Articles Posted in CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU: SERVICE PROVIDER COMPLIANCE

The TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule’s implementation date is beginning to cause heightened concern and worry for those involved in the residential lending industry. One reason is the emerging news that a number of the 3rd party vendors engaged to write the loan originator system “LOS” software may not be able to do so until April, May, June, or even worse that some of the LOS systems that are rolled out may not be in compliance when the residential lender implements the LOS into their system. One reason for the delay by these vendors is that they were busy designing and creating other software to address the Qualified Mortgage “QM” rule that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2014 and only now are the turning to the TILA-RESPA integration.

Kate Larson, Regulatory Counsel, with the Consumer Bankers Association wrote an article for InformationWeek on the “2015 Banking Regulatory Outlook” on Jan. 7, 2015 in which she stated “Despite their diligent efforts, many of our members are concerned their systems will not be ready by the August 2015 deadline because of the limited number of vendors in the market.”

The downstream impact of a delayed LOS system integration is causing many banks and mortgage bankers to have to reassess their risks associated with their third party vendor management compliance obligations with respect to the TILA-RESPA Rule. Many banks and mortgage bankers to whom we have spoken will only be utilizing one title vendor because they are concerned about the integration timeline and do not want to be left shut down in whole or in part on or after August 1st, 2015 as a result of spreading their compliance across to many vendors.

There are simply to many lenders, banks, credit unions, mortgage brokers, and others who are relying on the limited number of mortgage software companies to integrate the new TILA-RESPA LOS system. Several of the TILA-RESPA disclosure task force groups we serve on are sensing real concern by the various trade associations.

On the title side of the business, many of the title software companies have finished or are finalizing their software systems to address the compliance of their title vendors. However, finalization of these systems depend on the mortgage LOS systems integration, testing that integration, and educating the employees of both the lenders and title vendors.

The CFPB has been adamant that they will not delay the implementation date of this rule and even if by some miracle the CFPB suspends enforcement for 6 months (similar to what HUD did with the 2010 RESPA Reform Rule) this will not provide sufficient safeguards because the secondary market may not purchase loans that are not in compliance with new TILA-RESPA Rule. In sum, if something is out of compliance then the lenders face claims by investors that they have violated the reps. and warrants under their repurchase agreements, thus leaving them exposed to future mortgage buy-back claims.

We are hearing that a few of the biggest banks will be completely ready by the end of Feb. 2015 as they went in-house and designed their LOS systems due to concerns about meeting the implementation rule deadline. However, let’s hope the 3rd party LOS software companies can get their systems in place, integrated & tested with their title vendor(s), and all the staff trained well in advance of August 1st, 2015.
Continue reading

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “CFPB” and Federal Trade Commission “FTC” filed suit against the Sprint Corporation in the United States District Court Southern District of New York on December 17, 2014 alleging that Sprint illegally charged its wireless customers millions of dollars in unauthorized third-party text message fees from 2004 to December of 2013. The lawsuit Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Sprint Corporation can be viewed here.

Third party vendor management oversight and the Unfair Deceptive or Abusive Acts or Practices Act “UDAAP” are critical issues in this lawsuit which merit attention by any and all companies subject to the jurisdiction of the CFPB.

The CFPB/FTC complaint alleges that Sprint “unfairly charged its customers by creating a billing and payment-processing system that gave third parties virtually unfettered access to its customers’ accounts. This access allowed third parties to ‘cram’ unauthorized charges onto wireless bills.”

The lawsuits states that Sprint automatically enrolled its wireless customers in its third party billing system without the consumers knowledge or consent and in many cases the consumers were unaware of the unauthorized charges. “Sprint continued to operate its flawed system despite numerous red flags, such as high refund rates and complaints from customers, law-enforcement agencies, and consumer groups.”

The Bureau and FTC said that Sprint profited from this system because it shifted risks to its customers, who had to pay third-party charges under the company’s Terms and Conditions of Service (“Terms & Conditions”). Sprints customers suffered losses but Sprint retained 40% of the gross revenue it collected for third-party charges which totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.

The CFPB said that because Sprint extends credit to, and processes payments for, consumers in connection with goods and services that Sprint does not directly sell or that consumers do not directly purchase from Sprint that Sprint meets the definition of a “covered person” under the CFPA.

