Mortgage Lending, Servicing + Banking

Subscribe to Mortgage Lending, Servicing + Banking via RSS

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) announced it had entered into a consent order with NewDay USA, a Florida-based non-bank direct mortgage lender, over allegations that the lender misled veterans and military families about the costs associated with cash-out refinance loans. According to the Bureau, NewDay USA gave misleading and incomplete cost comparisons to borrowers refinancing in North Carolina, Maine, and Minnesota, which made the company’s loans appear less expensive relative to the borrowers’ existing mortgages.

This week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued an advisory opinion and a research report addressing contract-for-deed home financing, also known as a “land contract,” “land installment contract,” “land sales contract,” “bond for deed,” “agreement for deed,” or “buying on contract.” The advisory opinion concludes that form of seller financing, where the seller retains the deed until the buyer completes the payments, generally is “consumer credit” under the Truth-in-Lending Act and Regulation Z and, therefore, that many providers of the financing must comply with the Ability to Repay and other rules in Regulation Z governing consumer mortgages. The CFPB also asserts that contract-for-deed home financing can trap buyers in unlivable homes and financial hardship.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) recently released its semi-annual regulatory agenda, outlining its planned rulemaking initiatives. The CFPB releases regulatory agendas twice a year in voluntary conjunction with a broader initiative led by the Office of Budget and Management to publish a Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory actions across the federal government. This agenda includes a mix of rules in the pre-rulemaking, proposed rule, and final rule stages, covering a wide range of topics from mortgage closing costs to financial data transparency. The CFPB has not yet posted a blog or issued a press release about the agenda.

As we predicted here, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) last week proposed new and, in some cases, streamlined rules governing what mortgage servicers must do after a borrower becomes delinquent. The proposed rules incorporate some pandemic-era practices, such as allowing servicers to offer assistance without a comprehensive review of the borrower’s financial situation. According to the CFPB, the new rules would require mortgage servicers to prioritize loss mitigation over foreclosing, reduce paperwork requirements, improve communication with borrowers, and ensure critical information is provided in the borrowers’ preferred language.

On June 20, six federal financial services regulators issued the final automated valuation model (AVM) rule. The AVM rule, initially proposed in June 2023 and discussed here, aims to implement the quality control standards mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). The final AVM rule is largely identical to the proposed rule and is set to take effect on the first day of the calendar quarter following 12 months after its publication in the Federal Register.

On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Cantero, reaffirming and elaborating on the Barnett Bank preemption standard, and remanding the case to the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Cantero addressed whether a New York law requiring the payment of at least 2% per annum interest on mortgage escrow deposits was preempted by federal law as to national banks. The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit erred when it failed to apply the preemption standard articulated in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, which was incorporated by Congress into the Dodd-Frank Act. The Court rejected the lower court’s holding “that federal law preempts any state law that ‘purports to exercise control over a federally granted banking power,’ regardless of ‘the magnitude of its effects.’” The Court also rejected the approach argued by the petitioners, explaining it would “yank the preemption standard to the opposite extreme, and would preempt virtually no non-discriminatory state laws that apply to both state and national banks.”

On June 18, a Colorado federal court granted the plaintiff trade groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction, effectively halting the enforcement of Colorado’s H.B. 1229 with respect to loans made by out-of-state state-chartered banks.

On May 30, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a request for information (Request) regarding alleged “junk fees” in closing costs charged by mortgage lenders and related settlement service providers. The Bureau is accepting public comments until August 2, 2024.

On May 29, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced a targeted foreclosure moratorium on VA-guaranteed loans intended to allow servicers sufficient time to implement the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) program. Servicers may begin implementing the VASP program beginning May 31, 2024, and the VA expects servicers will fully implement the program no later than October 1, 2024.

Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed House Bill (HB) 2247 into law, bringing significant changes to the Kansas Mortgage Business Act and the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC). The changes brought about by HB 2247 will largely become effective on January 1, 2025. However, those changes standardizing threshold amounts consistent with federal law will become effective on July 1, 2024.