The nation’s five largest mortgage servicing companies now face a tab of $25 billion to bring to a conclusion the long-running negotiations with the state attorneys general over industry foreclosure practices, according to published reports of the latest behind-the-scenes developments. The deal with the big five servicers – Ally Financial Inc., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. – is now said to include $5 billion in cash penalties, along with the requirement to produce $3 billion in mortgage refinances. Other aspects of the settlement are said to include principal reductions and other forms of aids to struggling homeowners. The top servicers would be released from certain claims having to do with loan servicing and origination, according to the reports – but to what extent exactly remains unclear. And there would be no release from claims related to mortgage securitization.

The servicing settlement being negotiated between state attorneys general and major banks will likely require principal reduction via loan modifications and possibly refinances. Principal reduction, however, will likely only be required for certain mortgages held in bank portfolios. The Federal Housing Finance Agency has refused to allow principal reduction on mortgages serviced for the government-sponsored enterprises. Non-agency mortgage-backed security investors, meanwhile, have been more accepting of principal reduction of late but the vast majority of such mod activity is already concentrated on portfolio loans. ...

Federal prosecutors this week sued an FHA lender to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in paid claims in connection with mortgage loans originated through branches that were not approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A lawsuit filed by the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan district court this week alleged that Allied Home Mortgage Corp., President and CEO Jim Hodge and Executive Vice President Jeanne Stell engaged in reckless mortgage lending, flouted FHA mortgage insurance requirements and repeatedly lied about compliance. Such actions, the suit alleged, subsequently led to...

The Supreme Court of the United States will settle a multi-district circuit court conflict that will likely determine the ability of the mortgage lending industry to determine on its own what to charge borrowers at the point of origination. In deciding earlier this month to accept Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc., the high court will confront the question of whether a plaintiff must demonstrate an unearned fee for a real estate settlement service was divided between two or more persons in order to establish that a violation of Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act occurred.

Rep. Jeff Miller, R-FL, chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, reportedly has instructed his staff to start looking into allegations that a number of mortgage lending institutions charged illegal fees to veterans who refinanced their homes. Committee staff members reportedly met with Department of Veterans Affairs officials to discuss the allegations, which were made public earlier this month by a federal court in Atlanta. “I will reserve judgment on the appropriate next course of action, to include the potential for a full Committee hearing, after having the opportunity to review the results of the staff investigation,” Miller said in a letter to Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa, the ranking Democrat on the committee’s subcommittee on economic opportunity.

Alabama. Last week, in Reed v. Chase Home Finance LLC, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama rejected a mortgage lender defendant's motion to dismiss or amend a putative class action alleging a violation of the Truth in Lending Act. Plaintiff Reed alleged defendant Chase Home Finance failed to provide the borrower with notice that it was a new creditor as required by TILA Section 1641(g) when it was assigned an ownership interest in plaintiff's mortgage and note. The defendant argued that plaintiff’s position that the note was assigned to defendant, explicitly pled in the complaint, has to be “supported by factual material rendering the assertion plausible.”

A regulatory scare from the Securities and Exchange Commission may end up being much less of a challenge for real estate investment trusts than the stiff competition they face from bank portfolios, according to experts at the ABS East conference sponsored by Information Management Network this week in Miami Beach, FL. In September, the SEC rattled the mortgage REIT sector – which has struggled to gain a foothold in the nonconforming mortgage market – by launching a formal fact-finding mission on maintaining the exemption REITs enjoy from the Investment Company Act. ...

Several large banks and mortgage companies are accused of cheating military veterans and taxpayers out of millions of dollars by hiding illegal fees in VA refinance transactions and of deliberately misleading the government to obtain guarantees for the refinanced loans. Three law firms – Butler Wooten & Fryhofer and Wilbanks & Bridges in Atlanta and Phillips & Cohen in Washington, D.C. – have teamed up to pursue the “qui tam” or whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of two mortgage brokers and the U.S. government. The brokers, Victor Bibby and Brian Donnelly, brought the lawsuit under the False Claims Act, a federal law that goes back to the Civil War when it was used to ...

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has suspended a former president of Lend America from doing any business with the agency following his admission that he engaged in a mortgage fraud scheme against the FHA in 2009. Michael Primeau, the former executive, had pled guilty to charges he directed employees of Lend America, a former FHA-approved lender, to divert mortgage funds intended to pay off borrowers’ first mortgages at refinance closings in order to pay company-operating expenses. Two years ago, HUD and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York filed a civil complaint against Ideal Mortgage Bankers, doing business as Lend America, in federal district court. The complaint sought ...

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to review a dispute over closing fees in a move that may resolve a potentially entrenched circuit court conflict over the scope of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act prohibition against unearned fees. At issue is RESPA Section 8(b), which provides that “[n]o person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed.” As the U.S. government...