The long-running legal confrontation between PHH Corp. and the CFPB took another turn right before the holidays, with the nation’s eighth largest lender telling the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that its three-judge panel got it right in October when it ruled the CFPB’s leadership structure is unconstitutional. “The panel grounded its decision in existing Supreme Court precedent and other settled authority,” the company said. “It remedied a violation of the separation of powers by allowing the agency to continue to operate subject to basic constitutional constraints, without addressing the decision’s effect on past actions.” Further, “the panel interpreted the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act according to its plain language and consistently with every other circuit to consider ...

The important constitutional issue of separation of powers, and the perhaps somewhat unorthodox manner in which the three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the CFPB’s leadership structure is unconstitutional, justify the court granting the bureau’s request for a rehearing en banc in its dispute with PHH Corp., the U.S. Justice Department told the court. “The conferral of broad policymaking and enforcement authority on a single person below the president, whom the president may not remove except for cause ... raises a significant constitutional question that the Supreme Court has not yet squarely confronted,” the DOJ said. To date, the nation’s highest court has sanctioned a limitation on the power to remove principal officers ...

Numerous experts, commenters and observers are under the assumption that President-elect Trump will have to let the courts reach a definitive legal decision on the PHH Corp. v. CFPB litigation before deciding whether to remove CFPB Director Richard Cordray without cause. However, that’s not the case, according to Aditya Bamzai, associate professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law. In a recent online blog post, Bamzai said the (sometimes unstated) premise in various articles and reports is that the CFPB’s pending challenge to the panel decision somehow prevents any attempt to oust Cordray. “Such a premise appears to rest on two mistaken assumptions: that the president cannot exercise his removal authority absent an Article III judgment authorizing ...

The growing popularity of private-label servicing and the way it’s offered to lenders are raising regulatory questions, underscoring the need for guidance and supervision, according to legal experts. With the most comprehensive offerings of private-label servicing, the borrower never knows the subservicer exists, and that’s the point of the arrangement, according to Craig Nazzaro, of counsel at the Atlanta-based law firm Baker Donelson. Nazzaro attributes...

PHH Corp. has until Dec. 22, 2016, to respond to an order by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals related to its battle with the CFPB over alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The appeals court had directed the lender to reply to the bureau’s petition for an en banc rehearing of the recent ruling by a three-judge panel of the court. Back in October, the panel determined that two aspects of the CFPB’s structure – the dismissal of the director of the agency only for cause and the single directorship as opposed to a multi-member bipartisan commission – were unconstitutional. Additionally, the judges found in favor of the company’s arguments, among others, around the correct interpretations ...

Current and former Democrat members of Congress recently submitted a joint brief to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in support of an en banc rehearing in the PHH Corp. v. CFPB case, including Dodd-Frank drafters and supporters, such as one of the bill’s namesakes, former Rep. Barney Frank, along with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, both from Massachusetts. The lawmakers argued that this case presents “a question of exceptional importance” and requires an en banc rehearing because the three-judge panel’s decision restructures the CFPB in a way that conflicts with Congress’s legislative plan. “By severing the for-cause removal provision, the panel decision fundamentally altered the CFPB’s structure in a way that is at odds with Congress’s design and will undermine the ...

The CFPB recently ditched the antiquated method for assessing compliance with reverse mortgage servicing rules in favor of new examination procedures. Depending on the scope, each reverse mortgage servicing exam will include one or more of eight modules. Subject areas represented by separate modules include servicing transfers, loan ownership transfers and escrow disclosures; account maintenance, payments and disclosures; consumer inquiries, complaints and error resolution procedures; and maintenance of escrow accounts or set-asides and insurance products. Other module segments address information sharing and privacy; events of default and death of borrower; foreclosures; and examiner conclusions and wrap-up. The revised guidance reminds CFPB personnel of their examination objectives, one of which is to identify acts or practices that materially increase the risk ...

The TRID 2.0 clarifying rulemaking proposal fails to alleviate most of the concerns that investors in the secondary mortgage market have about their potential legal liability, according to Pacific Investment Management Company. In its recent comment letter to the CFPB, PIMCO noted, “In most cases, the errors that relate to the [TRID] disclosures are subtle and technical in nature and do not result in corresponding consumer harm or confusion. Nevertheless, because the … rules implement provisions of the Truth in Lending Act that may carry actual or statutory damages and assignee liability to purchasers, there are serious concerns among secondary purchasers due to the rules’ expansion of liabilities in mortgage origination and investing.” Moreover, asset managers and other loan purchasers ...

Although the CFPB said it was not going to revisit the TRID rule in its entirety when it issued its clarifying rulemaking earlier this year, a number of industry players were still disappointed that more problems were not dealt with. At the top of a list provided by the Community Mortgage Lenders of America of issues that still need to be addressed is loans submitted by mortgage brokers. “An issue that continues to vex the industry is how to treat loans from mortgage brokers that are submitted following rejection by another lender,” the trade group said. “As is typically the case, the submission of a loan to a wholesale lender by a mortgage broker, following rejection of the same loan ...

TRID-related mortgage defects dropped slightly during the second quarter of 2016, the first decline since the rule kicked in Oct. 3, 2015, ARMCO, a risk management technology vendor, said in a new quality control analysis. “TRID-related defects continue to be the leading area of concern in post-closing reviews; however, corrective action planning taken by the lending community has produced positive results that can now be visualized in the 2Q data,” said Phil McCall, chief operating officer at the company. According to the report, the overall critical defect rate dropped to 1.63 percent for the period ending June 30, 2016, the most recent period for which relevant data were available, thus ending the upward swing that stretched back to 3Q15. The ...