Richard Cordray

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.

Day of the Dead: Director Cordray didn’t get his Halloween wish

Standard

President Trump signed the legislation repealing the CFPB arbitration rule

As we discussed in this blog last week, the United States Senate recently voted to dispose of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule that allowed consumers the right to bring class action lawsuits to resolve financial disputes. Under that rule, banks and credit card companies could not use mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses in the fine print of credit card and checking account agreements.

Day of the DeadThe vote was 51-50 with Vice President Pence casting the deciding vote. The vote in the Senate followed a previous vote with the same result in the House of Representatives, leaving only the stroke of President Trump’s pen to finalize the repeal.

After the Senate’s vote, CPBP director Richard Cordray released a statement stating the action was “a giant setback for every consumer in the country.” “Wall Street won”, he said, “and ordinary people lost.”  Interestingly, Director Cordray wrote a letter directly to President Trump on October 30 pleading with him to save the arbitration rule.

The letter said, “This rule is all about protecting people who simply want to be able to take action together to right the wrongs done to them.” It also appealed to President Trump’s support of veterans and lower income Americans by saying, “I think you really don’t like to see American families, including veterans and service members, get cheated out of their hard-earned money and be left helpless to fight back.”

The letter obviously had no effect. President Trump signed the law on November 1 to the delight of banking and business groups. Director Cordray said, “In signing this resolution, the President signed away consumers’ right to their day in court.”  The Trump administration, however, is clearly in favor of dismantling regulatory efforts it believes may put a damper on the free market in any way.

Trick or Treat!

Standard

Senate votes to rescind CFPB class action rule

Is this action scary for consumers?

pumpkin

The United States Senate voted last week to dispose of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule that allowed banks and credit card companies to use mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses in the fine print of credit card and checking account agreements to deny consumers the right to bring class action lawsuits to resolve financial disputes.

The vote was 51-50 with Vice President Pence casting the deciding vote. Lindsey Graham voted against the repeal. The House of Representatives had already voted to rescind the rule, and President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law.

When the rule was passed last year, CFPB Director Richard Cordray said the purpose was aimed at giving consumers more power by discontinuing the abusive practice of banks inserting arbitration clauses into their contracts for consumer financial products and services and literally “with the stroke of a pen” blocking any group of consumers from filing class action lawsuits. He also said CFPB’s research indicated that these “gotcha” clauses force consumers to litigate over small amounts ($35 – $100) acting alone against some of the largest financial companies in the world. Consumers are forced, he said, to “give up or go it alone.”

After the Senate’s vote last week, Director Cordray released a statement stating the action was “a giant setback for every consumer in this country.”  “Wall Street won”, he said, “and ordinary people lost.”

HousingWire reported on October 30 that Director Cordray wrote a letter directly to President Trump pleading with him to save the arbitration rule. According to the HousingWire report, the letter said, “This rule is all about protecting people who simply want to be able to take action together to right the wrongs done to them.” It also said, “I think you really don’t like to see American families, including veterans and service members, get cheated out of their hard-earned month and be left helpless to fight back.”

Time will tell whether the President will listen to Director Cordray. But it is clear that the CFPB continues its efforts to shake up the market. It has also been clear up to this point Republicans are seeking to dismantle those efforts that they feel hurt the free market.

CFPB Structure Held Unconstitutional in PHH Case

Standard

Don’t get excited; this shouldn’t change much for SC dirt lawyers.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously on October 11 that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau allows its director to wield too much power.

This highly publicized case began when PHH Corp. was ordered by 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 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.

scales - blue background

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

The Court agreed. It wrote, “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 restriction that the Director can only be removed “for cause” was severed, giving the President the power to remove the Director at will. This decision effectively makes the CFPB an agency of the Executive Branch rather than an independent agency.

The Court did not agree with Director Cordray imposing the huge fine retroactively. The Court explained:

“Put aside all the legalese for a moment. Imagine that a police officer tells a pedestrian that the pedestrian can lawfully cross the street at a certain place. The pedestrian carefully and precisely follows the officer’s direction. After the pedestrian arrives at the other side of the street, however, the officer hands the pedestrian a $1,000 jaywalking ticket. No one would seriously contend that the officer had acted fairly or in a manner consistent with basic due process in that situation. Yet that’s precisely this case. Here, the CFPB is arguing that it has the authority to order PHH to pay $109 million even though PHH acted in reliance upon numerous government pronouncements authorizing precisely the conduct in which PHH engaged.”

It is not likely that this landmark decision will make any changes in our current closing practices. The Court stated specifically that the ongoing operations of the agency will not be affected. The Court vacated the CFPB’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. We might also see an appeal. Regardless, the CFPB is still in charge of the closing process, and all the rules remain in place.

