Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Mortgage Loans

NYDFS Issues Final Mortgage Loan Servicer Business Conduct Rules (Part 419)

By , ,

The New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) has issued final mortgage servicer business conduct rules found in Part 419 of the Superintendent’s Regulations.  Our January 24 client advisory provides a full analysis of the changes, which include:

  • New provisions governing affiliated business arrangements;
  • Expanded restrictions on servicing fees (including property valuation fees);
  • A broader servicer duty of fair dealing;
  • Expanded protections available to delinquent borrowers and borrowers seeking loss mitigation assistance; and
  • Detailed third party vendor management requirements.

Although the rules took effect on December 18, the NYDFS added Section 419.14 to provide a 90-day transition period for servicers who were compliant with the previous version of the rules as of the effective date.

FTC Announces Settlement with Mortgage Broker for Publishing Personal Information about Consumers

By

A&B ABstract:

On January 7, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a complaint and settlement against California mortgage broker Mortgage Solutions FCS, doing business as Mount Diablo Lending, and its owner, Ramon Walker, (collectively, Mortgage Solutions).  The FTC’s complaint (Complaint) alleged that in response to negative Yelp reviews posted by applicants and customers, the company publicly posted sensitive personal information, including financial information, about those individuals gleamed that it gleaned from mortgage applications and credit report.  Specifically, according to the Complaint, that information included sources of income, payment and credit histories, taxes, family relationships and health. The FTC alleged that Mortgage Solutions’ actions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Gramm Leach Bliley Act (GLBA) and Section 5 of the FTC Act. As part of the settlement, Mortgage Solutions will pay a $120,000 civil penalty for violating the FCRA.

Discussion

The Complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, alleges that between June 2015 and August 2016, defendant Walker published or caused to be published responses to negative consumer reviews about Mortgage Solutions’ services that appeared on the consumer review website, Yelp.com, that were publicly viewable on Yelp’s page for Mount Diablo Lending.  The Complaint also alleges that required privacy notices provided to customers were inadequate and were not followed, and that the company’s information security program was inadequate.   A summary of the FTC’s complaint counts follows:

Violations of the FCRA: 

The Complaint alleges that Mortgage Solutions impermissibly used consumer reports in violation of the FCRA.  According to the Complaint, some of the personal information that Mortgage Solutions publicly posted about consumers was information contained in consumer reports it obtained.  The FCRA allows use of consumer reports only for the permissible purposes identified in section 604(a) of the FCRA; however, public dissemination – such as Mortgage Solutions’ posting of consumers’ information on Yelp.com – is not a permissible purpose

Violation of the GLBA Privacy Rule (Regulation P): 

The Complaint alleges that Mortgage Solutions failed to provide a clear, conspicuous and accurate privacy notice and impermissibly disclosed non- public personal information about some of its customers in violation of the GLBA Privacy Rule.  The Privacy Rule requires, among other things, that a financial institution provide annually a clear and conspicuous notice to customers that accurately reflects the financial institution’s privacy policies and practices, including its security policies and practices.

According to the Complaint, from October 2012 until April 2018, Mortgage Solutions disseminated a privacy notice that omitted or misstated significant information. Among other things, the notice indicated that the only personal information collected by Mortgage Solutions is customers’ Social Security numbers and that Mortgage Solutions did not share this personal information with any third party for any reason. In fact, the company collected myriad types of sensitive personal information, including income information, credit histories, and dates of birth.  The Complaint further alleges that Mortgage Solutions’  posting of customer information on Yelp.com caused the privacy notice to be inaccurate, and additionally violated the Privacy Rule

Violation of the GLBA Safeguards Rule:

The Complaint alleges that  Mortgage Solutions failed for a period of time to develop and implement an information security program, and when it did implement a program, it fell short of regulatory standards.  The Safeguard’s Rule requires financial institutions to implement a comprehensive written “information security program” containing reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. It further requires that financial institutions regularly test or otherwise monitor the effectiveness of the safeguards’ key controls, systems, and procedures.

According to the Complaint, Mortgage Solutions did not have an information security program until September 2017 (in spite of being in business since at least 2012), and when it did finally implement a plan, the plan made no provision for regularly testing or assessing its own effectiveness.  Further, according to the complaint, Diablo failed to engage in such regular testing or assessment.

Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act: 

The Complaint alleges that publicly posting consumers’ personal information was deceptive and unfair under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Relief:

In addition to paying a $120,000 civil penalty, the terms of the settlement prohibit Mortgage Solutions from misrepresenting its privacy and data security practices; misusing credit reports; and improperly disclosing personal information to third parties. It also must implement a comprehensive data security program designed to protect the personal information it collects and obtain third-party assessments of its information security program every two years. Finally, the company must designate a senior corporate manager responsible for overseeing the information security program to certify compliance with the order every year.

