CFPB Issues Supervisory Highlights
The Fall 2012 Highlights state that the Bureau will have three guiding principles
1. Focused on consumers;
2. Driven by data; and
3. Examinations conducted consistently across sectors.
The Bureau found that effective systems to ensure compliance with Federal consumer financial law were lacking in one or more financial institutions. (p. 3)
The Bureau also discovered “numerous violations of Federal consumer financial law.” (p. 7)
In particular, the Bureau noted significant examples of non-compliance with RESPA, TILA and HMDA. (p. 13)
The complete document is here: [link]
November 10, 2012 | Permalink | No Comments
November 9, 2012
Federal Prosecutors Sue Bank of America Over Mortgage Program
Ben Protess reports that federal prosecutors in New York sued Bank of America on Wednesday, accusing it of carrying out a mortgage scheme that defrauded the government during the depths of the financial crisis. Ben Protess, Federal Prosecutors Sue Bank of America Over Mortgage Program, The New York Times Deal Book (Oct. 24, 2012)
November 9, 2012 | Permalink | No Comments
Florida Appellate Court Holds that a “Non-Holder” does not have Standing
In Cutler v. U.S. Bank National Association, ____ So.3d ____ (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2012), a Florida Appellate court held that if a bank could not establish that it was the holder of the mortgage note or allonge, which took effect prior to the date of the complaint, it did not have standing to bring a foreclosure claim.
November 9, 2012 | Permalink | No Comments
New York County Court Dismisses Banks Foreclosure Action
In US Bank National Association v. Combs, No.8481 (NYSC Queens Oct. 2, 2012), the court dismissed plaintiff bank”s foreclosure action because a plaintiff in foreclosure action in New York must be both the holder or assignee of the subject mortgage as well as the holder or assignee of the underlying note. US Bank had possession of the note, but did not present evidence to demonstrate how or when it became the lawful holder of the note. MERS”s assignment of the mortgage was a nullity because plaintiff did not show that MERS had authority as nominee of the original lender to assign the note, and a transfer of an obligation without the note is a nullity.
November 9, 2012 | Permalink | No Comments
