Tag Archives: Fair Housing Act

Qualified Mortgage Fair Lending Concerns Quashed

Posted on by

Federal regulators (the FRB, CFPB, FDIC, NCUA and OCC) announced that “a creditor’s decision to offer only Qualified Mortgages would, absent other factors, elevate a supervised institution’s fair lending risk.” This announcement was intended to address lenders’ concerns that they could be stuck between a rock (QM regulations) and a hard place (fair lending requirements pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act). For instance, a lender might want to limit its risk of lawsuits relating to the mortgages it issues that could arise under a variety of state and federal consumer protection statutes by only issuing QMs only to find itself the defendant in a Fair Housing Act lawsuit that alleges that its lending practices had a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected class.

The five agencies issued an Interagency Statement on Fair Lending Compliance and the Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards Rule that gives some context for this guidance:

the Agencies recognize that some creditors’ existing business models are such that all of the loans they originate will already satisfy the requirements for Qualified Mortgages. For instance, a creditor that has decided to restrict its mortgage lending only to loans that are purchasable on the secondary market might find that — in the current market — its loans are Qualified Mortgages under the transition provision that gives Qualified Mortgage status to most loans that are eligible for purchase, guarantee, or insurance by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or certain federal agency programs.

With respect to any fair lending risk, the situation here is not substantially different from what creditors have historically faced in developing product offerings or responding to regulatory or market changes. The decisions creditors will make about their product offerings in response to the Ability-to-Repay Rule are similar to the decisions that creditors have made in the past with regard to other significant regulatory changes affecting particular types of loans. Some creditors, for example, decided not to offer “higher-priced mortgage loans” after July 2008, following the adoption of various rules regulating these loans or previously decided not to offer loans subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act after regulations to implement that statute were first adopted in 1995. We are unaware of any ECOA or Regulation B challenges to those decisions. Creditors should continue to evaluate fair lending risk as they would for other types of product selections, including by carefully monitoring their policies and practices and implementing effective compliance management systems. As with any other compliance matter, individual cases will be evaluated on their own merits. (2-3)

 Lenders and their representatives have raised this issue as a significant obstacle to a vibrant residential mortgage market. This interagency statement should put this concern to rest.

Racial Discrimination in the Secondary Mortgage Market

Posted on by

Judge Baer issued an opinion in Adkins et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al., No 1:12-cv-07667 (July 25, 2013), denying Morgan Stanley’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff-homeowners’ Fair Housing Act claims. The homeowners claimed “that Morgan Stanley’s policies and practices caused New Century Mortgage Company to target borrowers in the Detroit, Michigan region for loans that had a disparate impact upon African-Americans” in violation of the FHA. (1)

The Court found that the plaintiffs met their pleading burden sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss:

First, they have identified the policy that they allege has a disproportionate impact on minorities.  That policy consisted of Morgan Stanley

(1) routinely purchasing both stated income loans and loans with unreasonably high debt-to-income ratios,

(2) routinely purchasing loans with unreasonably high loan-to-value ratios,

(3) requiring that New Century’s loans include adjustable rates and prepayment penalties as well as purchasing loans with other high-risk features,

(4) providing necessary funding to New Century, and

(5) purchasing loans that deviated from basic underwriting standards.

Plaintiffs go on to state that these policies resulted in “New Century aggressively target[ing] African-American borrowers and communities . . . for the Combined-Risk Loans.”  (Compl. ¶ 81.) Indeed, Plaintiffs allege in detail the effect that New Century’s lending had upon the African-American community in the Detroit area. (Compl. ¶¶ 115–122).  That lending, according to Plaintiffs, was a direct result of Morgan Stanley’s policies.  And while Plaintiffs do not allege that they qualified for better loans, they allege discrimination based only upon the receipt of these predatory, toxic loans that placed them at high financial risk.  These risks exist regardless of Plaintiffs’ qualifications.  On a motion to dismiss, these allegations are sufficient to demonstrate a disparate impact. (11)

The opinion goes farther afield than the questions presented at points. For instance, Judge Baer writes,

Detroit’s recent bankruptcy filing only emphasizes the broader consequences of predatory lending and the foreclosures that inevitably result.  Indeed, “[b]y 2012, banks had foreclosed on 100,000 homes [in Detroit], which drove down the city’s total real estate value by 30 percent and spurred a mass exodus of nearly a quarter million people.”  Laura Gottesdiener, Detroit’s Debt Crisis:  Everything Must Go, Rolling Stone, June 20, 2013.  The resulting blight stemming from “60,000 parcels of vacant land” and “78,000 vacant structures, of which 38,000 are estimated to be in potentially dangerous condition” has further strained Detroit’s already taxed resources.  Kevyn D. Orr, Financial and Operating Plan 9 (2013).  And as residents flee the city, Detroit’s shrinking ratepayer base renders its financial outlook even bleaker.  Id.  Given these conditions, it is not difficult to conclude that Detroit’s current predicament, at least in part, is an outgrowth of the predatory lending at issue here.  See Monica Davey & Mary Williams Walsh, Billions in Debt, Detroit Tumbles Into Insolvency, N.Y. Times, July 18, 2013, at A1 (listing Detroit’s “shrunken tax base but still a huge, 139-square-mile city to maintain” as one factor contributing to the city’s financial woes). (3-4)

This kind of judicial history does not seem to speak to the legal issue at hand and may negatively impact its reception on appeal. Furthermore, all Fair Housing Act cases will be impacted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. for which it has recently granted cert. In that case, the Supreme Court will decide whether disparate impact is a cognizable claim under the Fair Housing Act.

But, whatever happens in the future, Adkins proceeds apace for now.