CREATORS OF THE COMPLIANCE TUNE-UP®

AARMR | ABA | ACAMS | ALTA | ARMCP | IAPP | IIA | MBA | MERS® | MISMO | NAMB

Showing posts with label Truth in Lending Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Truth in Lending Act. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Six Compliance Topics from Lenders about TRID

Over time TRID has settled in to a routine set of policies and procedures. Even so, some questions persist, and we are in a good position to know about these topics because we get inquiries from our many clients. Because of our clients’ inquiries, we are able often to know what regulatory compliance issues are most important in the loan origination and servicing processes. Our experts respond case-by-case, but the overall research is shared, as needed, with our clientele. Our collection of research is huge and we offer our knowledge, experience, and expertise to our clients in order to ensure that they receive the very best guidance – a commitment that Lenders Compliance Group is recognized for keeping!

In this outline, we provide six topics that have been raised several times over the last few years.

1. The Basics: Loans Subject to 12 CFR 1026.19(e) and (f)
The TRID rule consolidates four previous disclosures required under TILA and RESPA for closed-end credit transactions secured by real property into two forms:

-a Loan Estimate that must be delivered or placed in the mail no later than the third business day after receiving the consumer’s application, and

-a Closing Disclosure that must be provided to the consumer at least three business days prior to consummation.

The new disclosures apply to most closed-end consumer credit transactions secured by real property.

Credit extended to certain trusts for tax or estate planning purposes is not exempt from the TILA-RESPA rule.

However, some specific categories of loans are excluded from the rule. Specifically, the rule does not apply to home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), reverse mortgages, or mortgages secured by a mobile home or by a dwelling that is not attached to real property (i.e., land).

You may not use the new disclosures on applications received before August 1, 2015, and you may not use them after August 1, 2015, on loans listed above that are exempt. Therefore, you cannot use them on reverse mortgages or on loans for mobile homes not attached to real property.

You must use existing forms and follow the rules in 12 CFR 1026.18.

2. Timing for Delivery of the Loan Estimate
Generally, the creditor is responsible for ensuring that it delivers or places in the mail the Loan Estimate form no later than the third business day after receiving the consumer’s application and seven business days before the consummation of the loan.

If a mortgage broker receives a consumer’s application, the mortgage broker may provide the Loan Estimate to the consumer on the creditor’s behalf. [12 CFR 1026.19(e)(1)(ii)]

If the broker provides the Loan Estimate, it satisfies your obligation; however, you are still responsible for any errors or defects, and so third-party provider management is crucial.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Advertising Compliance: Getting Ready for the Banking Examination - Part Two - Risk Assessments

Jonathan Foxx
President & Managing Director

Lenders Compliance Group

In Part One of this two-part series, I noted that “the regulator will determine whether advertisements and promotional materials provide timely, clear, and understandable information about the existence of costs, payment terms, penalties, or other terms and charges, the reasons for their imposition, and the salesperson’s compensation from cross-sales.”[i]

Just as an examiner will review the advertising materials using various metrics and means, so also should the mortgage loan originator use three tools to ensure compliance with advertising rules.

The tools are:
  • Advertising Manual, with a host of supporting forms;
  • Record Retention, containing all advertisements and reviews thereof; and
  • Forms and Checklists, constituting all loan products and origination methods.
In this article, we are going to explore these three tools. While the considerations do not encompass all the requirements and conditions relating to each tool, I hope to provide a general understanding of how these should be designed and, most importantly, how they must be interfaced with one another.

Advertising Manual

At the outset, let me clarify the importance of distinguishing advertising policy and procedure from an advertising manual. While the former often does not contain the latter, the latter most certainly contains the former. That is to say, a policy and procedure may or may not be actively given to employees; however, a manual is always given to them. The advertising policy may set forth rules and philosophy, but the manual is the actual implementation guidelines that an employee consults to find decisive standards.

Many companies have an advertising policy and procedure document, sometimes relying on it to serve the purpose of an advertising manual. However, employees – such as loan officers – need to know not only policies and procedures but also the whole gamut of potential conditions that affect their advertising campaigns. Only an advertising manual satisfies this overall need.

