Tag Archives: RESPA

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)

Shaking up the Title Industry

Posted on by

Deeds

The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued an opinion in Edwards v. The First American Corporation et al., No. 13-555542 (Aug. 24, 2015) that may shake up how the title insurance industry works. As the court notes,

The national title insurance industry is highly concentrated, with most states dominated by two or three large title insurance companies. See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Title Insurance: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of the Title Industry and Better Protect Consumers 3 (Apr. 2007). A “factor that raises questions about the existence of price competition is that title agents market to those from whom they get consumer referrals, and not to consumers themselves, creating potential conflicts of interest where the referrals could be made in the best interest of the referrer and not the consumer.” Id. Kickbacks paid by the title insurance companies to those making referrals lead to higher costs of real estate settlement services, which are passed on to consumers without any corresponding benefits. (9)

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) is intended to eliminate illegal kickbacks in the real estate industry. In this case, the 9th Circuit has reversed the District Court’s denial of class certification in a case in which home buyers alleged that First American engaged in a scheme of paying title agencies for referring title insurance business to First American in violation of RESPA. The reversal does not get to the merits of the underlying claims, but it does open up a can of worms for title companies.

The title industry is not only highly concentrated but it is also highly profitable. In some jurisdictions like NY its prices are set by regulation at rates that greatly exceed the actuarial risks they face. Regulators like the NYS Department of Financial Services have begun to pay more attention to the title insurance industry. This is a welcome development, given that title insurance is one of the most expensive closing costs a homeowner faces when buying a home or refinancing a mortgage.

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.

Tuesdays Regulatory & Legislative Round-Up

Posted on by

Protecting Homeowners During Mortgage Servicing Transfers

Posted on by

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a Compliance Bulletin and Policy Guidance on Mortgage Servicing Transfers (Bulletin 2014-01). Mortgage Serving Transfers have been receiving a lot of attention (also here) recently from regulators as the servicing industry is going through many changes.

The CFPB is right to focus on the impact of the transfer of mortgage servicing rights on homeowners. Many complaints made directly to regulators and seen in foreclosure cases relate to the Kafkaesque treatment that homeowners receive as their servicer point-of-contact changes from interaction to interaction.

The Bulletin indicates that servicers will have to do a fair amount of planning to ensure that consumers are not harmed by the transfer of servicing rights. In particular, the CFPB will be watching to see that servicers are (WARNING:  Boring and Technical Language Alert!):

  • Ensuring that contracts require the transferor to provide all necessary documents and information at loan boarding.
  • Developing tailored transfer instructions for each deal and conducting meetings to
    discuss and clarify key issues with counterparties in a timely manner; for large transfers, this could be months in advance of the transfer. Key issues may include descriptions of proprietary modifications, detailed descriptions of data fields, known issues with document indexing, and specific regulatory or settlement requirements applicable to some or all of the transferred loans.
  • Using specifically tailored testing protocols to evaluate the compatibility of the
    transferred data with the transferee servicer’s systems and data mapping protocols.
  • Engaging in quality control work after the transfer of preliminary data to validate that the data on the transferee’s system matches the data submitted by the transferor.
  • Recognizing when the transfer cannot be implemented successfully in a single batch and implementing alternative protocols, such as splitting the transfer into several smaller transactions, to ensure that the transferee can comply with its servicing obligations for every loan transferred. (3)

As a bonus, the Bulletin provides an overview of statutes and regulations that govern the transfer of mortgage servicing.

Sloppy Servicers

Posted on by

I have blogged about the Alice In Wonderland-like and Dickensian situations faced by defaulting homeowners, but now the CFPB has offered a broader look at the problems that borrowers confront when facing foreclosure. The CFPB’s Supervisory Highlights Summer 2013 profiles some of the problems in the loss mitigation field, including

  • Inconsistent borrower solicitation and communication;
  • Inconsistent loss mitigation underwriting;
  • Inconsistent waivers of certain fees or interest charges;
  • Long application review periods;
  • Missing denial notices;
  • Incomplete and disorganized servicing files;
  • Incomplete written policies and procedures; and
  • Lack of quality assurance on underwriting decisions. (14)

The CFPB also noted some serious violations in the transfer of loans between servicers: “For example, examiners found noncompliance with the requirements of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) to provide disclosures to consumers about transfers of the servicing of their loans.” (12)

They also found problems processing default-related fees: “Examiners identified a servicer that charged consumers default-related fees without adequately documenting the reasons for and amounts of the fees. Examiners also identified situations where servicers mistakenly charged borrowers default-related fees that investors were supposed to pay under investor agreements.” (13-14)

Now, obviously, not all servicers had all of these problems, but the CFPB’s findings are consistent with what many courts have described anecdotally in their opinions.  Time will tell whether the CFPB will be able to get servicers to devote the necessary resources to reduce these types of problems to more acceptable levels.

