CFPB

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.

Eviction moratorium extended by Feds just two days before expiration

Standard

Job losses during the pandemic have caused many Americans to be behind in their rent, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced on Monday, March 29, that the federal moratorium on evictions has been extended through June 30. The announcement was made just two days before the moratorium was set to expire.

The theory behind the moratorium is that the pandemic severely threatens individuals in crowded settings like homeless shelters. Keeping those individuals in their homes is a step toward stopping the spread of COVID, according to the theory. The moratorium was initially issued in September of 2020 and has been extended twice previously.

Renters must invoke the protection by completing a form available from the CDC website, by signing the form under penalty of perjury, and by delivering the form to the landlord. The form requires the renters to state that they have been financially affected by COVID-19 and can no longer pay rent. Legal aid attorneys have argued that this process is too difficult and that landlords are able to exploit loopholes. For example, if a lease has expired, a landlord might argue that eviction is not a result of non-payment of rent. Legal aid attorneys prefer that the moratorium be automatic.

Landlord trade groups have been opposed to the moratorium, stating that landlords should have control of their properties.

The CFPB and Federal Trade Commission issued a statement announcing that they will be monitoring and investigating eviction practices considering the extended moratorium. The agencies’ indicated they will not tolerate illegal practices that displace families and expose them and others to grave health risks.

More than $45 billion in rental assistance has also been set aside by Congress. This money will benefit landlords as well as tenants. Renters are now able to apply for federal rental assistance through application portals opened in March.

CFPB issues a factsheet on title insurance disclosures

Standard

Also updates disclosure FAQs

cfpb-logoThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has recently issued two documents that may help closing attorneys.

The first document is a factsheet on TRID title insurance disclosures. This document addresses differences between state disclosures and TRID disclosures for simultaneous issue rates. It also addresses the situation where the seller pays for title insurance.

The second document is an updated list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures. The additions address seller paid costs, total payments on the closing disclosure, accounting for negative prepaid interest and whether a lender may require the consumer to sign and return the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure.

U. S. Supreme Court rules CFPB structure is unconstitutional

Standard

CFPB building

The Supreme Court issued an order on Monday, June 29 holding that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional. But the agency has not been abolished.

In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the agency run by a single director who can be fired by the President only for cause violates the separation of powers doctrine. The agency can be saved simply by striking the for-cause termination provision of the Dodd Frank Act.

There will be no immediate effect because the agency is currently being run by an acting director who has not been confirmed by the Senate. For this reason, the director can be fired by the President without case.

In the case, a California law firm alleged that an investigative demand issued by the CFPB is invalid on the grounds that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional.

Supreme Court to hear CFPB Constitutionality Challenge

Standard

Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau likely to be heard by mid-2020

CFPB building

The United States Supreme Court has chosen a case to decide the constitutionality of the CFPB. The case is Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (U.S. Supreme Court 19-7). The announcement was made on Friday, December 27. The allegation in question is that the structure of the agency grants too much power to its director, in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

Under the current structure, the director of the CFPB cannot be fired by the president absent “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The heads of other federal agencies may be removed at the pleasure of the president.

The order posted by the Court requested that both sides address the following question: “If the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of separation of powers, can 12 U.S.C §5491(c)(3) be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act?”

The United States House of Representatives’ motion to file an amicus curiae brief because the Department of Justice has chosen not to defend the constitutionality of the agency.

Concern about the structure of the agency has been voiced since its inception based on the fact that such huge power has been placed in the hands of one individual director. The argument continues that the CFPB has more power than any agency ever created by Congress. While most federal agencies are controlled by commissions or by a director who serves at the pleasure of the President, the CFPB’s sole director is removable only for cause. Also, since all of the funding of the agency is not controlled by Congress, there is little legislative oversight.

In previous hearings, when the CFPB has been asked what the appropriate remedy should be if the structure of the agency is held to be unconstitutional, the CFPB has maintained that formative statute would have to be amended to allow the President to remove the director with or without cause.  Some have suggested that all of the actions of the CFPB might be suspect if its structure is held unconstitutional. Others have suggested that agency should be headed by a multi-person, bi-partisan commission rather than a single director for greater transparency and accountability.

