to benefit her clients.”

London provides advice on state licensing for mortgage lenders and related service providers, mortgage brokers, FinTech companies, lead generators, servicers, debt collectors, and investors. She is well versed in federal registration and licensing requirements imposed by the SAFE Act, as well as state laws and regulations concerning fees, disclosures, loan documentation, interest rates, privacy, advertising, data breach, and telemarketing.  Her practice also covers seeking and maintaining approvals from state and federal agencies and GSEs.  She is adept at federal laws governing real estate mortgage transactions, including preemption, privacy, fair lending and consumer protection.

In addition, London assists a variety of consumer financial services companies in obtaining regulatory approvals for complex acquisitions, mergers, and asset transfer transactions. She performs due diligence reviews for proposed acquisitions and IPOs, reviews and prepares policies and procedures, conducts regulatory compliance audits of financial institutions, and assists with structuring and developing compliance and training programs. She also assists clients with responses to regulatory audits and investigations by state and federal regulators.

“Clients rely on Aldys’ sound counsel because of her technical rigor and thorough understanding of the consumer finance market,” said Stephen Ornstein, Alston & Bird partner and co-leader of the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Team. “Her legal skills, combined with her excellent business sense and ability to develop strong relationships, make her a valuable asset to our firm and our clients.”

Alston & Bird’s Consumer Financial Services Team focuses on the regulation of consumer credit and real estate, with a broad emphasis on origination, servicing, and secondary mortgage market transactions. This team addresses the compliance challenges of major Wall Street financial institutions, federal- and state-chartered depository institutions, hedge funds, private equity funds, national mortgage lenders and servicers, mortgage insurers, due diligence companies, ancillary service providers, and others.