Catagory:Mortgage Servicing

1
LIGHT READING FOR THE DOG DAYS OF SUMMER: CFPB FINALIZES AMENDMENTS TO MORTGAGE SERVICING REGULATIONS
2
It’s Time For An Upgrade — Outdated Technology Puts Mortgages Servicers At Risk For Increased CFPB Scrutiny and Potential Servicing Violations
3
More To Know About “Know Before You Owe”: CFPB Acknowledges TRID Challenges and Announces July 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
4
Mortgage Lenders, Holders, and Servicers Beware: Massachusetts High Court Endorses Condominium Association’s Super Lien Practice
5
Webinar: The Mortgage Lifecycle: Litigation Hotspots From Origination Through Foreclosure
6
Will Assignee Liability Increase as FTC Seeks Comments on the Holder Rule?
7
GSEs Release Revised Framework for Origination Defects and Remedies — The Proof Will Be in the Execution
8
HUD Withdraws Proposal to Establish Claim Filing Deadline
9
Push Them Back, Shove Them Back, Way Back
10
Key Takeaways From the CFPB’s and DOJ’s Redlining Settlement With Hudson City Savings Bank

LIGHT READING FOR THE DOG DAYS OF SUMMER: CFPB FINALIZES AMENDMENTS TO MORTGAGE SERVICING REGULATIONS

By Brian M. Forbes, Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Robert W. Sparkes III and Matthew N. Lowe

On August 4, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued its final rule setting forth amendments and clarifications to mortgage servicing regulations. These changes follow a prior round of revisions to mortgage servicing regulations that went into effect in January 2014. Since proposing the amendments to the regulations in November 2014, the CFPB received and reviewed hundreds of comments. At just over 900 pages in length, the final rule addresses numerous areas of mortgage servicing, including the following:

Read More

It’s Time For An Upgrade — Outdated Technology Puts Mortgages Servicers At Risk For Increased CFPB Scrutiny and Potential Servicing Violations

By Brian M. Forbes, Soyong Cho, and Hollee M. Watson

More than two years have passed since the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) implemented comprehensive amendments to the loan servicing provisions of Regulation X. Mortgage servicers have had to invest in technology and human capital to keep up with new regulatory requirements while saddled with expanded duties to respond to borrower inquires, disputes, and requests for information, in addition to new and extensive loss mitigation requirements. Outdated technology has put servicers at risk for increased enforcement and litigation issues. But, as the CFPB has noted, the problems are not “insurmountable.”

Read More

More To Know About “Know Before You Owe”: CFPB Acknowledges TRID Challenges and Announces July 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

By Jennifer Janeira Nagle and Hollee Watson

The TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule (“TRID”) went into effect on October 3, 2015, and has posed significant implementation challenges industry-wide. Those challenges have been articulated to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) by industry participants, trade groups, and congressional leaders alike. In response, the CFPB has issued guidance in the form of letters, webinars, educational videos, guides, and factsheets. Notwithstanding this informal guidance, and despite the CFPB’s assurances that its initial compliance examinations would be “diagnostic and corrective, not punitive,” see December 29, 2015 Letter from CFPB Director Richard Cordray to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the mortgage industry continues to experience uncertainty and risk in its efforts to implement TRID’s sweeping changes to TILA and RESPA. See January 29, 2016 Mortgage Industry Trade Group Letter to CFPB; March 11, 2016 Sen. Bob Corker Letter to CFPB.

In the wake of pressure for more formal guidance, the CFPB recently announced that it will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) on TRID in late July. In an April 28, 2016 letter to mortgage industry trade groups, Director Richard Cordray acknowledged that “the implementation of the Know Before You Owe rule poses many operational challenges” and that “there are places in the regulation text and commentary where adjustments would be useful for greater certainty and clarity.”

Read More

Mortgage Lenders, Holders, and Servicers Beware: Massachusetts High Court Endorses Condominium Association’s Super Lien Practice

By Sean R. Higgins, Morgan T. Nickerson and Joshua Butera

In a decision that should be read as a warning to mortgage industry participants doing business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the state’s high court has validated a condominium associations’ so-called “rolling” priority lien practice, placing prior-recorded first mortgages at risk. In Drummer Boy Homes Association, Inc. v. Britton, SJC-11969 (Mass. Mar. 29, 2016), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that there is no limit to the number of priority liens available to condominium associations and/or community associations for unpaid common expenses, ignoring the rights of first mortgage holders. Prior to Drummer Boy, Massachusetts courts had largely held that condominium associations were limited to a single priority lien for six months of unpaid common expenses. The SJC broke with prior decisions and held that a condominium association can enforce multiple priority liens for successive six-month periods based upon language added to the Massachusetts Condominium Act, General Laws, Chapter 183A (“Chapter 183A”) in 1998. In short, following Drummer Boy, any prior-recorded first mortgages may become junior to unlimited condominium association liens for unpaid common expenses.

