Articles Posted in REGULATION Z

New Orleans, LA — Mortgage lenders, servicers, warehouse counterparties, and title insurance operators enter the second half of 2026 facing one of the most unsettled compliance landscapes in more than a decade: a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in transition, state Attorneys General stepping into federal enforcement gaps, the NAR Settlement continuing to realign broker-lender referral economics, and a new wave of servicing, fair lending, and affiliated business arrangement activity emerging across the states. The Mortgage Bankers Association’s 2026 Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference — held May 4–7, 2026, at the InterContinental Miami — is where the industry’s senior legal and compliance leaders convene to work through exactly these issues.

Marx Sterbcow, Managing Attorney of the Sterbcow Law Group, LLC, will join a panel of leading mortgage industry attorneys and compliance executives at the 2026 conference to discuss the regulatory and enforcement forces most likely to reshape lender and settlement-provider operations through the balance of the year.

Event Details

New Orleans, LAMarx Sterbcow, Managing Attorney of the Sterbcow Law Group, LLC, is returning as a featured speaker at the National REO Brokers Association (“NRBA“) Annual Education Conference, being held April 22–25, 2026, at the Green Valley Ranch Resort & Spa in Henderson, Nevada (Las Vegas area). 

At a Glance

Speaker Marx Sterbcow, Managing Attorney, Sterbcow Law Group, LLC
Session The State of the Real Estate Brokerage Industry: A 2026 Legal, Regulatory, and Market Outlook
Date & Time Thursday, April 23, 2026 — 10:00 AM to 11:15 AM PDT
Room Estancia DEFG General Session Ballroom
Event 2026 NRBA Annual Education Conference
Dates April 22–25, 2026
Venue Green Valley Ranch Resort & Spa, Henderson, Nevada
Audience NRBA member brokers, asset managers, servicers, and invited default-industry clients

The NRBA’s private Annual Conference is widely regarded as the most sought-after event in the REO industry, drawing asset managers, servicers, vendor managers, and executives from the nation’s leading default-servicing firms. This year’s conference runs Wednesday through Saturday at Green Valley Ranch, and early bird registration closed on January 15, 2026.

Session Details — Thursday, April 23 at 10:00 AM

Mr. Sterbcow’s general session — “The State of the Real Estate Brokerage Industry: A 2026 Legal, Regulatory, and Market Outlook” — is scheduled for Thursday, April 23, 2026, from 10:00 AM to 11:15 AM in the Estancia DEFG ballroom, immediately following the conference’s Opening Remarks and Market Overview. Drawing on his practice at the intersection of federal regulation, state enforcement, industry litigation, and transactional advisory work, the session will provide attendees with a comprehensive briefing on where the real estate brokerage industry stands today and where it is headed over the next twelve to twenty-four months.

Topics to Be Covered

Mr. Sterbcow’s presentation will move from the macro forces reshaping the brokerage business down to the compliance and litigation realities that REO professionals will face in the year ahead — beginning with the commission-structure overhaul and industry consolidation story, moving through federal regulatory priorities under a shifting CFPB, and closing with state-level enforcement and litigation trends. Topics include:

  • NAR Settlement aftermath and its practical implications for REO listing brokers, buyer-broker compensation, and cooperating agent agreements
  • DOJ involvement in real estate commission rules and the antitrust exposure facing private trade groups, MLSs, and brokerages — including whether trade associations can continue to shield brokers from antitrust liability
  • Industry consolidation, including the regulatory and MLS-governance implications of the Compass–Anywhere merger and the market-control questions raised by a combined entity
  • CFPB regulatory outlook under the current administration, including the Bureau’s shifting enforcement priorities and the operational questions that shift creates for regulated parties
  • RESPA enforcement trends and high-risk compliance issues in 2026, including recurring Section 8 pitfalls identified through recent federal and state examinations
  • State Attorney General enforcement against affiliated business arrangements (“AfBAs”) and marketing services agreements (“MSAs”), with a focus on how several states’ AGs are reshaping the compliant-AfBA analysis under RESPA Section 8(c)(4)
  • Litigation and risk-management lessons from recent federal and state RESPA cases, with takeaways for brokerages, title agencies, and lenders operating joint ventures

About the NRBA Annual Conference

The NRBA Annual Conference is a members-only event that brings together the nation’s top-producing REO brokers with the clients and asset managers who directly assign listings. Last year’s event hosted more than 40 clients from over 30 firms, and the 2026 event is expected to exceed that. Due to overwhelming demand, the Green Valley Ranch room block sold out in advance, and the NRBA has arranged overflow accommodations at the nearby Aloft hotel.