Some of the major takeaways from this lawsuit are the importance of third party vendor management oversight and UDAAP:
1. “Outsourcing compliance and billing functions to billing aggregators without adequate oversight.”
2. Sprint’s consumer complaint resolution process was unresponsive.
3. All consumer charges must be authorized by the consumer.
4. Third parties should not have access to Sprints customers and billing systems without implementing adequate compliance controls.
5. Companies should actively monitor its third parties from engaging in deceptive practices.
6. Companies should actively monitor third party advertisements and marketing techniques involving consumers.
7. Companies should have agreements in place with third parties that contain consumer protection provisions.
8. Companies must have a consumer complaint tracking management system in place.
9. The CFPB once again utilized statistical data (in this case consumer refund rates) when analyzing UDAAP and other violations.
10. Companies should not outsource their compliance or fraud-prevention functions.
Continue reading

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced today, September 30, 2014, that they had entered into a Consent Order with Lighthouse Title, a Michigan title insurance agency, for entering into Marketing Service Agreements (MSAs) with various real estate brokers with the understanding that the companies would refer mortgage closing and title insurance business to Lighthouse Title.

The CFPB found that Lighthouse Title violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) which prohibits providing something of value to any person with an agreement or understanding that the person will refer real estate settlement services.

The CFPB noted that Lighthouse’s MSA agreements made it appear as if the payments would be based on marketing services the companies were supposed to provide to Lighthouse Title. “Lighthouse actually set the fees it would pay under the MSAs, in part, by considering the number of referrals it received or expected to receive from each company.” The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s investigation found that the companies on average referred significantly more business to Lighthouse Title when they entered into MSAs than when they did not enter into them.

The CFPB issued a civil money penalty against Lighthouse Title in the amount of $200,000.00; prohibited Lighthouse Title from entering into any Marketing Service Agreements in the future; ordered Lighthouse to terminate all existing MSAs; and Lighthouse must document for a period of five years all exchanges of things of value worth $5.00 or more with persons in a position to refer business.
Continue reading

Wells Fargo announced that effective August 1, 2015 it will control the generation and delivery of the borrower’s Closing Disclosure form in anticipation of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule. The new Closing Disclosure is a mix of the existing Truth-in-Lending (TIL) disclosure and the Settlement Statement (HUD-1). Wells Fargo stated in the Wells Fargo Settlement Agent Communications newsletter on September 24, 2014 they will be taking over this process in order to meet internal compliance and governmental regulator compliance expectations on the bank.

Wells Fargo said the reason they will be delivering the Closing Disclosure Form is because they want to maintain evidence the borrower received the disclosure at least three days prior to the closing since this is a critical compliance requirement they must meet. The bank disclosed that having readily accessible data for internal and external compliance audits was another major reason for this decision.

Wells Fargo disclosed that their view under the new rules is “…that the settlement agent continues to be responsible for the Seller’s information and will prepare and deliver the Seller’s Closing Disclosure. A copy must be provided [by the Settlement Agent] to Wells Fargo for our loan file in order to comply with the final rules.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau often provides subtle clues as to where they may be headed on the enforcement front and on November 6, 2013 they addressed the topic on their website about online Lead Generation and consumer safety involving payday loans. The topic “Is applying for a payday loan online safe?

The CFPB stated that anytime a consumer gives out sensitive personal and financial information on the Internet there are risks involved to the consumer. They warned consumers that if a consumer applies online for a payday loan online, the consumer could be increasing their risk significantly. The CFPB stated the reason for this is because many websites that advertise payday loans are not lenders. They are businesses known as “lead generators” which make money primarily by finding customers for lenders.

The Bureau expressed concern that the online application or form that consumers filled out could be sold to a lender who offers to make the consumer a loan. The Bureau also indicated they have concerns as well that multiple lenders or other service providers could pay for this information causing the them to contact or email the consumer.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced they entered into a Consent Order (File No. 2014-CFPB-0010) with Atlanta-based Amerisave Mortgage Corporation; Novo Appraisal Management Corp.; and Patrick Markert on August 12, 2014 for violating a series of laws including Section 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and the Mortgage Acts and Practices Rule (MAP Rule).

The CFPB found that Amerisave Mortgage Corp., which operates primarily as an online lender, designed its website to advertise and quote mortgage rate information in a deceptive bait and switch lending manner towards consumers. The Bureau stated that Amerisave advertised specific mortgage products online by listing specific mortgage rates in rate tables publicized through the website of an unrelated third-party company (“Rate Publisher”) which compiles rate quotes and other information of mortgage lenders who use its service.

Amerisave advertised lower rates than they were actually providing to consumers but once the consumers contacted them for those rate the consumers wound up paying higher rates than what Amerisave advertised. Amerisave also ran banner or display ads on various websites advertising lower rates as well to consumers.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation entered into a consent order with New Frontier Bank in St. Charles, Missouri on May 5, 2014 which was recently made public. (FDIC-14-0084b and FDIC-13-151k) The FDIC ordered New Frontier Bank to cease and desist from the violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act “RESPA” Section 8, 12 U.S.C. §2607 and its implementing regulation, Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. §1024.14, which is the prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees.

The FDIC’s consent order did not mention the facts surrounding this consent order only that “the Bank shall cease all acts or practices in violation of RESPA and take all necessary steps to effect and maintain future compliance with RESPA.”

