Mortgage Lending, Servicing + Banking

Subscribe to Mortgage Lending, Servicing + Banking via RSS

Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) submitted several regulatory proposals to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Among the rules under consideration are those related to loan originator (LO) compensation and discretionary mortgage servicing, governed by the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X). Additionally, the CFPB is reviewing its “larger participant” rules, which define the scope of its supervisory authority over major players in the debt collection and consumer credit reporting sectors. These rules, currently in “prerule” status, are under scrutiny by the OMB.

The legal and constitutional implications of New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) are back in the spotlight as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit again turns to the New York Court of Appeals for guidance. In Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Federal Bank, 132 F.4th 586 (2d Cir. 2025), the Second Circuit certified two key questions regarding the scope and retroactive application of FAPA — a statute that has significantly altered the foreclosure litigation landscape in New York.

On May 9, the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs announced that President Trump signed into law Chairman Tim Scott’s (R-SC) Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, effectively overturning the Biden-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule on overdraft fees. Chairman Scott, who spearheaded the effort, emphasized that the rule would have imposed detrimental price controls on overdraft services, potentially leading to more unbanked individuals and fewer consumer options.

On March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision holding a credit union liable for a wire transfer in a business email compromise scam case where the credit union lacked “actual knowledge” of the mismatch between the account number and beneficiary.

In a surprising turn of events, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Townstone Financial, Inc. (Townstone) have jointly moved to vacate the Stipulated Final Judgment and Order previously entered in the CFPB’s enforcement action against the mortgage lender alleging redlining practices. This motion, filed on March 26, 2025, comes after significant allegations by the CFPB regarding the Bureau’s own handling of the case, which began in 2020 under the first Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration.

In a significant policy shift under the Trump administration, the new Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte issued an order on March 25, 2025 terminating special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) supported by the government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (together, the GSEs). This directive, effective immediately, will significantly impact banks with mortgage-based SPCPs.

On March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in two class-action lawsuits. The decision potentially has far-reaching implications for the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, particularly those involving unilateral modification provisions.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of federal claims brought by a mortgagee against Trinity Financial Services, LLC (Trinity) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). While the appellate court agreed that the plaintiff lacked standing, its holding was rooted in different grounds, namely that the plaintiff’s injuries were not traceable to any independent FDCPA violation.

On January 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant opinion holding that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) does not prohibit the enforcement of arbitration agreements in credit card contracts under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Recently, the Eastern District of Kentucky denied a motion to dismiss under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) after finding the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that credit reports were pulled without a permissible purpose.