Frequently Asked Questions

When is the 2026 NRBA Annual Education Conference? The 2026 NRBA Annual Education Conference is being held April 22–25, 2026, running Wednesday through Saturday.

Where is the 2026 NRBA conference being held? The conference is at the Green Valley Ranch Resort & Spa in Henderson, Nevada, in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Overflow accommodations are available at the nearby Aloft hotel.

When is Marx Sterbcow speaking at the 2026 NRBA conference? Mr. Sterbcow’s session is scheduled for Thursday, April 23, 2026, from 10:00 AM to 11:15 AM Pacific Time in the Estancia DEFG general session ballroom.

What is Marx Sterbcow’s 2026 NRBA session about? The session, titled “The State of the Real Estate Brokerage Industry: A 2026 Legal, Regulatory, and Market Outlook,” will provide a comprehensive briefing on the legal, regulatory, and structural forces shaping the real estate brokerage industry, including the NAR Settlement aftermath, DOJ antitrust activity, the Compass–Anywhere merger, the CFPB’s shifting enforcement priorities, RESPA compliance risks, state Attorney General enforcement of affiliated business arrangements and marketing services agreements, and key litigation trends.

Who should attend the session? The session is designed for REO listing brokers, cooperating agents, asset managers, servicers, vendor managers, title agency operators, lenders operating joint ventures, and any default-industry professional whose business is affected by federal and state real estate regulation.

Is the NRBA conference open to the public? No. The NRBA Annual Conference is a private, members-only event. For information on NRBA membership, visit nrba.com.

About Marx Sterbcow

Marx Sterbcow is the Managing Attorney of the Sterbcow Law Group, LLC. He counsels real estate brokerages, title insurance agencies, mortgage lenders, banks, and joint venture operators on the regulatory, transactional, and strategic questions that shape the real estate industry — from the structuring and compliance of affiliated business arrangements and marketing services agreements, to federal and state enforcement matters, to the legal and market implications of industry consolidation. His practice regularly places him at the intersection of RESPA, CFPB, fair lending, state Attorney General, and antitrust developments that redefine how brokerages and settlement service providers operate.

Notable Representations

Mr. Sterbcow has served as counsel or participated with the legal teams in significant federal and state regulatory enforcement matters affecting the real estate settlement industry, as well as in complex commercial and antitrust litigation. Representative matters include:

  • CFPB v. Townstone Financial, Inc. and Barry Sturner (N.D. Ill., No. 1:20-cv-04176) — Co-counsel for Townstone Financial and its founder in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s first-of-its-kind redlining and Equal Credit Opportunity Act enforcement action, a matter that proceeded through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the federal district court’s 2025 ruling on the joint motion to vacate the stipulated final judgment. The CFPB’s decision to join Townstone in seeking vacatur of its own settlement was widely reported as unprecedented in the Bureau’s history.
  • CFPB v. Rocket Homes Real Estate, JMG Holding Partners (The Jason Mitchell Group), and Jason Mitchell (E.D. Mich., No. 2:24-cv-13442) — Counsel to The Jason Mitchell Group in connection with the CFPB’s December 2024 RESPA Section 8 enforcement action, which the CFPB voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in February 2025, and in related regulatory matters.
  • In re Meridian Title Corporation (CFPB Administrative Consent Order, 2017) — Lead member of the legal team representing Meridian Title in connection with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s RESPA Section 8 enforcement action addressing affiliated business arrangement disclosures.
  • District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General v. Universal Title (D.C. OAG, 2024) — Lead and sole counsel for Universal Title in the District of Columbia Attorney General’s enforcement action involving title insurance joint ventures under D.C. Code § 31-5031.15.
  • CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply, Inc., et al. (La. 19th Jud. Dist. Ct., No. 582,741; La. 1st Cir. Ct. App.; M.D. La.) — Co-counsel for plaintiff CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. in a long-running commercial and antitrust action arising from the New Orleans Crime Camera Project and subsequent wireless surveillance technology sales, asserting claims under the Louisiana Antitrust Act (La. R.S. 51:122 et seq.) and related state-law theories against defendants including Dell, Inc., Ciber, Inc., and MMR Constructors, Inc.