If a decision in the case is announced in mid-2020, the presidential election could be affected since Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s role in creating the agency is a central pillar of her presidential bid.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has made clear in a previous dissent that he believes the structure of the agency is unconstitutional.

Supreme Court to hear CFPB Challenge

Standard

Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau likely to be heard by mid-2020

CFPB building

The United States Supreme Court announced on Friday, October 18, that it will hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The allegation in question is that the structure of the agency grants too much power to its director, in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

Under the current structure, the director of the CFPB cannot be fired by the president absent “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The heads of other federal agencies may be removed at the pleasure of the president.

The order posted by the Court last Friday requested that both sides address whether the CFPB can remain in effect if its structure is found to be unconstitutional.

Concern about the structure of the agency has been voiced since its inception based on the fact that such huge power has been placed in the hands of one individual director. The argument continues that the CFPB has more power than any agency ever created by Congress. While most federal agencies are controlled by commissions or by a director who serves at the pleasure of the President, the CFPB’s sole director is removable only for cause. Also, since all of the funding of the agency is not controlled by Congress, there is little legislative oversight.

In previous hearings, when the CFPB has been asked what the appropriate remedy should be if the structure of the agency is held to be unconstitutional, the CFPB has maintained that formative statute would have to be amended to allow the President to remove the director with or without cause.  Some have suggested that all of the actions of the CFPB might be suspect if its structure is held unconstitutional. Others have suggested that agency should be headed by a multi-person, bi-partisan commission rather than a single director for greater transparency and accountability.

If a decision in the case is announced in mid-2020, the presidential election could be affected since Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s role in creating the agency is a central pillar of her presidential bid.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has made clear in a previous dissent that he believes the structure of the agency is unconstitutional.

Constitutionality of CFPB upheld

Standard

cfpb-logoThe D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in a case decided last week. This decision reverses the October 11, 2016 holding of a three-judge panel which ruled unanimously that the structure of the CFPB allowed its director to wield too much power.

The highly publicized case began when PHH Corp. was ordered by former CFPB Director Richard Cordray to pay $109 million in restitution resulting from illegal kickbacks to mortgage insurers pursuant to Section 8 of RESPA. An administrative law judge had ordered a $6 million penalty at the trial level, but former Director Cordray apparently wanted to set an example and ordered the “ill-gotten gains” to be disgorged. The trial court had limited the violations to loans that closed on or after July 21, 2008. Director Cordray applied the fines retroactively.

PHH brought suit, arguing that the CFPB is unconstitutional because the Director has the sole authority to issue final decisions, rendering the CFPB’s structure to be in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The petition stated, “Never before has so much power been consolidated in the hands of one individual, shielded from the President’s control and Congress’s power of the purse.” The petition argued that the Director is only removable for cause, distancing him from the power of the President, and that the agency is distanced from Congress’s power to refuse funding by allowing for funding directly from the Federal Reserve.

The lower Court agreed, writing, “Because the Director alone heads the agency without Presidential supervision, and in light of the CFPB’s broad authority over the U.S. economy, the Director enjoys significantly more unilateral power than any single member of any other independent agency.” The lower Court removed the restriction that the Director can only be removed for cause, giving the President the power to remove the Director at will. The lower Court also reversed former Director Cordray’s retroactive applicability of fines.

The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the CFPB, preserving the single-director leadership and the independence of the agency. The ruling indicates the President can only fire the Director for cause and allows the current five-year terms to remain in place. Five-year terms will, of course, mean that directors of the agency may remain in place after the termination of the term of the president who appointed him or her.

The CFPB is largely the brain child of the Democratic Party, and Acting Director Mulvaney has taken steps to rein in its power since he was appointed by President Trump. The Court of Appeals ruling was mostly decided on ideological lines. One Republican appointee joined the Democratic appointed judges in upholding the CFPB’s structure.

The Court did rule in favor of PHH by rejecting the large penalty imposed by former Director Cordray. The decision requires that the penalty be reviewed again by the CFPB.