CFPB’s Proposed Rule Would Allow Consumers to Sue Banks

Standard

Arbitration clauses would be limited

At a hearing on May 5, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray announced that the agency has issued a proposed rule that would ban consumer financial companies from using mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses to deny their customers the right to join class action lawsuits.

The proposed rule can be read here, and is also found on CFPB’s website. When the proposal is published in the Federal Register, the public will have 90 days to comment.

pen mightier than swordDirector Cordray stated in his comments last Thursday that this rule is a benefit to consumers because it will discontinue the practice of entities inserting arbitration clauses into contracts for consumer financial products and services and literally “with the stroke of a pen”, blocking any group of consumers from filing class actions. He said the CFPB’s research indicates that these “gotcha” clauses force consumers to litigate over small amounts ($35 – $100) acting alone against some of the largest financial companies in the world.

Some authorities are arguing that consumers will not be benefited by the proposal because of the high cost of class actions and the fact that it is often lawyers, not consumers, who benefit financially from them. The proposal does seems contrary to the Federal Arbitration Act and legal precedent and also demonstrates the power of the agency, the power that has already been challenged in several lawsuits nationwide. Some might suggest that the agency is the entity that acts “with the stroke of a pen.”

The proposed rule does not reach to title insurance and real estate settlement services. The rule applies to products and services that extend, service, report and collect credit.

One fact seems certain. The CFPB has not completed its efforts to shake up the market!

CFPB Announces TRID Clarity in the Works

Standard

Cordray signals notice of new rule expected late July

cfpb-logoIn an April 28 letter addressed to several industry trade groups and their members, Director Richard Cordray of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said his agency has begun drafting a notice intended to provide “greater certainty and clarity” in the Know Before you Owe Rule.

The letter stated the CFPB is working hard to understand industry concerns and recognized there are places in the regulation text and commentary where adjustments would be useful.

In a press release, also dated April 28, American Land Title Association said its primary goal for the proposed adjustments is to insure consumers receive clear information about their title insurance costs on the Closing Disclosure. As we have all experienced, TRID requires a very odd negative number as the cost for owner’s title insurance in most situations. ALTA has been arguing against this strange result for many months.

The Director’s letter stated that the Bureau has begun drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that should be available for comments in late July. It also suggested that one or two meetings will be arranged with industry participants before the NPRM is issued. In the meantime, the letter encouraged continued feedback.

The text of the letter can be accessed here.

Lender Challenges CFPB’s Constitutionality

Standard

cfpb-logoOn July 30, this blog discussed State Bank of Big Spring v. Lew, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on July 30 that a small Texas bank had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The same court was asked on August 5 by mortgage lender PHH Corporation to stay a final decision of the CFPB on constitutionality grounds.

The latter case follows the CFPB’s final decision in an enforcement action against PHH requiring the lender to pay $109 million in disgorgement. The lender was accused of illegally increasing consumers’ closing costs by requiring them to pay reinsurance premiums to PHH’s in-house reinsurance company. The CFPB classified the reinsurance payments as kickbacks.

The court granted the stay, holding PHH “satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal.”

PHH argues the CFPB is unconstitutional because Director Richard Cordray 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 states, “Never before has so much authority been consolidated in the hands of one individual, shielded from President’s control and Congress’s power of the purse.” The petition argues that the Director is only removable for cause, distancing him from the power of the President, and is able to fund the agency from the Federal Reserve System’s operating expenses, distancing him from Congress’s power to refuse funding.

scales

The court issued a one paragraph stay order, and it is not clear whether the motion was successful based on the constitutionality argument because PHH had also argued that Director Condray misinterpreted settled law on mortgage reinsurance and on how disgorgements are calculated.

The stay is in place pending the appeal. It will now be interesting to see whether the Court of Appeals will reach the constitutionality issue or decide the case on the legal interpretation issues. And, of course, it will be interesting to see whether future constitutionality challenges continue with regard to this powerful agency that is changing the rules for residential closings.

Good News From ALTA

Standard

CFPB said lenders can’t “unilaterally” shift TRID liability

lane shiftIn news that will be well received by South Carolina residential closing attorneys, ALTA reported on April 8 that CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that lenders may not unilaterally shift liability for errors on TRID mortgage disclosures to third parties.

The report indicates that U.S. Senator Robert Corker of Tennessee had written a letter to Director Cordray asking whether creditors, acting alone, may shift liability to settlement agents for Closing Disclosure errors. Director Cordray responded in writing, “While creditors may enter into indemnification agreements and other risk-sharing arrangements with third parties, creditors cannot unilaterally shift their liability to third parties and, under the Truth in Lending Act, alone remain liable for errors on the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosures.”