Speaking, Publications, and Industry Leadership

Mr. Sterbcow is a frequent keynote speaker and panelist at national industry events, including the Real Estate Services Providers Council (RESPRO) Annual Conference, the National Settlement Services Summit (NS3), the American Land Title Association (ALTA) Large Agent Conference, the Texas Land Title Institute, and the NRBA Annual Conference. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyer and is a former President of the Louisiana Land Title Association. His commentary on RESPA, CFPB, real estate regulatory, and industry matters is regularly featured in RESPA News, HousingWire, National Mortgage News, American Banker, and other leading industry publications. Follow his ongoing analysis at the RESPA Lawyer Blog.

Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits. The representations described above reflect publicly available court filings, agency orders, and published reporting.

Connect With Us at the Conference

If you will be attending the NRBA conference, the Sterbcow Law Group team would be glad to connect. Please reach out in advance to schedule a meeting, and stay tuned to the RESPA Lawyer Blog for post-conference highlights and key takeaways on the issues discussed.

For more information about the NRBA conference, visit nrba.com. To learn more about the Sterbcow Law Group’s RESPA, CFPB, and affiliated business arrangement compliance services, visit respaattorneys.com or call 877-854-2182.

Marx Sterbcow with the Sterbcow Law Group’s RESPA Law Resource Center has been invited to speak at the Real Estate Settlement Providers Organization’s “RESPRO” 26th Annual Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana on March 27, 2019 at 8:45 AM at the Ritz Carlton Hotel’s Carrollton Ballroom.  The presentation “Whither the CFPB: State Unfair Deceptive Abusive Acts Practices, Regulatory and Private Sector Compliance Issues, Activities and Requirements” will review the most recent federal and state mortgage, title insurance, and real estate brokerage regulatory actions.”  The session will discuss how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and various state mortgage and title insurance regulatory agencies are interpreting UDAAP/RESPA.  The session will also discuss what compliance expectations the CFPB’s Enforcement division will have when a company is under investigation and the general outlook of what is going on or not going on at the CFPB.  The presentation will hit on issues involving private sector mortgage lending compliance involving Affiliated Business Arrangements and those how those expectations extend to class action mitigation risks.

Charles “Chuck” Cain from Cincinnati, Ohio (Executive Vice President Agency at WFG and Of Counsel to the Sterbcow Law Group) and Francis “Trip” Riley from Princeton, New Jersey (Partner with Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP) will co-present with Mr. Sterbcow in this session.

Marx Sterbcow, managing attorney with the Sterbcow Law Group, and James Milano, member with Weiner Brodsky Kider PC will speak on RESPA News’s webinar series on the topic of Lead Generation Compliance. The webinar is scheduled for Tuesday, November 10, 2015 from 2:20-3:15 PM EST. The Editor of RESPA News, Justine Jones will moderate the webinar.

We will train participants on the regulations governing the real estate lead generation industry and what increased attention the CFPB, Federal Trade Commission, and other agencies mean for your business practices. The webinar will focus on how the CFPB expanded its authority with the use of UDAAP, the potential ramifications of Regulation Z’s Loan Officer Compensation Rule, the dangers of co-marketing with other settlement service providers, and how to carefully vet lead generation companies.

Marx Sterbcow, managing attorney, of the Sterbcow Law Group, has been invited to speak at the Louisiana Bankers Association 2015 Bank Counsel Conference on the topic of “Who’s Your Vendor? Secondary Market Compliance & Title Agent Vendor Management.” The session will provide insight into how banks should be managing their vendors and what requirements they should be requiring their title agent vendors to have in place. The presentation will also focus on managing the third party vendor management risks in a Post-TRID world and the expectations the secondary market will be playing in this new changing regulatory landscape.

The 2015 Bank Counsel Conference will be held on December 10-11, 2015 at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in New Orleans.

The CFPB made a last minute surprise decision that they would be issuing a proposed amendment to delay the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule “TRID” from August 1, 2015 to October 1, 2015.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “CFPB” Director Richard Cordray issued the following statement with respect to the TRID delay proposal:

“The CFPB will be issuing a proposed amendment to delay the effective date of the Know Before You Owe rule until October 1, 2015. We made this decision to correct an administrative error that we just discovered in meeting the requirements under federal law, which would have delayed the effective date of the rule by two weeks. We further believe that the additional time included in the proposed effective date would better accommodate the interests of the many consumers and providers whose families will be busy with the transition to the new school year at that time.”

Marx Sterbcow, Managing Attorney of the Sterbcow Law Group LLC, will be presenting on the ATS Secured & Advanced Bank Solutions Webinar Series on Tuesday, March 31, 2015 (1:30 PM – 2:30 PM CDT) on the topic of “RESPA Section 8: Understanding Marketing & Advertising Regulations.” The webinar will cover the topics such as marketing agreements, advertising agreements, co-branding, lead generation, CFPB expectations on financial institutions, third party vendor management marketing concerns for financial institutions, and preparing your organization to remain RESPA compliant.