 

Oregon District Court Dismisses Borrower’s Suit to Invalidate Foreclosure in Favor of BOA and MERS, Stating Lack of Merit

Posted on by

In Moreno v. Bank of America., N.A., 3:11-CV-1265-HZ, (D. Or. Apr. 27, 2012) the U.S. District Court of Oregon, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff had alleged violations under several federal and state Acts, each of which the Judge rejected based on lack of merit.

The plaintiff brought action to invalidate a foreclosure sale, which, although dated earlier than the filed complaint, had not yet occurred. On March 29th, 2007, Moreno borrowed $220,000 from Aegis Wholesale Corporation. A promissory note in favor of Aegis was secured by a Deed of Trust (DOT) against the plaintiff’s real property and identified Fidelity National Title Insurance Company of Oregon (Fidelity) as trustee, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the “beneficiary under this Security Instrument.” MERS later assigned the DOT to BAC Home Loans Servicing (BACHLS) in June of 2010. On the same day, BACHLS appointed ReconTrust Co. as successor trustee to Fidelity. Fidelity filed a Notice of Default and Election to Sell (NODES), initiating foreclosure proceedings against Moreno, who had been in default since July, 2009.

The Court dismissed each of the plaintiff’s complaints in turn, starting with his first two claims of relief based on violations of the Oregon Trust Deed Act (OTDA). The plaintiff claimed that under the DOT, MERS lacked authority to assign beneficial interests to BACHLS, who in turn, lacked power to appoint ReconTrust as successor trustee. The Judge, Marco A. Hernandez, stated that he had previously held that “naming MERS as a beneficiary in a DOT does not violate the OTDA,” and while other judges in the district have found otherwise, he would continue to uphold this ruling. The plaintiff alleged that a 3-year gap between the execution of the DOT and MERS’s assignment to BACHLS  showed there “must have” been unrecorded assignments (in violation of ORS 86.735(1)). The Court found that allegation was both speculative and based on an erroneous assertion of fact (the Complaint mistakenly names Bank of America as the original lender, whereas the DOT names Aegis, and subsequent documents state Bank of America was assigned interest only in 2010). The second OTDA based claim was that the defective notice was invalid for failure to include a correct statement of the amount in default. The Court dismissed it because the plaintiff had not “plead his ability to cure the default, that his damages resulted from the lost opportunity to cure the default, and that he requested information from the trustee under O.R.S. § 86.757 and O.R.S. § 86.759.”

care because

Next, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim brought under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for both the failure to meet the 1-year statute of limitations and for having incorrectly brought the action against Bank of America rather than Aegis, the original lender. Under TILA a claim may only be brought against the Creditor, who is the person who “regularly extends… consumer credit” and “to whom the debt arising from the consumer credit transaction is initially payable.” 15 U.S.C. Sect. 1602(g). The plaintiff further argued that he is Hispanic and “as a result” did not understand the nature of the loan documents. He therefore requested equitable tolling, which suspends the “limitation period until the borrower discovers or had reasonable opportunity to discover the fraud or nondisclosure that form the basis of the TILA action,” which he stated was in 2011 after having spoken to a translator who explained his loan audit. The Court found this unconvincing on several accounts. First, since the complaint brought no allegations in support of equitable tolling, it failed to state a TILA violation. Second, the plaintiff never alleged he did not speak English. Third, equitable tolling is applied when the 1-year period would be “unjust” or “frustrate the purpose” of the TILA. Fourth,  the plaintiff must bring allegations “that the defendant had fraudulently concealed information that would have allowed plaintiff to discover his claim,” engaged in action to prevent plaintiff from discovering a claim, or encountered “some other extraordinary circumstance would have made it reasonable for Plaintiff not to discover his claim within the limitations period.” Garcia v Wachovia Mortg. Corp. 676 F. Supp.2d 895, 905 (C.D. Cal. 2009).

The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for failure to meet the statute of limitations since his claim arose out of the origination of the loan in 2007, and his arguments for equitable tolling “are unavailing.”  Plaintiff also failed to allege that a RESPA violation resulted in actual damage, a requirement of a RESPA claim.

The plaintiff’s claim under Oregon’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) was dismissed because at the time of the loan, in 2007, UTPA had not yet been amended to include “loans and extensions of credit,” O.R.S. 646.605(6) (2010), therefore plaintiff’s loan was not covered by the Act. Additionally, UTPA claims must be brought within a year from the discovery of the “unlawful method, act or practice,” but the plaintiff failed to assert that the discovery of a UTPA violation could not have been made at the time of the loan