Every employee that receives the advertising manual must sign an attestation of receipt. This document has several purposes. It confirms that the employee has been put on notice about the company’s advertising rules and guidelines; it may be used as proof that the document is expected to be complied with or, if not, the employee will be disciplined; it demonstrates to an examiner that the company proactively provides such guidance; and, finally, it affirms the company’s commitment to on-going monitoring of advertising compliance. A signed attestation should be a requirement of employment.

There are three fundamental purposes of the advertising manual:
  1. The employee must sign for receiving it. The reason for such receipt is to ensure that the employee has proven receipt and will be held responsible for meeting the requirements therein.
  2. The company must set forth its advertising standards. This means not just training on the manual or learning the company’s advertising rules. It means also empowering the employee to seek immediate guidance at all times, irrespective of availability to compliance personnel.
  3. Interaction between employees and compliance department. As part of the process toward approval by the compliance department, the manual provides forms that serve as a firm record of advertising that is duly and properly authorized by the company.
At a minimum, the advertising manual should provide rules and guidance in regulatory risks and advertising restrictions. However, a comprehensive document contains far more than statements of policy. It begins with concise definitions of advertisements and promotional materials. Furthermore, the manual should set forth the applicable regulations that frame advertising compliance. Most importantly, there must be a written set of approval procedures, which contain corresponding forms and checklists.

Certain sections must be included, such as the following:
  • Electronic Media
  • Telemarketing
  • Do Not Call
  • Do Not Fax
  • Do Not Email
  • Prescreening
  • Firm Offers of Credit
  • Published Rates
  • Rate Sheets
  • Third Party Advertisements
If the company offers special programs, such as loan products designed for senior citizens, these must be outlined and given some depth as to the target audience and restrictions.

An important inclusion in the advertising manual is a set of reference terms, which ought to be in a separate section of its own. Examples should be given for “triggering terms,” the advertised words or phrases that “trigger” the need for additional disclosures.

Record Retention

Whereas the subject of record retention often comes last in an outline of regulatory compliance policies, it actually holds second place with respect to advertising compliance, after the advertising manual and before the forms and checklists. This priority is due to the critical need to retain all advertisements.  

A company must keep copies of printed advertisements, as well as the text of advertisements that are conveyed by electronic or broadcast media, for a two (2) year period from the date issued by the advertiser. Let me be as clear as possible here: retain copies of printed advertisements (including transcripts of non-print media) and marketing materials used, including all materially different advertising, marketing and promotional media regarding any mortgage credit product.

As a policy position, the company should impose a uniform two (2) year record retention rule to be enforced through the latter of the two year retention period or through at least one regulatory examination. As a practical matter, retain advertisements in perpetuity, if possible. Furthermore, I suggest the company maintain any advertisements that apply to evidence of required actions.

Checklists and forms

There are many checklist categories that are used in advertising compliance. I am going to provide a brief outline of three of them for you. These are the General, FHA, and Online checklists. I have outlined below a checklist for each category, with an expanded checklist for online, given that online is a large source of marketing and loan origination activities.

The list is deliberately brief and by no means comprehensive, so view them with the proviso that you must develop a checklist that is specific to your company’s loan products and risk profile.

You may not know the implications of some of these checklist items; however, please assume that the very fact that these items are on the lists indicates they impute important inferences associated with advertising compliance.


GENERAL CHECKLIST – ADVERTISING COMPLIANCE (Partial Sample)
  • Does the advertising include the HUD logo or legend?
  • Does the advertising include the Fair Housing logotype?
  • Does the advertising have any tendency or capacity to deceive?
  • Is the advertising accurate?
  • If the advertising describes a benefit, does it also describe any conditions that must be satisfied to obtain the benefit?
  • Does the advertising include any Truth-in-Lending Act triggering terms? (Note: if you do not have a list of these trigger terms, please consult a compliance professional. The list is extensive, long, and requires careful review.)
  • Does the “®” or “SM” symbol appear with any service mark?
  • If a service mark appears, does the following language appear: “[Mark] is a service mark of [name of owner of the mark]?”
  • If the advertisement is for a home equity credit line, does it comply with the Truth-in-Lending Act’s special home equity credit line requirements?
  • Does the advertising include any references to tax deductibility?
  • Does the advertising make any “guarantees?
  • Are any applicable state-specific rules satisfied?
  • Have all statements of fact been substantiated?
  • For telemarketing activities, have the telemarketing requirements been satisfied?