The ATS Secured & Advanced Bank Solutions Webinar Series is free and you can register by clicking on this link here

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “CFPB” announced an update to the TILA-RESPA regulatory implementation materials today (3/19/2015) which modified the 2013 TILA-RESPA Final Rule.

The update to the TRID rule extends the timing requirement for revised disclosures when consumers lock a rate or extend a rate lock after the Loan Estimate is provided and permits certain language related to construction loans for transactions involving new construction on the Loan Estimate.

Section 8.7: May a creditor use a revised Loan Estimate if the rate is locked after the initial Loan Estimate is provided? (§ 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D))

Yes. If the interest rate for the loan was not locked when the Loan Estimate was provided and, upon being locked at some later time, the interest rate as well as points or lender credits for the mortgage loan may change. The creditor is required to provide a revised Loan Estimate no later than three business days after the date the interest rate is locked, and may use the revised Loan Estimate to compare to points and lender credits charged.

The revised Loan Estimate must reflect the revised interest rate as well as any revisions to the points disclosed on the Loan Estimate pursuant to § 1026.37(f)(1), lender credits, and any other interest rate dependent charges and terms that have changed due to the new interest rate. (§ 1026.19(e)(3)(iv)(D); Comment 19(e)(3)(iv)(D)-1)
Continue reading

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “CFPB” announced another Consent Order with NewDay Financial, LLC on February 10, 2015 where they agreed to settle allegations that NewDay engaged in deceptive acts or practices by failing to disclose payments to a veteran’s organization that endorsed NewDay for reasons other than for NewDay’s consumer service. The CFPB also said NewDay made payments to third parties in connection with the marketing of home loans that constituted illegal payments for referrals of mortgage origination business under section 1053 and 1055 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA).

This CFPB Consent Order opens up new compliance territory with respect to consumer disclosure involving agreements between settlement service providers because it expands UDAAP into RESPA for the first time. However, this consent order is not the model of clarity that we were hoping for because it raises a number of new compliance issues outside of this particular arrangement.

The CFPB alleged that NewDay contracted with a third party marketing and lead generation company (i.e. “broker company”) whose business services included licensing the use of a Veterans’ Organization mailing list, logo, and other proprietary marks and managed the relationship between NewDay and the Veteran’s Organization. The members of the Veterans’ Organization learned about NewDay because of its contractual relationship with the marketing and lead generation company and Veterans’ Organization. NewDay purchased the Veterans’ Organization mailing list via the broker company and sent advertisements to the members of the Veterans’ Organization who in turn contacted NewDay for mortgage products.

NewDay according to the Consent Order is a mortgage lender who is in the business of originating refinance home loans through a program where the VA guarantees a portion of home loans taken out by service members, veterans, and eligible surviving spouses. NewDay also originated government insured reverse mortgage products to seniors.

The CFPB said NewDay advertised its mortgage products to consumers primarily through direct mail campaigns. NewDay sent over 50 million solicitations by postal and electronic mail to consumers offering reverse and forward mortgages. These advertising communications were typically sent to a pre-screened list of consumers, generally veterans and older Americans, selected due to various characteristics that NewDay believed made them more likely to be potential customers for NewDay’s offerings. Consumer members who were interested in learning more were invited by these mailings to call NewDay’s call center, during which calls NewDay’s Account Executives would answer questions, provide information, and take applications.

NewDay’s relationship with the Veterans’ Organization was arranged and coordinated by marketing and lead generation company, which contracted directly with NewDay on behalf of Veterans’ Organization and which paid Veterans’ Organization a portion of the fees it received from NewDay. Pursuant to agreements and understandings between and among NewDay, Veterans’ Organization, and the marketing and lead generation company, NewDay was designated as the exclusive lender of Veterans’ Organization, and NewDay drafted and sent advertising communications by postal and electronic mail to Veterans’ Organization members, with Veterans’ Organization’s approval, that were identified as being from Veterans’ Organization. These advertising communications promoted the relationship between NewDay and Veterans’ Organization, and encouraged and recommended the use of NewDay’s mortgage products to Veterans’ Organization members.