ALTA’s report further states that Director Cordray wrote that lenders and settlement agents are free to decide how to divide the responsibility and risk when implementing the new requirements through contracts.

stay tunedWe have heard from closing attorneys across South Carolina that lenders are taking varying approaches in their attempts to shift or share TRID liability with closing attorneys. We caution closing attorneys to read letters and closing instructions carefully and to negotiate or strike objectionable provisions. Pay particular attention to provisions that would violate attorney ethical obligations. Don’t agree, for example, that client confidences will be revealed to creditors.

So You Say Ninety Percent of TRID Loans Contain Violations?

Standard

Worse than rocket science? Perhaps.

thumbs downAccording to a news report from American Land Title Association, Moody’s Investors Services has written that several third-party firms found TRID violations in more than 90% of the loans that were audited.

ALTA states that Moody’s report indicates that this “informal feedback” was based on reviews of around 300 mortgages from around a dozen unidentified lenders, and that many of the violations were “only technical in nature”, like spelling errors. But Moody’s is apparently concerned that the secondary market may be affected by the sheer number of violations.

There appears to be a disconnect between this reporting and the perception of Director Richard Cordray of the CFPB. In a speech at the Consumer Federation of America, Director Cordray recently said that the housing industry’s concerns about TRID appear to have been “overblown”. He said that reports from industry participants across the market seem to be indicating that implementation of the new rule is going “fairly smoothly”. He even stated that the anxieties in the market were much like the predictions of technological disasters stemming from Y2K, which never materialized.

What do we, as South Carolina attorneys, do with this information?

  1. Take some comfort in the fact that we are not the only ones struggling with TRID.
  2. Do the best we can to comply with TRID rules.
  3. Do the best we can to comply with South Carolina Supreme Court requirements that we fully disclose all funds involved in closings. I believe we must prepare and deliver closing statements, in addition to TRID required Closing Disclosures, to make the proper disclosures. ALTA’s closing statements, which should be available on all the closing software programs, are excellent forms to use.
  4. Talk to each other about the struggles. Collectively, we should be able to resolve some of the problems.
  5. If you need backup on a position, call your title insurance company lawyers. They are hearing it all these days and may be able to help with a particular lender or an odd position.
  6. Lenders are attempting to shift the burden of compliance to closing attorneys through indemnity
    language being inserted in closing instructions or by separate letter. Closing attorneys should resist
    agreeing to this additional liability if at all possible. Negotiate! Be strong!

And if all else fails, I understand that NASA is taking applications for the next class of astronaut candidates. Maybe alternative employment is possible.

astronaut

 

Grace Period for TRID Enforcement? Sort of ….

Standard

hourglassOn October 1, Director Richard Cordray of the CFPB, responded to a request* from the American Bankers Association (ABA) for clarification on how the TRID rules will be enforced in the first few months of implementation. The answer was complicated but ultimately signified examiners will initially look at the good faith efforts of lenders to comply.

The letter, which copied 17 industry trade associations, recognized the burden on the mortgage industry to make significant systems and operational changes and engage in extensive coordination with third parties. Initially, according to the letter, examiners will evaluate a lender’s compliance management system, implementation plan, staff training and overall efforts to comply, recognizing the scope and scale of the necessary changes. The letter stated:

 “Examiners will expect supervised entities to make good faith efforts to comply with the Rule’s requirements in a timely manner.”

As a vote of confidence, the letter concluded that this examination process will be similar to the agency’s approach after the January 2014 effective date of several mortgage rules, where the experience was “our institutions did make good faith efforts to comply and were typically successful in doing so.”

No time limit was stated for this initial examination methodology.

On October 6, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac followed with announcements that they will not conduct routine file reviews for technical compliance with TRID but will evaluate whether correct forms are being used in the closing process. Fannie and Freddie expect lenders to make good faith efforts to comply with TRID. Failure to use the correct forms will be deemed a violation of the good faith effort standard.

Lenders were reminded that Fannie and Freddie have several remedies for a lender’s violation of law that may impair the ability to enforce notes and mortgages. But the announcements stated that the remedies will be used in two limited circumstances in connection with TRID: (1) where the required forms are not used; and (2) where a court of law, regulator or other authoritative body determines that a practice violates TRID and impairs the ability to enforce the note and mortgage or would results in assignee liability

No time limit was placed on this grace period.

On October 16, Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) Office of Single Family Housing announced that it will not include technical TRID compliance as an element of its routine quality control reviews, except to determine that correct forms were used, until April 16, 2016.

Efforts are underway in Congress to establish a formal grace period until January 1, 2016. The Homebuyer’s Assistance Act has passed in the House and is up for a vote in the Senate.

*The request was made by the ABA to FFIEC, which is comprised of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the CFPB, and the State Liaison Committee.