Do not be fooled by its title: the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) reaches far beyond the realm of credit reporting and governs a broad spectrum of industries. Indeed, the provisions of FCRA apply to any business entity that seeks to use a “consumer report” – which broadly includes anything from a credit report to a criminal or even motor vehicle background check – for any “employment purposes” (among other purposes).
On February 28, 2014 the Department of Labor, represented by the Solicitor General, petitioned for Supreme Court review of an appellate decision invalidating a 2010 DOL administrative ruling that determined mortgage loan officers generally do not qualify for the administrative exemption from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
By: Irene C. Freidel
Providing clarity in an area of law that had become increasingly muddled over the last two decades, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held on November 27, 2013 that HUD’s 1996 policy statement setting forth a so-called “10-factor test” to determine whether an affiliated business arrangement (“ABA”) is bona fide or a sham is not entitled to deference (“1996 Policy Statement”).
Last week, the CFPB announced the filing of a complaint and proposed consent order with a North Carolina-based private mortgage insurer, Republic Mortgage Insurance Corporation (“RMIC”), which echoes previous enforcement positions taken years ago by HUD and state regulators.
By: Kristie D. Kully
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a settlement with Castle & Cook Mortgage and two of its officers. The CFPB brought an action against Castle & Cook and those officers, alleging that they violated the prohibition against loan-term based compensation under the Dodd-Frank Act and its regulations. On November 7, 2013, the parties to the action proposed a settlement to the federal court in Utah for the payment by the company and the officers of over $9 million for redress to affected consumers, plus a $4 million civil money penalty.
By: David L. Beam, Christopher Shelton*
*Mr. Shelton is a law clerk and not admitted to the practice of law.
The Internet has been with us for about two decades, and financial service companies have been offering products over the Internet for nearly as long. One would have thought that there would be final resolution by now on the question of whether, and under what circumstances, a state may regulate an online lender with no physical presence in the state. However, this issue continues to be a thorny one.
On September 3, 2013, K&L Gates LLP filed a brief as amici curiae before the United States Supreme Court in Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., a case in which the Court will consider whether the Fair Housing Act recognizes a disparate-impact theory of liability.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) recently elaborated on some of the factors it will consider in determining what actions to bring, if any, against those subject to its enforcement authority.
Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the appeal titled Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al., No. 11-1507, agreeing to consider whether the Fair Housing Act allows claims under the disparate impact theory of discrimination.
Have you been wondering whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) is focusing its enforcement efforts on the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA” or “Act”)?
In an increasingly complex battle among the branches of the federal government, the Solicitor General recently urged the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in the appeal titled Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al., No. 11-1507.
For those who wondered how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “Bureau”) would seek to convert portions of the global foreclosure settlement into federal law, last Friday’s proposed servicing rules provide an answer.
By: Holly K. Towle
In 2010 we reported on the “Wave of Online Banking Fraud Targeting Businesses” that use online banking relationships to make electronic fund transfers by wire or ACH
Must a consumer suffer actual harm to sue the settlement service providers involved in his or her real estate mortgage transaction for engaging in activities that violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), or is the mere allegation of a statutory violation sufficient to get the consumer into court?
By: Phoebe S. Winder
In a long-anticipated decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) ruled in Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Ass’n, 2012 WL 2349008 (June 22, 2012) (“Eaton”) that when conducting a non-judicial foreclosure in Massachusetts, a foreclosing entity must not only hold the mortgage – it also must hold the note or be authorized to act on behalf of the note holder.
The Department of Justice recently announced a $21 million settlement with SunTrust Mortgage over allegations that SunTrust’s neutral and non-discriminatory policy of granting loan originators discretionary pricing authority somehow resulted in loans to minority borrowers to be priced higher than loans to White borrowers
By: Holly Spencer Bunting, Phillip L. Schulman
The split in the federal Circuit Courts over the interpretation of Section 8(b) of RESPA has been resolved, and the result is that it takes two to tango for a Section 8(b) violation.
Buried deep in the 40-plus pages of “Servicing Standards” that are part of the recently announced global foreclosure settlement agreement (the “Agreement”) are two bullets on a topic that could impact thousands: tenants’ rights.
At what point is it appropriate after a borrower defaults to initiate foreclosure proceedings? As soon as the borrower defaults?
Given the reported violations of the provisions of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) by some servicers, and the attendant enforcement and civil actions against those servicers, state and federal regulators clearly felt compelled to impose significant SCRA-related requirements on the nation’s five largest residential mortgage loan servicers (the “Servicers”) in the recent global settlement agreements (the “Agreements”) entered into between those regulators and Servicers, described here.
By: Kristie D. Kully
The servicing standards imposed on the five largest mortgage loan servicers by the recent global settlement agreement with state and federal regulators, described here, continue to pile on the “SPOC” requirements.
As scrutiny of default servicing practices provided significant impetus for the recently announced global foreclosure settlement agreement (the “Agreement”), it is no surprise that the Agreement prescribes extensive standards to resolve issues with these practices.
To split an unearned fee or not to split an unearned fee in order to violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) – that is the question.
A Massachusetts federal court recently confirmed MERS’s ability to assign mortgages under Massachusetts law and approved MERS’s practices in doing so.
In Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services, — F. Supp. 2d —-, 2011 WL 5925525 (D. Mass. Nov. 28, 2011), a borrower sued her loan servicer to prevent foreclosure.