On behalf of the American Bankers Association and state bankers associations across the country, K&L Gates partner Paul F. Hancock and associate Olivia Kelman crafted a comment that was submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD” or “Department”) on August 20, 2018, in support of reopening rulemaking regarding the Department’s implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s disparate impact standard. On June 20, 2018, HUD issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that sought public comment on possible amendments to the Department’s 2013 final disparate impact rule in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015). In that decision, the Supreme Court articulated the standards for, and the constitutional limitations on, disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. The comment explains that the rule should be amended because it adopts standards that are inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, fails to provide much needed guidance to entities seeking to comply with the law, and is therefore outdated and ineffective. A copy of the comment is available here.
The CFPB wants to get to know you – well. But it’s not a prelude to a kiss.
On January 12, 2012, the CFPB released its new Mortgage Origination Examination Procedures Governing Banks and Nonbanks (the “Procedures”). The release of the Procedures follows close on the heels of the CFPB’s October 13, 2011 release of its mortgage servicing examination procedures (see The CFPB Mortgage Servicing Examination Procedures Fail to Harmonize – Isn’t It Ironic? ), and its January 5, 2012 announcement of its nonbank supervision program (see CFPB Officially Launches Nonbank Supervision Program). Read More
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