Mortgage Lending, Servicing + Banking

Subscribe to Mortgage Lending, Servicing + Banking via RSS

On April 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a final rule to remove “reputation risk” from their supervisory and examination frameworks and sharply limit their ability to influence banks’ customer relationships based on political or ideological grounds. This final rule is a central implementation step for President Trump’s debanking initiative under Executive Order 14331, “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,” which aims to address concerns about financial institutions improperly restricting access to banking services based on customers’ political, religious, or ideological beliefs.

The Tenth Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser, vacating its November 10, 2025, panel decision that had allowed Colorado to apply its Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) interest-rate caps to loans made by out-of-state, state-chartered banks to Colorado borrowers. The court’s prior judgment is vacated, issuance of the mandate is stayed, and the case is reopened for en banc consideration. As a result, the panel opinion narrowing DIDMCA preemption no longer reflects the current state of the law in the Tenth Circuit, and the scope of Colorado’s opt-out authority is once again unsettled.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken a highly visible step into the national debate over “debanking” by sending warning letters to several large payment networks and financial services providers, reminding them that deplatforming or denying customers access to financial products or services due to political or religious beliefs could violate their existing obligations under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC’s letters signal a sharpened enforcement focus on how financial services firms manage account closures, suspensions, and access to services, particularly when political or religious views are implicated.

In a decision of first impression, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo, defined what “evident partiality” means under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act (VUAA). The court held that a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award must show that a reasonable person, knowing all relevant facts, would conclude the arbitrator’s conduct signifies obvious bias against that party. Applying this standard, the court affirmed confirmation of a FINRA arbitration award and declined to vacate based on an arbitrator’s undisclosed, attenuated prior connections to one side.

In continuation of increased state efforts to regulate state-chartered banks and fintech partnerships,Oregon’s newly enrolled House Bill (HB) 4116 would enact an express “opt‑out” from a key provision of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) for consumer finance loans made in Oregon. HB 4116 also updates licensing requirements and clarifies when Oregon law applies to remote and online loans. This Oregon development comes on the heels of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Weiser upholding Colorado’s DIDMCA opt-out and holding that a loan is “made in such State” if either the borrower or lender is located in the opt-out state as discussed here. A petition for rehearing en banc has been filed in Weiser, and it remains unsettled where a loan is “made” for purposes of DIDMCA.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Freedom Mortgage Corporation, rejecting Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims brought by borrowers who insisted they had made their mortgage payments on time. The court held that the servicer accurately reported a 30‑day late payment and conducted a reasonable investigation in response to the borrowers’ disputes forwarded to it by the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The opinion reinforces two important principles: first, a payment can be accurately reported as late when it is not properly identifiable or conforming to the servicer’s payment instructions, and second, a furnisher’s investigative obligations are defined and limited by the information it receives from the CRAs.

In December 2023, we blogged about lawsuits filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and later the State of Texas against Colony Ridge and related entities. The complaints alleged that Colony Ridge targeted Hispanic borrowers with deceptive Spanish‑language marketing, sold largely undeveloped and flood‑prone land, and engaged in predatory financing by steering borrowers into high‑rate, seller‑financed mortgage loans with extremely high foreclosure rates.

On January 14, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a proposed rule that would repeal its Fair Housing Act (FHA or Act) “discriminatory effects” (disparate impact) regulations and leave the development and application of disparate impact standards entirely to the courts. Comments are due February 13, 2026.

New York has adopted new regulations, 3 NYCRR Part 120, that will extend New York’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) obligations to certain nonbank mortgage lenders operating in the state. Effective July 7, 2026, the rule will require New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS)‑licensed non‑depository mortgage bankers that have originated 200 or more New York State mortgage loans in the prior calendar year to demonstrate that they are providing fair and equitable access to home loans, especially for low‑ and moderate‑income New Yorkers.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Locke Partner Lori Sommerfield and Relman Colfax Co-Managing Partner Stephen Hayes for a candid discussion about how redlining has traditionally been defined, how redlining was defined and applied during the Biden administration, and how it may return under a future administration or in cases brought by state regulators or private litigants. This episode further explores the tension between the standards set forth in enforcement actions and those applied in supervisory examinations, and the role of statistical analysis and HMDA data in redlining cases. The podcast also tackles issues like digitally targeted advertising and what shifting regulatory priorities under the current administration may mean for future redlining enforcement risk, offering a balanced look at where redlining law has been — and where it may be headed next.