CFPB

CFPB issues Advisory Opinion on contracts for deed

Standard

On August 13, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an Advisory Opinion to remind all of us that contracts for deed (also called bonds for title, installment land contracts, land contracts, land sales contracts) on residential property are subject to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), in the same manner as mortgage loans.

You can read the Advisory Opinion here and the accompanying press release here.  

The press release touts the action is intended to stop investors from setting borrowers up to fail. It states that the deals often have little oversight, and investment groups and other sellers can set a series of traps that leave buyers in unlivable homes, on the hook for tax liens and extensive repairs, and at risk for losing their down payments and homes.

 The press release further argues that predatory lenders use contracts for deed to target low-income borrowers, particularly those in religious communities, and set them up to fail so the sellers can kick them out and repeat the process with a new family.

The houses are often sold at inflated prices, with high interest rates and balloon payments. The transactions often occur without the benefit of inspections required by mainstream lenders.

TILA applies only to creditors who make five or more loans per year, unless a particular loan is considered “high cost” credit. In that case, a single loan can trigger TILA. If TILA applies to a contract for deed:

  • The seller has a duty to access the buyer’s ability to repay;
  • The seller must provide interest rate and other disclosures required by TILA; and
  • In most cases, balloon payments are prohibited.

South Carolina real estate lawyers familiar with these issues have advised clients for years to avoid buying and selling residential real estate using contracts for deed. And the same lawyers have advised their fellow practitioners to avoid closing these transactions.

Be careful out there!

Supreme Court holds CFPB’s funding mechanism is constitutional

Standard

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding mechanism is constitutional, according to CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association, decided May 16.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 7-2 decision. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

A payday lender trade association sued the CFPB in 2017, seeking to overturn a rule prohibiting debits from bank accounts and arguing that the CFPB and all its actions since 2010 were unconstitutional because of its funding structure.

The agency is housed inside the Federal Reserve and draws up to $600 million from the Federal Reserve annually. Funding was set up in this manner to insulate the CFPB from industry influence. Normal funding would include the regular appropriations process. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution (the Appropriations Clause) states that no money shall be withdrawn from the Treasury “but in the consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

The association’s argument was that this deviation from the normal appropriations process gave the agency “perpetual” funding. The opinion held, “Under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. The statute that provides the Bureau’s funding meets these requirements.”

In addition to the CFPB, the Customs Service, Postal Service and revenue officers are all funded through non-annual, standing appropriations.

The dissent stated, “Unfortunately, today’s decision turns the Appropriations Clause into a minor vestige. The Court upholds a novel statutory scheme under which the powerful Consumer financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) may bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight.

From a practical perspective, I can’t imagine how difficult it would have been to undo the many investigations, rulings, and fines during the CFPB’s tenure. This decision holds that the Bureau’s actions stand.

CFPB highlights actions to combat mortgage servicers’ “junk fees”

Standard

On April 24, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published an edition of its Supervisory Highlights that emphasizes the agency’s actions to combat “junk fees” charged by mortgage servicers. You can read the publication here.  

Examples of the illegal activities revealed by CFPB examinations included charging prohibited property inspection fees, sending deceptive notices to homeowners, and violating loss mitigation rules. The publication touts that in response to the agency’s findings, financial institutions refunded fees to borrowers and stopped illegal practices.

The agency also claims its examiners found some mortgage servicers failed to waive late fees and penalties that should have been waived because of COVID rules. Further, some servicers were cited for making late tax and insurance payments, causing borrowers to incur interest and penalties.

Last October, the agency announced its examination work from February to August of 2023 resulted in $140 million refunds to consumers for unlawful junk fees in the areas of bank account deposits, auto loan servicing, and international money transfers. Since that time, the agency states its work has resulted in an additional $120 million refunds to consumers in junk fees in the area of bank account deposits.

CFPB proposes overdraft fee limitation

Standard

This news is only real estate adjacent, but it should be of interest to all of us who represent consumer clients who attempt to qualify for loans.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a press release on January 17 proposing to rein in excessive overdraft fees charged by large financial institutions. The agency estimates this rule change would save consumers $3.5 billion or more per year.

You can read the press release here. The press release includes relevant attachments that include the rule, a fact sheet and other documents that should provide the information you need on this topic.

The Truth in Lending Act, enacted in 1968, generally requires lending institutions to disclose the cost of credit to consumer borrowers. But the Federal Reserve Board created an exemption for banks honoring checks when their depositor “inadvertently” overdrew their account.

Originally, overdrafts were infrequent, and overdraft fees were modest. In the 1990s and 2000s, with the rise of debit cards, large banks began raising fees and using the exemption to generate overdraft loans, creating quite the income stream.