The consent agreement also ordered New Frontier Bank to reimburse all consumers who were affected by the undisclosed RESPA violations to pay an amount not less than $400 per consumer as restitution for the RESPA violations the FDIC said New Frontier Bank may have violated. The consent agreement did not state how many consumers may have been impacted. In addition to the consumer restitution New Frontier Bank was ordered to pay a $70,000 dollar penalty to the Treasury of the United States.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced today another consent order involving violations of Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act “RESPA”. Administrative Proceeding File No. 2014-CFPB-0006 “In the Matter of Stonebridge Title Services, Inc.” The CFPB reviewed the business practices of Stonebridge Title Services, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey and its two owners Bruce Dostal and Cesare Stefanelli operated the title agency to determine if Stonebridge Title was violating RESPA Section 8(a) “illegal kickbacks” and 8(b) “unearned fees”. Stonebridge Title is an appointed title agent for several national title insurance underwriters who paid referral commissions of up to 40% of the title insurance premiums they received from consumers to Independent Salespeople for the referral of title insurance work to Stonebridge Title.

The CFPB stated the Independent Salespeople had or developed relationships with entities, typically law firms, and referred these entities to Stonebridge for title insurance and related services on behalf of consumers. The commission agreements Stonebridge utilized with the Independent Salespeople were structured in a way that commissions were paid on each title order placed by a firm that the Independent Sales person referred to Stonebridge. The commission payment amounts for title insurance orders were determined solely based on the value of the title insurance premiums multiplied by a previously agreed-to commission percentage according to the CFPB consent order.

The Independent Salespeople did not perform any title services for the consumers who paid the title insurance premiums to Stonebridge. The Independent Salespeople did not provide any non-referral services for Stonebridge for which they were to receive compensation according to the order.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “CFPB” issued a Consent Order against Fidelity Mortgage Corporation “FFMC” and Mark Figert on January 16, 2014 for engaging in illegal business practices which violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §2607 “RESPA”. The CFPB stated that Fidelity Financial Mortgage Corporation, which is based in St. Louis, Missouri, entered into a office-rental agreement with the Bank of Sullivan.

The CFPB described the illegal office space lease agreement between FFMC and Bank of Sullivan as a rental arrangement based the volume of successful mortgage transactions that FFMC would originate out of the Bank of Sullivan’s office. The parties discussed anticipated loan volume and a pipeline of referrals under this office space rental agreement. The parties negotiated a daily rental rate of $200.00 and the lease agreement contained an exclusivity clause which required the Bank of Sullivan to only promote FFMC and FFMC could only promote the Bank of Sullivan.

The office space consisted of an interior office surrounded by bank personnel. FFMC also did not exclusively use the bank’s office to meet bank related borrowers. The CFPB stated that FFMC met Bank of Sullivan borrowers at a variety of locations, including coffee shops. The office rental agreement between March 2012 and November of 2012 showed that Fidelity had originated approximately 20 loans resulting an average monthly rental amount of $1,350.00 per month. The monthly office space rental amount fluctuated each month (from $800 to $2000 per month). The CFPB conducted a investigation into what the prevailing monthly rental rate was in the market place for office of similar stature and the found a monthly amount ranging from $600 to $900 a month which was substantially lower than the average monthly amount Fidelity had paid the Bank of Sullivan under this office space rental agreement. The rental agreement the CFPB violated RESPA Section 8(a) which prohibits giving a fee, kickback or thing of value in exchange for a referral of business related to a real estate settlement service.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division certified a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act “RESPA” class action lawsuit on Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2014 involving marketing agreements between a “Team” of real estate agents “and Lakeview Title Company, Inc. The Creig Northrop Team, PC (a/k/a The Northrop Team) is a team of independent contractor real estate agents who work for Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc.. The class action lawsuit arises out of an alleged scheme for a team of real estate agents to receive over half million dollars in illegal kickbacks from a title insurance company for referrals over a period of 13 years.

Patrick Baehr, et al., v. The Creig Northrop Team, P.C., et al. (Civil No: 1:2013cv00933). Judge William D. Quarles is the presiding judge in this case.

The allegations specifically state that the defendants “used a ‘sham employment arrangement and a sham marketing agreement’ ‘to generate unearned fees and kickbacks.'” The employment agreement allegation involves Carla Northrop who was a full-time employee of the Northrop Team but secretly received payments from Lakeview Title under an employment agreement, even though Ms. Northrop allegedly did not perform any services or actual work for Lakeview Title nor was she provided an office, telephone number, or email address showing she was working for Lakeview Title. The employment agreement was not disclosed to the plaintiffs in this case. These allegations if proven would likely violate 12 U.S.C. §2607 of RESPA which is the prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees section.

Contact Information