Takeaways

The FTC is continuing to assert its authority against financial institutions within its jurisdiction, including its general authority to prevent unfair and deceptive acts or practice under the FTC Act, and its authority with respect to the FCRA and GLBA.

In addition, this case represents the FTC’s latest effort to crack down on companies who attempt to restrict or retaliate against consumers negative public reviews on social media and other public websites.  In 2019 the FTC announced five cases alleging violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act, which bans form contract provisions that restrict a consumer’s ability to post reviews about a seller’s goods, services, or conduct. Those cases challenged illegal “confidentiality” or “non-disparagement” clauses that sometimes threatened consumers with financial penalties for posting reviews.

 

 

Congress Extends Expired Mortgage Insurance Deductions

By

On December 20, 2019, the President signed into law House Resolution 1865, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, which is now Public Law 116-94. The law extends the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums (“MIP”) retroactive to 2018, applies to amounts paid or accrued after December 31, 2017, and is set to expire once again on December 31, 2020.  Mortgage lenders and servicers should take note of this extension for MIP deductibility as they prepare IRS Form 1098 for the 2019 tax year.

New York Enacts HECM Law

By

A&B ABstract:

Effective March 5, 2020, New York Assembly Bill 5626 (“AB 5626”) regulates the origination and servicing of the federal U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) home equity conversion mortgages (“HECMs”).

Significant Impact to Mortgage Lenders and Servicers

With the stated purpose of providing “new regulations on reverse mortgage products pertaining to the marketing, origination, and management” of HECMs, AB 5626 will expand New York’s reverse mortgage law to apply to HECMs.  The following provides a brief summary of AB 5626’s substantive provisions:

Applicability:

The measure applies to an “authorized lender,” as defined in section 280 of the Real Property Law. Under current law, authorized lenders of proprietary reverse mortgage loans are subject to additional approval by the Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services. It is unclear if such additional approval will now be required to originate or service HECMs.

Advertising and Offering of Reverse Mortgages:

In addition to imposing new disclosure obligations and prohibiting an authorized lender or any other party from engaging in any unfair or deceptive practices in connection with the marketing or offering of reverse mortgage loans, AB 5626 prohibits using the words “government insured” or other similar language representing that reverse mortgage loans are insured, supported and sponsored by any governmental entity in any solicitation, or representing that any reverse mortgage loan is other than a commercial product.  This may prove challenging given that HUD characterizes its own HECM loan product as a “reverse mortgage insured by the U.S. Federal Government.”

Periodic Statements:

The measure requires an authorized lender to provide additional disclosures on the borrower’s periodic statement when the authorized lender administers payments for property obligations (such as tax payments or mortgage or homeowners insurance) and when those payments are derived from the proceeds of the mortgage.

Life Expectancy Set Aside (“LESA”): 

Under AB 5626, an authorized lender must provide notice to the borrower by telephone and first-class mail when the borrower’s home equity line of credit or LESA is depleted to ten percent or less of its value (and again when the borrower’s line of credit or LESA is depleted entirely).  The measure does not specify the timeframe for providing this notice.

Advances:

The measure prohibits an authorized lender from making an advance payment for any obligation arising from the mortgaged real property and, if there is an insurance or tax default, the authorized lender may only pay those premiums and/or taxes which are in arrears.  It is unclear if this provision applies to borrowers who have established a LESA, as HUD’s HECM regulations require a mortgagee to make disbursements for property charges before the bills become delinquent.

Occupancy Defaults:

The measure addresses situations where an authorized lender seeks to foreclose on a HECM loan because the property is no longer the primary residence of, or occupied by, the borrower.

If the authorized lender does not receive any responses to mailings related to verification of the borrower’s primary residence and/or occupancy, prior to commencing any foreclosure proceeding the authorized lender must: (a) call the borrower (or, if the borrower cannot be reached by telephone, a designated third party specified by the borrower), and (b) visit the property, in person.  During such visit, the authorized lender or its agent must provide clear information as to who they are, that the visit pertains to the reverse mortgage, the reason for the home visit, and the telephone number to call for further information.

Further, the authorized lender must wait at least 30 days following such visit, in addition to any additional time or notice requirements specified by any other provision of law, before initiating a foreclosure action on the basis that the mortgaged property is no longer the primary residence of the borrower.  If the borrower contacts the authorized lender and provides proof of residence or occupancy after such visit, but before the commencement of a foreclosure action, the authorized lender is barred from initiating such foreclosure action.  Presumably, this provision would not require an authorized lender to violate privacy laws, debt collection laws (which may only permit the authorized lender to obtain contact information and not discuss the debt), or trespassing laws.

Inspection Fees: 

AB 5626 prohibits an authorized lender from charging the borrower any fee for the visit or inspection, including any and all inspections conducted by the authorized lender to verify the status of the reverse mortgage, or any suspected or actual default condition.