FHA CHECKLIST – ADVERTISING COMPLIANCE (Partial Sample)
  • Advertising patterns or practices that a reasonable person would believe indicate prohibited-basis customers are less desirable.
  • Advertising only in media serving non-minority areas of the market.
  • Marketing through brokers or other agents that the lender knows (or has reason to know) would serve only one racial or ethnic group in the market (unless part of an effort to attract minorities not otherwise being reached).
  • Use of marketing programs or procedures for residential loan products that exclude one or more regions or geographies within the lender’s assessment or marketing area that have significantly higher percentages of minority group residents than does the remainder of the assessment or marketing area.
  • Using mailing or other distribution lists or other marketing techniques for pre-screened or other offerings of residential loan products that:
  • Explicitly exclude groups of prospective borrowers on a prohibited basis. 
  • Exclude geographies (i.e., census tracts and zip codes) within the institution’s marketing area that have significantly higher percentages of minority group residents than the remainder of the marketing area.
  • Proportion of monitored prohibited-basis applicants is significantly lower than that group’s representation in the total population of the market area.
  • Consumer complaints alleging discrimination in advertising or marketing loans. 

ONLINE CHECKLIST – ADVERTISING COMPLIANCE (Partial Sample)
  • A lender that advertises online credit products subject to the Fair Housing Act must display the equal housing lender logotype and legend or other permissible disclosure of its nondiscrimination policy if required by the rules of its regulator.
  • In some cases, regulations contain special rules for multiple-page advertisements. For online advertisements that may be deemed to contain more than a single page; thus, lenders should comply with the applicable sections of Regulation Z,[ii] which describe the requirements for multiple-page advertisements). (Note: It is not yet clear what would constitute a single “page” in the context of the Internet or online text.)
  • Internet or other systems in which a credit application can be made online may be considered “places of business” under HUD’s rules prescribing lobby notices.
  • Ensure that online products are offered and evaluated on a non-discriminatory basis and that no illegal discouragement exists.
  • Place any required disclosure as close as possible to the advertising claim.
  • View disclosures on the same platform as the advertisement and be sure to include any disclosures necessary to prevent the advertisement from being misleading.
  • Incorporate disclosures into advertisements whenever possible. If including sufficient disclosure is not possible because of space constraints, consider putting he disclosures clearly and conspicuously on a page to which the advertisement links (if allowed by applicable law).
  •  When using hyperlinks:
  • Make the link obvious. 
  • Appropriately label the link to convey its importance, nature and relevance. 
  • Use hyperlinks consistently, so customers know when they are available. 
  • Place the link as close as possible to the relevant information. 
  • Take customers directly to the disclosure on the click-through page. 
  • Assess the effectiveness of the link by monitoring click-through rates and other information about customer use; make changes as appropriate.
  • Use the “reasonable person rule” and assume that each page of the website is not going to be read by the viewer nor every word - nor visit every web page.
  • Design advertisements so scrolling is not necessary to find a disclosure. When scrolling is necessary, use text or visual cues to encourage scrolling.
  • Research about where consumers may look on the screen for information.
  • Recognize and respond to technical limitations or unique characteristics of a communication method when making disclosures.
  • Display disclosures before customers make a decision to buy.
  • Repeat disclosures as needed on lengthy websites and for repeated advertising claims.
  • Be on the lookout for multiple routes through the website and be sure disclosures are repeated as necessary.
  • Prominently display disclosures; be aware of color, size and graphics.
  • Review the entire advertisement (as a whole) to address the effectiveness of disclosures in light of other elements (viz., text, graphics, hyperlinks, and sound).
  • If using audio disclosures with audio claims, present them in a volume and cadence consumers can hear and understand.
  • Use plain language and syntax.
  • If a disclosure cannot be made clearly and conspicuously so as to prevent an advertisement from being deceptive, do not use the advertisement.
  • To determine whether a particular disclosure is clear and conspicuous, consider:
  • Its placement in the ad and its proximity to the claim it qualifies. 
  • Its prominence. 
  • Whether seeing the disclosure is unavoidable. 
  • Whether other items in the advertisement might distract attention from the disclosure. 
  • Whether the disclosure should be repeated several times to be effectively communicated, or because consumers may enter the site at different locations or travel on paths that might cause them to miss it. 
  • Whether audio messages have adequate volume and cadence. 
  • Whether the language of the disclosure is understandable to the intended audience. 
  • Monitor and analyze data for indications that disclosures were or were not comprehended, and make necessary adjustments. 
  • Pay close attention to technological limitations. (For example, a disclosure that requires Adobe Flash Player will not be displayed on certain mobile devices.)
  • Deactivate pop-up disclosures that can be blocked. Using ‘unblockable’ pop-ups may be problematic.
  • For audio claims, use audio disclosures. For written claims, use written disclosures.