To read the full alert, click here.

Webinar: The Mortgage Lifecycle: Litigation Hotspots From Origination Through Foreclosure

Please join a group of our seasoned Financial Institutions and Services Litigation attorneys for a webinar addressing hot litigation topics concerning residential mortgages. We will begin with loan origination, navigate through loan servicing, and end with foreclosure and loan termination. Along the way, we will touch upon litigation arising from various consumer protection statutes, as well as notable common law claims. The webinar will wrap up with our thoughts on anticipated litigation trends and time for Q&A.

Read More

Will Assignee Liability Increase as FTC Seeks Comments on the Holder Rule?

The “Adam’s Rib” of assignee liability ̶ the “Holder Rule” issued by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in 1976 ̶ is up for review. Imposing liability on innocent purchasers of consumer credit loans for the legal violations of the originating creditors has long been a controversial issue in the capital markets. The FTC is seeking public input as it reviews the Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses, commonly known as the Holder Rule. Although the Rule has not garnered significant attention over its 40-year existence, industry members should consider commenting by the February 12 deadline. Changes to the Holder Rule, including the scope and types of claims and defenses that can be asserted against a holder, could have a material impact on the market. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can also enforce the Holder Rule against covered institutions.

GSEs Release Revised Framework for Origination Defects and Remedies — The Proof Will Be in the Execution

By: Laurence E. Platt, Jennifer A. Overall

By recently releasing yet another revised representation and warranty framework, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continued their efforts to assuage the concerns of the lending industry that a default by a borrower poses an unfair risk of a loan repurchase demand.  On October 7, 2015, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”), at the direction of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), announced a framework for  origination defects and remedies (the “Framework”) that expands on existing frameworks governing the rights and responsibilities of lenders that sell or securitize loans to or with the GSEs.  For example, permitting repricing or cure in lieu of the remedy of repurchase represents a concession by the GSEs.  Nevertheless, the language of the new Framework is ambiguous enough that one may have to rely on the GSEs’ apparent spirit of good intentions rather than the precision of their language to take total comfort in the changes.

To read the full alert, click here.

HUD Withdraws Proposal to Establish Claim Filing Deadline

By: Krista Cooley, Kathryn Baugher

Servicers of mortgage loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) can breathe a sigh of relief—at least for now. Today, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) withdrew part of a recently proposed regulation that would have required FHA-approved servicers to file a claim for FHA insurance benefits within a certain period of time or else face termination of the FHA insurance policy. HUD stated that it withdrew the proposal to establish a claim filing deadline “[i]n response to public comments expressing concern over the implementation of the proposed provisions[.]”

Read More

Push Them Back, Shove Them Back, Way Back

By: Laurence E. Platt

From the October 2015 issue of Mortgage Banking magazine, with permission from the Mortgage Bankers Associate (MBA).

Despite the opposition of major consumer and industry groups, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the proposed Uniform Home Foreclosure Procedures Act in July. There is much to like in the Act, such as limiting local governments from regulating foreclosures, expediting foreclosures for abandoned properties and extinguishing junior liens in short sales. Outweighing these potential benefits, however, are the likely material delays in, and increased costs of, foreclosure resulting from the imposition of “foreclosure resolution” requirements and assignee liability for origination errors. Individual state legislatures must now evaluate whether to enact the Act in whole, in part or not at all, in light of the anticipated active opposition from stakeholders.

To read the article, click here.

Key Takeaways From the CFPB’s and DOJ’s Redlining Settlement With Hudson City Savings Bank

By: Melanie Brody, Anjali Garg

On Thursday, September 24, 2015, the CFPB and DOJ filed a complaint and proposed consent order against Hudson City Savings Bank (“Hudson City”) alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act. The complaint alleges that Hudson City discriminated against Black and Hispanic borrowers by redlining majority-Black-and-Hispanic neighborhoods (defined in the consent order as a census tract in which more than 50 percent of the residents are identified in the 2010 U.S. Census as either “Black or African American” or “Hispanic or Latino”) in its residential mortgage lending in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that Hudson City engaged in redlining through its (1) location of branches and loan officers, (2) exclusion of Black and Hispanic census tracts from its Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) assessment area, (3) use of brokers outside of majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, (4) marketing directed at neighborhoods with relatively few minority residents, and (5) exclusion of residents from majority-minority counties from discounted home improvement loans for borrowers with low to moderate incomes.

Read More

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