Closing Attorneys: 

The measure requires both the authorized lender and the borrower to be represented at closing by an attorney, and to have at least one attorney present to conduct the closing.  It is unclear who is responsible for the cost of the borrower’s attorney.

Penalties:

Failure to comply with the requirements of AB 5626 could result in significant penalties.  For example, any person injured by new Section 280-b of the Real Property Law (which the measure creates) or HUD’s HECM regulations may bring an individual action to recover treble actual damages plus the prevailing plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees.  Moreover, compliance with the provisions is a condition precedent to bringing a foreclosure action; failure to comply is a complete defense to a foreclosure. Accordingly, AB 5626 could have a significant impact on mortgage lenders and servicers of HECMs.

Takeaway:

By adding several new obligations on top of HUD’s existing requirements, this law may impose significant burdens on lenders and servicers.  We anticipate amendments to existing Banking Regulation Part 79 that, hopefully, will clarify many ambiguities.

New Jersey Requires License to Hold Mortgage Servicing Rights

By

A&B ABstract: New Jersey is the latest state to require the licensing of an entity that passively invests in whole residential mortgage loans on a servicing-released basis or in the servicing rights in such loans. The New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance recently released Bulletin No. 19-13 to elaborate on the state’s new licensing requirement, and to clarify that applications must be submitted by April 13, 2020.

Discussion

New Jersey enacted the Mortgage Servicers Licensing Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16F-27 to -46 (“Act”), on July 28, 2019, to create a new licensing requirement for entities “servicing” New Jersey mortgage loans. Notwithstanding the effective date of the Act, the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (“DOBI”) did not provide a means by which such an entity may apply for a Mortgage Servicer License or clarification regarding the types of activities that constitute “servicing” in the state.

A New Licensing Obligation

In response to the industry’s questions regarding these points, DOBI recently released Bulletin No. 19-13. Bulletin No. 19-13 reiterates that the Act expressly provides that an entity is prohibited from acting, either directly or indirectly, as a mortgage servicer in New Jersey without obtaining a license. The term “mortgage servicer” is broadly defined as:

“[A]ny person, wherever located, who, for the person or on behalf of the holder of a residential mortgage loan, received payments of principal and interest in connection with a residential mortgage loan, records the payments on the person’s books and records and performs the other administrative functions as may be necessary to properly carry out the mortgage holder’s obligations under the mortgage agreement, including, when applicable, the receipt of funds from the mortgagor to be held in escrow for the payment of real estate taxes and insurance premiums and the distribution of the funds to the taxing authority and insurance company.”

The term also includes “a person who makes payments to borrowers pursuant to the terms of a home equity conversion mortgage or reverse mortgage.”

Significantly, Bulletin No. 19-13 states that “[t]he New Jersey Mortgage Servicer License … applies to all holders of mortgage servicing rights, including holders of master servicing rights.” Accordingly, it is now clear that DOBI considers a passive investor in New Jersey whole residential mortgage loans on a servicing-released basis or the servicing rights in such loans to be a “mortgage servicer” and requires such a person to hold a Mortgage Servicer License to conduct business.

Exemptions

Importantly, the Act provides certain exemptions from this licensing requirement, including, but not limited to:

  • Any bank, out-of-state bank, credit union chartered in New Jersey, federal credit union, or out-of-state credit union, provided that that bank or credit union is federally insured;
  • Any wholly-owned subsidiary of that bank or credit union;
  • Any operating subsidiary in situations in which each owner of the operating subsidiary is wholly-owned by the same bank or credit union; and
  • Any entity licensed as a Residential Mortgage Lender or Correspondent Residential Mortgage Lender pursuant to the New Jersey Residential Mortgage Lending Act, N.J.S.A. 17:11C-51 to -89 (“RMLA”), as long as it meets mortgage servicer registration requirements under the Act.

DOBI intends to release an application for this license on the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System & Registry this month. Further, DOBI will require all entities that are not exempt from the Act to apply for a Residential Mortgage Servicer License by April 13, 2020. Any entity claiming an exemption on the grounds that it is already licensed under the RMLA should ensure that it is appropriately registered by that date.

Other Provisions of Note

The Act also subjects licensees and other entities engaging in “mortgage servicing” to various regulatory obligations, restrictions, and prohibitions. Specifically, it creates new operational requirements for some mortgage servicers, and creates a list of prohibited activities for all mortgage servicers. Further, the Act provides DOBI with investigative, examination, and enforcement authority, including the power to impose civil monetary penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. DOBI anticipates proposing new rules under the Act to further assist mortgage servicers in meeting their obligations.

Takeaway

As Bulletin No. 19-13 provides that entities operating without a Mortgage Servicer License will be deemed to be engaging in unlicensed activities and may be subjected to an enforcement action, we encourage all persons engaging in “mortgage servicing” in the state to consider whether a license is required early on in the application cycle. This is an area of focus for DOBI, and we expect its continued attention in the months ahead.