Other advertising checklists that should be included are, as applicable:

  • Closed End Credit
  • Open End Credit
  • Reverse Mortgages
  • Home Equity Lines of Credit
  • Fair Lending
  • UDAAP
In addition, consider providing a set of Reference Guide or Quick Reference Guide with the following sections:

·         Close End Credit – Triggering Terms
o   General Phrases: Do Not Trigger Full Disclosure
·         Closed End Credit Triggering Terms
o   General Phrases: Do Trigger Full Disclosure
·         HELOC – Triggering Terms
o   General Phrases That DO Trigger Full Disclosure
·         Advertising Descriptions and Phrases (i.e., Terms of Offer)

A form should be provided in the advertising manual in order to ensure that a request has been made to the compliance department for approval of the advertisement. Such a form may be called “Advertising Request Approval Form,” or some other title, but the purpose of the form is to provide the following information and documentation:

  • Name of requester and date of request
  • Summary of the advertisement
  • Media
  • Date(s) of publication
  • Specimen of advertisement
  • Audience
  • Approval or Denial (viz., with management signature and date)
The form and all revisions to the advertisement prior to and at publication are kept together for future use as well as to maintain supporting proof of the review process.

Triggering Terms

Certain advertising terms, known as “triggering terms,” cause the need for additional disclosure. The presence of these terms in an advertisement can lead to TILA violations, among other things. There are triggering terms associated with different loan products, such as home equity credit lines, closed end credit, HELOCs, and many other loan products.

For instance, a few terms for closed end credit that trigger the need for additional disclosure are:
o   “Up to 48 months to pay”
o   “90% financing”
o   “As low as $50 a month”
o   “36 equal payments”
o    $500 total cost of credit”

Of course, there are triggering terms that do not trigger additional disclosure.

Some examples of terms for closed end credit that do not trigger the need for additional disclosure are:
o   “Defer your first monthly installment until July”
o   “Pay monthly”
o   “Regular monthly payments”
o   “5% Annual Percentage Rate Loans”
o   “Qualify at 1.00% below prime.”

Virtually all aspects of advertising must be evaluated in an advertisement. Depending on the advertisement or campaign’s loan product, advertising compliance should consider such categories as the term of the offer or promotion, the limitations on use or scope of the offer, general limitations and restrictions on the offer, limitations on geographical scope, limitations as to choice of loan products or availability, limitations of liability, qualifications or prerequisites to availability, and many more factors.

Fair Lending

Advertisements are a minefield of potential fair lending violations. There are some rudimentary indicators of potential Disparate Treatment in marketing of residential loan products. Disparate treatment occurs when a company treats a credit applicant differently based on one of several prohibited bases, such as race or color, national origin, religion, and several other bases.

Importantly, an allegation of a fair lending violation does not require any showing that the treatment was motivated by prejudice or a conscious intention to discriminate against a person beyond the difference in treatment itself. [iii]

When a company applies a racially or otherwise neutral policy or practice equally to all credit applicants, but the policy or practice disproportionately excludes or burdens certain persons on a prohibited basis, the policy or practice is described as having a Disparate Impact. The fact that a policy or practice creates a disparity on a prohibited basis is not alone proof of a violation. According to the interagency examination procedures set forth by Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), “when an examiner finds that a lender’s policy or practice has a disparate impact, the next step is to seek to determine whether the policy or practice is justified by ‘business necessity.’ The justification must be manifest and may not be hypothetical or speculative.”[iv]

Factors that may be relevant to the justification could include cost and profitability. Even if a policy or practice that has a disparate impact on a prohibited basis can be justified by business necessity, it still may be found to be in violation if an alternative policy or practice could serve the same purpose with less discriminatory effect. But, as stated above in the case of disparate treatment, so also evidence of discriminatory intent is not necessary to establish that a lender's adoption or implementation of a policy or practice that has a disparate impact is in violation of the Fair Housing Act or Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