The proposed rule would require large financial institutions to treat overdraft loans like credit cards, with all the related disclosure requirements. Alternatively, banks may charge a small fee in line with their costs. The CFPB suggests these fees may be as low as $3.

According to the press release, the agency took action in 2022 against three of the largest financial institutions to curb these fees. As a result, many banks began to voluntarily revise their overdraft policies. This proposed rule is a continuation of the agency’s efforts to control junk fees.

The CFPB is accepting comments on the proposed rule through April 1.

CFPB says lenders must use specific and accurate reasons for credit denial

Standard

On September 19, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued guidance to lenders using artificial intelligence and other complex models. The guidance indicates lenders must use specific and accurate reasons when taking adverse actions against consumers.

This means, according to CFPB’s press release, that creditors cannot simply use sample adverse action forms and checklists if they do not reflect the actual reason for the denial of credit.

“Technology marketed as artificial intelligence is expanding the data used for lending decisions, and also growing the list of potential reasons for why credit is denied,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. “Creditors must be able to specifically explain their reasons for denial. There is no special exemption for artificial intelligence.”

The press release indicates creditors that simply select the closest factors from the checklist of sample reasons are not in compliance with the law if those reasons do not sufficiently reflect the actual reason for the action taken. Creditors must disclose the specific reasons, even if consumers may be surprised, upset, or angered to learn their credit applications were being graded on data that may not intuitively relate to their finances.

You can read the entire guidance here.

Section 8 of RESPA is alive and well

Standard

CFPB imposes $1.75 million fine for giving “things of value” in return for referrals

This blog often recommends the DIRT Listserv and today is no exception. Professor Dale Whitman reported on August 22 that the CFPB issued an order against Freedom Mortgage Corporation, a residential mortgage loan originator and servicer headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, for providing things of value—including subscription services, events, and monthly marketing services agreement payments—in exchange for referrals of mortgage loans in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and its implementing Regulation X. The order requires Freedom to stop its unlawful activities and pay a $1.75 million civil money penalty.

You can read the order in its entirety here.

Professor Whitman noted that since RESPA Section 8 has been around for 50 years, one might think that such practices are a thing of the past.

These specific violations were noted:

  1. Freedom entered into agreements with local real estate agents for the agents to provide marketing services for Freedom’s mortgage activities. CFPB said the payments were really referral fees for the agents to refer mortgage loan customers to Freedom. Apparently, no “marketing services” were provided.
  2. Freedom gave the agents free access to valuable industry subscription services, which provided information concerning property reports, comparable sales, and foreclosure data. These subscriptions, which were worth thousands of dollars per month, were provided in return for the agents referring mortgage loan customers to Freedom.
  3. Freedom provided entertainment, food, and drinks at parties and other events to the agents that were referring loan customers to it. They also provided free tickets to sporting and charity events. They didn’t make similar distributions to agents who were not referring customers.

Professor Whitman questions whether a lender really cannot throw a pregame party or provide a skybox at a game for real estate agents. He suggests that there must be a de minimus exception. But the order doesn’t give much guidance on the boundaries of Section 8.

I agree with the Professor. If you represent clients that provide settlement services and rely on referrals, you should advise them to be very cautious about providing free services and entertainment persons who make the referrals.

Congressional method for funding CFPB held unconstitutional

Standard

A three-judge panel of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on October 19 that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding structure is unconstitutional. *

Rather than receiving its funding through periodic Congressional appropriations, the CFPB is funded directly from the Federal Reserve, which is funded through bank assessments. This funding method was intended to remove some congressional influence on the bureau.

Most federal agencies receive annual appropriations from Congress that are determined each year through legislative negotiations. Many agencies have separate funding sources like fees and assessments collected from the entities they regulate. The arrangement, like CFPB’s, which provides for a continuous funding source, is common among financial regulatory agencies like the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Many commentators have suggested that this opinion will not stand because nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from funding agencies in a variety of ways. The case is expected to be appealed to the full Fifth Circuit and after that to the Supreme Court. But while this holding stands, it renders all CFPB actions from its inception vulnerable to challenge.

*Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd. v. CFPB

Eviction ban extended…again

Standard

The federal block on evictions expired on July 31, but on August 3, it was extended for an additional sixty days. The new order indicates it is designed to “target specific areas of the country where cases are rapidly increasing, which likely would be exacerbated by mass evictions.” The new deadline is October 3. The money received through this program is nontaxable.

