Tag Archives: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

Troubles with TRID

Posted on by

"The Trouble with Tribbles" Stark Trek Episode

Law360 quoted me in Rule-Driven Home Sale Slump Could Be Temporary. It reads, in part,

A slump in existing home sales in November can be traced to the implementation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau mortgage closing regime, although experts say that most of the closing delays could ease as the industry and consumers get more comfortable with the new rules.

The National Association of Realtors released a report Tuesday saying that while a continued lack of inventory of existing homes for sale and other factors helped drive down the number of completed home sales in November, the number of signed contracts for home purchases remained relatively constant. With that in mind, the Realtors pointed to the CFPB’s TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule, which combined two key mortgage disclosure forms and went into effect in October, as the reason for the slowdown.

That slowdown was anticipated because real estate agents and lenders had reported difficulties in complying with the rule, which combined closing forms required by the Truth In Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, prior to it coming into effect. However, experts say that the closing delays are likely to decrease as the industry understands the rule better and technology to comply with it improves.

“It’s like a python swallowing a boar … the boar has to work its way through the python,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

The National Association of Realtors reported that existing home sales slumped to 4.76 million nationwide in November from 5.32 million in October, a fall of 10.5 percent. That October figure was also revised down from an initial estimate of 5.36 million.

The November figure was also down from the 4.95 million existing sales figure from the same period last year, and put total existing home sales 3.8 percent behind the total from last year, the National Association of Realtors said.

While the real estate industry group cited the usual factors of tight supply and inflated prices in many regions of the country as a reason for the slowdown in existing home sales, it also cited the TRID rule’s implementation as a reason for the slump.

*     *     *

Most lenders, real estate agents and other market participants had already begun to factor in the new TRID requirements in the closing process, adding 15 days to the usual 30-day closing process, said Richard J. Andreano, a partner at Ballard Spahr LLP.

“When I saw the November drop, I thought that was a natural consequence of correct planning,” he said.

Despite the slowdown, Yun said in the NAR release that because contracts were signed and the problems came down to issues with closing.

“As long as closing time frames don’t rise even further, it’s likely more sales will register to this month’s total, and November’s large dip will be more of an outlier,” he said.

The CFPB, Reiss and Andreano all agreed that at least some of the delays will work out of the system as the industry gets more accustomed to TRID’s changes.

“The ones that have adjusted have done it by adding a lot of staff, either reallocating or hiring and assigning them to the closing process to get it done,” Andreano said.

And the delays that remain may not be a bad thing, Reiss said.

“It really keeps consumers from being surprised at the closing table. This gives a little bit more time to the consumer where they’re not getting waylaid,” he said.

CFPB Mortgage Highlights Fall ’15

Posted on by

Mike Licht

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its Fall 2015 Supervisory Highlights. In the context of mortgage origination, the CFPB found that

supervised entities, in general, effectively implemented and demonstrated compliance with the rule changes, there were instances of non-compliance with certain [rules] . . .. There were also findings of violations of disclosure requirements pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), implemented by Regulation X; the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), implemented by Regulation Z; and consumer financial privacy rules, implemented by Regulation P. (9, footnotes and sources omitted).

Specifically, it found that one or more entities failed to

  • “fully comply with the requirement that charges at settlement not exceed amounts on the good faith estimate by more than specified tolerances.” (10)
  • comply with the regulations governing HUD-1 settlement statements because of fees on the HUD-1 did match those on invoices; improper calculations on the HUD-1; and fees charged for services that were not provided, among other things.
  • provide required disclosures.
  • reimburse borrowers for understated APRs and finance charges, as required by Regulation Z.

In the context of mortgage servicing, the CFPB found that while it

continues to be concerned about the range of legal violations identified at various mortgage servicers, it also recognizes efforts made by certain servicers to develop an adequate compliance position through increased resources devoted to compliance. . . . Supervision continues to see that the inadequacies of outdated or deficient systems pose considerable compliance risk for mortgage servicers, and that improvements and investments in these systems can be essential to achieving an adequate compliance position. (15)

This is all well and good, but as I have noted before, it is hard to estimate how much of a problem exists from such a report — one or more entities did this, we are concerned about a range of legal violations of that . . .. I understand that the CFPB’s primary audience for this report are CFPB-supervised entities concerned with the CFPB’s regulatory focus, but this approach barely rises to the level of anecdote for the rest of us.

