Author - admin

1
HUD’s Proposed Fair Lending Rule: Deadline for Comments
2
CFPB and Other Federal Banking Agencies Issue Joint Supervisory Statement Clarifying $10 Billion Asset Determination: Regulatory Uncertainty Remains
3
When Trying Title Becomes Trying: The Impact of Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez on Massachusetts Foreclosure Law
4
California Governor Vetoes Burdensome Payroll Card Bill
5
No posts on Personal Property Financing yet. Check back soon.

HUD’s Proposed Fair Lending Rule: Deadline for Comments

By: Melissa S. Malpass

On November 16, 2011 the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) released a proposed rule to establish that proof of intentional discrimination is not necessary to establish a violation of the Fair Housing Act, and that a violation may be established under a disparate impact approach. HUD’s proposal makes clear the intention of the agency to apply this new approach to lenders. In describing policies “that may have a disparate impact,” the proposal references: “mortgage pricing policies that give lenders or brokers discretion to impose additional charges or higher interest rates unrelated to a borrower’s creditworthiness” and “credit scoring overrides provided by a purchaser of loans.” Read More

CFPB and Other Federal Banking Agencies Issue Joint Supervisory Statement Clarifying $10 Billion Asset Determination: Regulatory Uncertainty Remains

By: Andrew Caplan* and Stephanie C. Robinson
*Mr. Caplan is not yet admitted to practice; admission to the NY Bar pending.

The Dodd-Frank Act gives the CFPB exclusive supervisory authority and primary enforcement authority of federal consumer financial protection laws over depository institutions with total assets greater than $10 billion and their affiliates (“Large Institutions”). Under Dodd-Frank, the federal banking agencies maintain supervisory and enforcement authority over other institutions with respect to federal consumer financial protection laws. On November 17, 2011, the federal banking agencies and the CFPB issued a joint supervisory statement delineating how and when these Agencies will determine the total assets of an insured depository institution or an insured credit union for purposes of their supervisory and enforcement responsibilities. This is because sections 1025 and 1026 Dodd-Frank, which establish the basic threshold regarding who will regulate whom, do not specify how and when an institution’s assets are assessed for purposes of determining “Large Institution” status. That task was left to the Agencies themselves to determine.

Read More

When Trying Title Becomes Trying: The Impact of Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez on Massachusetts Foreclosure Law

By: R. Bruce Allensworth, Andrew C. Glass, Roger L. Smerage

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has ruled that Massachusetts property owners may lack standing to establish title to their property where there is a void foreclosure sale in the chain of title. The Massachusetts “try title” statute permits a holder of “record title” in possession of property to file a petition to force adverse claimants to defend their purported interest in the property. In Bevilacqua v. Rodriguez, the SJC held that a third-party purchaser of foreclosed property did not hold record title where no assignment of mortgage to the foreclosing entity had occurred at the time of foreclosure. Absent such an assignment, the foreclosure sale was invalid, and the foreclosing entity had nothing to convey to the third-party purchaser. Taking nothing from the foreclosing entity, the third-party purchaser lacked standing to maintain a try title action against the original mortgagor. Nonetheless, the scope of the ruling is likely limited to Massachusetts and jurisdictions where a mortgagee or its assigns must initiate foreclosure and where the party bringing the foreclosure action did not obtain an assignment of the mortgage until after the commencement of the foreclosure process. Moreover, because the Bevilacqua decision simply applies the law as already articulated by the SJC in its January 2011 U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez  opinion, its impact on current and ongoing foreclosure practices appears limited. Massachusetts foreclosure attorneys are likely to have already altered their assignment practices in light of Ibanez.

To view the complete alert online, click here.

California Governor Vetoes Burdensome Payroll Card Bill

By: David L. Beam, Steven M. Kaplan, Kathryn M. Baugher

The effort to impose demanding new requirements on payroll cards in California just lost some steam. On Sunday, October 9, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have imposed an onerous set of requirements and restrictions on employers who want to pay employees by payroll card (and, by extension, the financial institutions that provide payroll card programs to employers). The provisions of the Bill were vastly more burdensome than the requirements imposed by federal law and many other state wage and hour laws. Fortunately, Governor Brown recognized that the Bill went too far.

To view the complete alert online, click here.

Copyright © 2023, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.