I’ve read that the targeting language only limits the extent of the moratorium to 80 percent of the country geographically and 90% of the population, so that’s not much of a restriction.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has indicated that 14.3% of the 44.1 million renter households are behind of rent.

There are many problems with the system. I’ve read the major concern is that the bulk of the available funds for rental assistance haven’t been distributed. Landlords seem to be faced with helping their tenants apply for the funds in order to receive the funds. And for all of us who have dealt with government, we understand that few governmental processes are efficient. This one is apparently not an exception to that general rule.  For tenants who are living on the outer edge of their ability to work and take care of their children, time and patience to deal with the inefficient process may be in short supply.

Under the new order, protected renters include:

  • Renters who have tried to obtain governmental assistance for rent or housing.
  • Renters who earned no more than $99,000 or $198,000 filing jointly in 2020 or do not expect to earn at those levels in 2021.
  • Renters who are unable to pay the full rent because of loss of household income or out-of-pocket medical expenses.
  • Renters for whom eviction would result in homelessness or force them to reside in close quarters in a shared living setting (thus increasing the risk of COVID).
  • Renters who living in a county experiencing a high rate of infection.

Because the bulk of the funds have not been claimed, the CFPB has introduced an on-line tool to help landlords and tenants locate the funds in state and local governmental agencies. The tool can be found here.

I have concerns that this program is going to take a great deal of sorting out at some point. Is it constitutional?  What will a holding of unconstitutionality mean? Will COVID require further extensions? Will funds have to be repaid by states and local governments if the funds are not properly applied? Will landlords or tenants be forced to repay such funds? Dirt lawyers will undoubtedly have to deal with of these issues in the future in representing their landlord and tenant clients.

All of us are tired of COVID. We seemed at one point to being so close to having it under control, but now we are seeing a frightening trend of rising cases and deaths, particularly among a younger population. All of us with children and grandchildren who cannot be vaccinated are concerned about what this school year will bring. At the risk of being perceived as preaching and apologizing up front who have medical reasons to resist, I strongly encourage vaccines!

A few news items affecting housing…

Standard

Last week, the CDC extended the residential eviction moratorium to July 31. The constitutionality and validity of the moratorium has been litigated many times. The issues are: (1) the existence of constitutional power for the government to hand down such a moratorium under the Commerce Clause; and (2) whether the delegation of authority to the CDC by Congress is broad enough to encompass an eviction moratorium.

The latest decision was issued June 2 by the D.C. Circuit in Alabama Association of Realtors v. United States Department of Health and Human Services*. There, the Court upheld the stay of the lower court’s decision striking down the moratorium and made it clear that the panel believes the CDC would win on the merits. 

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court left the moratorium extension in place.

The Treasury Department issued new guidance encouraging states and local governments to streamline the distribution of the nearly $47 million in available emergency rental assistance funding.  Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta released a letter to state courts encouraging them to pursue alternatives to protect tenants and landlords.

South Carolina Housing authority is working with landlords and tenants to administer the federal pandemic relief funding. The application must come from the tenant, but the landlord may refer the tenant to the agency for action.

In other news, President Biden fired Mark Calabria, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) last week, just hours after the Supreme Court held the structure of FHFA was unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine. The offending provision states the president can only remove the director for cause, not at will. FHFA regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which have been the subject of extensive restructuring debate dating back to the housing crisis of 2008. The case is Collins v. Yellen**

Real estate practitioners will recall that the Court issued a similar decision last year concerning the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in Seila Law v. CFPB***.

* 2021 WL 2221646 (D.C. Circuit, June 2, 2021).

** U.S. Supreme Court case 19-422, WL2557067, June 23, 2021.

*** 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020).

CFPB issues proposed rule to ban foreclosures until 2022

Standard

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a notice on April 5 proposing an Amendment to Regulation X that would require a temporary COVID-19 emergency pre-foreclosure review period until December 31, 2021, for principal residences. This amendment would, in effect, stall foreclosures on principal residences until January of 2022. The press release, which can be read here, requests public comments on the proposal through May 10, 2021.

The press release states nearly three million borrowers are delinquent in mortgage payments and nearly 1.7 million will exit forbearance programs in September and the following months. The rule proposes to give these borrowers a chance to explore ways to resume making payments and to permit servicers to offer streamlined loan modification options to borrowers with COVID-related hardships.

Under current rules, borrowers must be 120 days delinquent before the foreclosure process can begin. Anticipating a wave of new foreclosures, the CFPB seeks to provide borrowers more time for the opportunity to be evaluated for loss mitigation.

Many provisions of the CARES Act apply only to federally backed mortgages, but the CFPB seeks, by this proposed rules change, to set a blanket standard across the mortgage industry.