Catagory:Mortgage Servicing

1
Protecting the Protectors – the Global Settlement Agreements’ SCRA Provisions
2
Vendor Management Standards in the Global Foreclosure Settlement
3
Global Servicing Settlement Requires Single Points of Contact (“SPOCs”)
4
Global Foreclosure Settlement Servicing Standards: Customer Complaint Provisions
5
How the Global Foreclosure Settlement Agreement Impacts Servicing Fees
6
FinCEN Extends Anti-Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements to Non-Bank Residential Mortgage Lenders and Originators
7
Treasury Offers Triple Investor Incentives for Principal Reductions
8
Administration’s Proposed Refinancing Plan for Non-GSE Loans Is Illusory
9
MERS and Foreclosure Law in Massachusetts: Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services
10
New Obstacles on the Course: State Foreclosure Laws Continue to Complicate Mortgage Loan Servicing

Protecting the Protectors – the Global Settlement Agreements’ SCRA Provisions

By: Jonathan D. Jaffe

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. Read More

Vendor Management Standards in the Global Foreclosure Settlement

By: David A. Tallman

The alleged failure of servicers to adequately supervise the activities of their foreclosure and loss mitigation vendors and other service providers is one of the central criticisms levelled by federal and state regulators against residential mortgage servicers. The regulators assert that skyrocketing foreclosure volumes caused key vendors – including foreclosure firms, bankruptcy attorneys, and document custodians – to take shortcuts. Moreover, with respect to the management and execution of legal documents, regulators assert that servicers failed to adequately supervise the activities of their foreclosure and loss mitigation vendors and other service providers. According to the regulators, servicers were not sufficiently equipped to track the movement of original documents, verify that affidavits and declarations filed in foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings were factually accurate and correctly executed, or ensure that the vendors otherwise performed their services in compliance with applicable law. Read More

Global Servicing Settlement Requires Single Points of Contact (“SPOCs”)

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. “SPOC” stands for a single point of contact – a knowledgeable and accessible person a troubled borrower may contact to receive information and assistance in the loss mitigation, loan modification, and foreclosure process. SPOCs may do little to resolve the foreclosure documentation irregularities that sparked state and federal regulators to initiate their investigation. However, they have been touted as key to the efforts for national servicing standards, and are an inevitable adjunct to the global settlement agreement.

Read More

Global Foreclosure Settlement Servicing Standards: Customer Complaint Provisions

By: Melanie Hibbs Brody

In many financial service relationships, dissatisfied customers can solve ongoing customer service deficiencies by simply taking their business to a competing provider. Mortgage borrowers, however, are generally stuck with the company that services their loan, unless they are willing and able to refinance. This inability to “fire” loan servicers for poor performance, combined with the fact that mortgage servicing errors can cause serious harm – up to and including the loss of a home – has motivated government officials to impose loan servicing complaint resolution requirements whenever an opportunity arises. Read More

How the Global Foreclosure Settlement Agreement Impacts Servicing Fees

By: Nanci L. Weissgold, Morey E. Barnes Yost

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. Based upon the Servicing Standards announced as part of the Agreement, one major area of focus will be the fees that mortgage loan servicers charge in connection with servicing loans. Read More

FinCEN Extends Anti-Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements to Non-Bank Residential Mortgage Lenders and Originators

By: András P. Teleki, Kathryn S. Williams

Residential mortgage lenders and originators (RMLOs — known as “mortgage companies” and “mortgage brokers” but not individual loan originators) now are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act’s (BSA) anti-money laundering regime pursuant to a long expected new regulation published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2012 by FinCEN, a part of Treasury that implements the U.S.’s anti-money laundering regime. Under the new rules, RMLOs are required to develop and implement an anti-money laundering program (AML Program) and begin suspicious activity reporting (SAR Filings) by August 13, 2012. Read More

Treasury Offers Triple Investor Incentives for Principal Reductions

By: Eric J. Edwardson, Kerri M. Smith

In January, Treasury announced significantly enhanced payments to encourage investors to consider or expand principal reduction modifications under HAMP. To effectuate this change, Treasury issued Supplemental Directive 12-01 on February 16, 2012, tripling the investor incentives that can be earned for permanent modifications under HAMP’s Principal Reduction Alternative Program, known as PRA, for loans with trial period plan effective dates on or after March 1, 2012. Few of the existing HAMP incentives have enjoyed the market success desired, and only time will tell whether this initiative is more fully embraced. Read More

Administration’s Proposed Refinancing Plan for Non-GSE Loans Is Illusory

By: Laurence E. Platt

The Administration’s newly announced plan to provide low cost refinancings to underwater, current borrowers whose residential mortgage loans are not owned or securitized by the GSEs is high on hope and low on likelihood of success. The plan creates a form of a “streamlined” refinancing on a stated income basis and without an appraisal. Eligibility criteria include that the loan to be refinanced has been current for the past six months, the borrower must meet a minimum credit score of 580 and be an owner-occupant and the new loan must fall within FHA loan limits and a to-be-determined high loan to value ratio. Holders may need to write down principal of the existing loan if the LTV exceeds a certain percentage in excess of 100%, much like the wildly unsuccessful 2010 FHA Short Refinance program. Read More

MERS and Foreclosure Law in Massachusetts: Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services

By: Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Roger L. Smerage

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. The court granted summary judgment for the servicer, addressing two principal issues. First, the court examined whether Massachusetts law requires that the same entity hold both the note and mortgage before initiating the foreclosure process. Predicting how the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may rule in a pending appeal, Eaton v. Federal National Mortgage Association, SJC-11041 (argued Oct. 3, 2011), the federal court concluded that under Massachusetts law, the mortgagee must either be the noteholder, or the servicer of the noteholder acting pursuant to authority from the noteholder, to foreclose on property pursuant to the power of sale. Read More

New Obstacles on the Course: State Foreclosure Laws Continue to Complicate Mortgage Loan Servicing

By: Nanci L. Weissgold and Morey E. Barnes Yost

It is no secret that the housing crisis is a drag on the economy for which there appears to be no quick and easy fix.  President Obama’s recent announcement that his administration would revise the underutilized Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”) in the hopes of assisting underwater borrowers was the latest federal effort to assist homeowners during the ongoing financial crisis.  As has been the case with each previous federal effort, the HARP announcement comes on the heels of ever more inventive – and, for servicers, expensive – state and local legislative initiatives with the same ends. 

To view the complete alert online, click here.

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