Kickbacks in Residential Transactions

Posted on by

Flazingo Photos

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued Compliance Bulletin 2015-05, RESPA Compliance and Marketing Servicing Agreements. The Bulletin opens,

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau) issues this compliance bulletin to remind participants in the mortgage industry of the prohibition on kickbacks and referral fees under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (12 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.) and describe the substantial risks posed by entering into marketing services agreements (MSAs). The Bureau has received numerous inquiries and whistleblower tips from industry participants describing the harm that can stem from the use of MSAs, but has not received similar input suggesting the use of those agreements benefits either consumers or industry. Based on the Bureau’s investigative efforts, it appears that many MSAs are designed to evade RESPA’s prohibition on the payment and acceptance of kickbacks and referral fees. This bulletin provides an overview of RESPA’s prohibitions against kickbacks and unearned fees and general information on MSAs, describes examples of market behavior gleaned from CFPB’s enforcement experience in this area, and describes the legal and compliance risks we have observed from such arrangements. (1, footnote omitted)

RESPA had been enacted to curb industry abuses in residential closings. Segments of the industry have been very creative in developing new strategies to avoid RESPA liability, with MSAs a relatively new twist. MSAs are often “framed as payments for advertising or promotional services” but in some cases the providers “fail to provide some or all of the services required under their agreements.” (2,3)

This Bulletin is a shot across the bow of industry participants that are using MSAs, reminding them of the significant penalties that can result from RESPA violations. It seems to me that the Bureau is right to warn industry participants to “consider carefully RESPA’s requirements and restrictions and the adverse consequences that can follow from non-compliance.” (4)

Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Round-Up

Posted on by
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has launched an Online Guide for Real Estate Professionals to understand their obligations under the new “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rules, which become effective October 3, 2015.  The Know Before You Owe mortgage initiative is designed to empower consumers with the information they need to make informed mortgage choices. It includes the implementation of the TILA-RESPA (Truth in Lending Act – Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) Integrated Disclosure rule. The new rule primarily does two things, first it consolidates some of the disclosures that must be made unto fewer forms and second it changes the timing of certain activities in the mortgage lending process.
  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have announced an auction of Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) in the amount of 1.2 billion and provided details for bidder pre-qualification and servicer requirements. The reasons for the program are fourfold: 1. reduce illiquid assets, 2. encourage broad investor participation; 3. consider borrower outcomes; 4. a well controlled transparent process.
  • The New York City Council has passed three Tenant Buyout Bills which were designed to protect tenants from landlords who want them out of rent stabilized apartments.
    • The Bills are: Intro 682 – buyout offered in a threatening manner are an act of harassment.  This includes untoward language, odd hour contact, frequent contact, and abusive contact.
    • Intro 700 – requirement of a writing to memorialize the buyout offer, this writing must include important facts including the tenant’s right to seek legal representation and the right to refuse.
    • Intro 757 – Bars repeated buyout offers by making such behavior a form of harassment when the tenant has indicated she/he is not interested.

Monday’s Adjudication Roundup

Posted on by

Reiss on Big Kickback Penalty

Posted on by

Richard_Cordray

Law360 quoted me in CFPB Ruling Adds New Front In Administrative Law Fight (behind a paywall). The story opens,

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray’s decision last week upholding an administrative ruling against PHH Mortgage Corp. and jacking up the firm’s penalty highlights concerns industry has about the bureau’s appeals process, and it adds to a growing battle over federal agencies’ administrative proceedings.

Cordray’s June 4 decision in the PHH case marked the first time the bureau’s administrative appeals process was put to the test. And the result highlighted both the power that Cordray has as sole adjudicator in such an appeal and his willingness to review a decision independently and go against his enforcement team, at least in part, experts say.

But because PHH has already vowed to appeal the decision, the structure of the CFPB’s appeals process could be put in play, and it could be forced to change — a battle that comes as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is also facing challenges to its administrative proceedings.

The way the CFPB handles administrative appeals “might be one of the issues that the court of appeals might be asked to consider,” said Benjamin Diehl, special counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

In the case before Cordray, PHH had been seeking to overturn an administrative law judge’s November 2014 decision that found it had engaged in a mortgage insurance kickback scheme under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA.

Cordray agreed with the underlying decision, but he found that Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot incorrectly applied the law’s provisions when assessing the penalty PHH should face.

And when Cordray applied those provisions in a way that he found to be correct, PHH’s penalty soared from around $6.4 million to $109 million, according to the ruling.

The reasoning behind Cordray’s decision irked lenders, which say the CFPB director dismissed precedent on mortgage reinsurance, including policies from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and judicial interpretations of the statute of limitations on RESPA claims.

“If the rules are going to change because an agency can wave a magic wand and change them, that’s disconcerting,” Foley & Lardner LLP partner Jay N. Varon said.

The rise in penalties highlighted both the risk that firms face in an appeal before the CFPB and Cordray’s desire to send a message to companies that he believes violate the law, said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

“It is unsurprising that Cordray would take a position that is intended to have a significant deterrent effect on those who violate RESPA, and I expect that he wanted to signal as much in this, his first decision in an appeal of an administrative enforcement proceeding,” Reiss said.

Tuesday’s Regulatory & Legislative Round-Up

Posted on by
  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued guidance to “remind lenders of their obligations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and it’s implementing Regulation B, to provide non-discriminatory access to credit for mortgage applicants  using income from the section 8 housing choice voucher program.”
  • A bipartisan House Bill was recently introduced to provide a temporary safe harbor for from the enforcement of integrated disclosure requirements under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth in Lending Act until January 2016 for those seeking to comply in good faith – this safe harbor would allow lenders to implement the new rules.