The fees paid pursuant to agreements and understandings between and among NewDay, Veterans’ Organization, and the marketing and lead generation company included:
(1) NewDay paid marketing and lead generation company a monthly “licensing fee” of $15,000;
(2) For each referred consumer member who contacted NewDay to inquire about a reverse mortgage and who completed mandatory counseling, NewDay paid Veterans’ Organization $75 as a “lead generation fee” and NewDay paid the marketing and lead generation company $100 as a “lead generation fee.”
(3) For each referred consumer member who contacted NewDay to inquire about a 100% loan-to-value (LTV) mortgage refinancing and had his/her credit report pulled, NewDay paid Veterans’ Organization $15 as a “lead generation fee” and NewDay paid the marketing and lead generation company $20 as a “lead generation fee.”

The CFPB stated that at no point were the Veterans’ Organization members made aware of the payments by NewDay to Veterans’ Organization and the marketing and lead generation company nor has this information been available publically.

Section 1036(a)(1)(B) of the CFPA prohibits “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. § 5536(a)(1)(B). A practice is “deceptive” when there is a representation or omission of information that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and that information is material to consumers.

“NewDay mailed advertising communications to Veterans’ Organization members, with Veterans’ Organization’s approval and that were identified as being from Veterans’ Organization, endorsing NewDay’s products. These advertising communications articulated reasons why Veterans’ Organization selected NewDay as its lender-of-choice. NewDay also made similar statements to Veterans’ Organization members during phone conversations. The affirmative reasons offered to members created the impression that there were no other connections between NewDay and Veteran’s Organization, when, in fact, NewDay was making regular undisclosed payments, both directly and indirectly, for these endorsements.”

The paid endorsements included language such as:

1. “Veterans’ Organization chose NewDay to be our exclusive Reverse Mortgage provider after spending significant time with the company’s management team and watching its loan professionals in action.”

2. “NewDay USA is [Veterans’ Organization’s] exclusive provider of home loan programs based on their high standards for service and the excellent value of their programs. If you need money, we recommend you give them a call at 1-800-995-4193. Even easier, click here and find out more!”

3. “NewDay is the EXCLUSIVE lender for [Veterans’ Organization]. We earned this because of our focus on helping veteran’s [sic] payoff their debt, lower their interest rates and payments, or get additional cash out as well.”

The CFPB consent order state the failure to disclose material connections between NewDay and Veterans’ Organization while making affirmative statements concerning a substantive basis for the endorsements likely would have been material to consumers evaluating the weight or credibility of Veterans’ Organization’s endorsement and whether to obtain a mortgage loan from NewDay, and likely would have been misleading to reasonable consumers. Thus, these communications constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of sections 1031(a) and 1036(a)(1)(B) of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531(a), 5536(a)(1)(B).

The Bureau alleged that the paid endorsements or recommendations violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act “RESPA”, 12 USC. 2607(a) which provides that no person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreements and understandings, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.
The CFPB said there was an agreement and understanding between and among NewDay, Veterans’ Organization, and the marketing and lead generation company, NewDay mailed advertising communications to individual members of Veterans’ Organization, with Veterans’ Organization’s approval, that were identified as being from Veterans’ Organization which was in violation of RESPA. These communications typically were sent to pre-screened members of Veterans’ Organization and referred recipients to NewDay by encouraging and recommending that members use NewDay for mortgage lending services.

The consent order say the agreements and understandings between and among NewDay, Veterans’ Organization, and the marketing and lead generation company, consumer members who called Veterans’ Organization’s call center for information on mortgage products were referred to NewDay. The CFPB also pointed out that the marketing and lead generation company (i.e. the “Broker Company”) maintained a website for Veterans’ Organization members (the marketing and lead generation website) which were linked to from the Veterans’ Organization website and that was identified as being part of the Veterans’ Organization website. Consumer Members who visited the marketing and lead generation website were referred to NewDay by text “recommend[ing]” NewDay as a source for home loans, along with hyperlinks to NewDay’s website and the phone number for the Veterans’ Organization’s call center.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stated they found more than 3,900 payments to the Veterans’ Organization and the marketing and lead generation company (in the form of both monthly payments and “lead generation fees”) for these referral activities. The referral mechanism set up resulted in close to 400 loans being originated.

The CFPB’s consent order prohibits NewDay from engaging any payment schemes where part of the compensation is for an endorsement. The CFPB also ordered NewDay to cease entering into any business relationship that would involve third party endorsements which might be inconsistent with the Federal Trade Commission’s guidance on endorsements which can be found in 16 C.F.R. part 255. NewDay is also prohibited from violating any aspect of Section 8 of RESPA and must submit a Compliance Plan to the CFPB.

NewDay was fined $2,000,000.00 for participating in this arrangement.
Continue reading

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

Contact Information