In evaluating whether there is a potential for a fair lending violation in an advertisement, FFIEC has also offered several factors to consider, amongst which are:[v]

  • Advertising patterns or practices that a reasonable person would believe indicate prohibited basis customers are less desirable.
  • Advertising only in media serving non-minority areas of the market.
  • Marketing through brokers or other agents that the institution knows (or has reason to know) would serve only one racial or ethnic group in the market.
  • Use of marketing programs or procedures for residential loan products that exclude one or more regions or geographies within the institutions assessment or marketing area that have significantly higher percentages of minority group residents than does the remainder of the assessment or marketing area.
  • Using mailing or other distribution lists or other marketing techniques for pre-screened or other offerings of residential loan products that:
  • Explicitly exclude groups of prospective borrowers on a prohibited basis; or
  • Exclude geographies (i.e., census tracts, ZIP codes, etc.) within the institution's marketing area that have significantly higher percentages of minority group residents than does the remainder of the marketing area.
  • Proportion of prohibited basis applicants is significantly lower than that group's representation in the total population of the market area.
  • Consumer complaints alleging discrimination in advertising or marketing loans.
With respect to media usage, the follow steps should be undertaken:[vi]

  • Determine in which newspapers and broadcast media the institution advertises.
  • Identify any racial or national origin identity associated with those media.
  • Determine whether those media focus on geographical communities of a particular racial or national origin character.
  • Learn the institution's strategies for geographic and demographic distribution of advertisements.
  • Obtain and review copies of the institution's printed advertising and promotional materials.
  • Determine what criteria the institution communicates to media about what is an attractive customer or an attractive area to cultivate business.
  • Determine whether advertising and marketing are the same to racial and national origin minority areas as compared to non-minority areas.

UDAAP

A marketing campaign, whether consisting of one or numerous advertisements and promotional opportunities, must be scrutinized for potential UDAAP (Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices) and fair lending violations. Nearly any kind of “puffery” can cause a UDAAP violation, the classic example being over-promising and under-delivering! Another classic is up-selling or down-selling to less attractive products or products unsuitable for the audience of prospective applicants.

An act or practice is deceptive if there is a representation, omission of information, or practice that is likely to mislead consumers who are acting reasonably under the circumstances, and the representation, omission, or practice is one that is material, for instance, likely to affect consumers’ decisions to purchase or use the product or service at issue.[vii]

There is a two-prong rule for determining if an act or practice is deceptive.[viii]

  • There is a representation, omission of information, or practice that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
  • That representation, omission, or practice is material to consumers.
Violations of UDAAP easily abound if applicable disclosures are not clear and unambiguous, such as where material information is omitted from the marketing campaign, information is contradicted by laws or regulations, all fees are not disclosed or their timing not given, use of the word “Free” is misleading, fake images and testimonials are used, so-called “guarantees” are misleading, and, in general, insufficient information causes a consumer to not reasonably understand the terms of the campaign.

Here is a three-part test recommended by the FTC[ix] as a tool to avoid UDAAP violations in advertising:

  1. The practice must be one that causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers.
  2. The injury must not be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.
  3. The injury must be one that consumers could not reasonably have avoided.
This three-part formula may be taken as a rule-of-thumb method toward screening advertisements for potential UDAAP violations. The fact is that there is a distinct prohibition or restriction on unfair or deceptive advertising and all due efforts must be undertaken toward the goal of preventing unfair or deceptive practices.

Keep in mind that a representation may be express or implied. An “express claim” directly represents the fact at issue, while an “implied claim” does so in an oblique or indirect way.[x] Whether an implied claim is made depends on the overall net impression that consumers take away from an advertisement, based on all of its elements (language, pictures, graphics, and so forth).[xi] Therefore, the examiner is going to evaluate whether consumers’ impressions or interpretations of a representation or omission are reasonable.

In Part One of this two-part series, I mentioned the “reasonable person” rule. I stated that one of my colleagues often refers to the “reasonable person rule” as the “village idiot rule;” that is, if the village idiot can be expected to understand the message, the “reasonable person rule” test may be passed. Be forewarned, if there is a claim, challenge or examination finding to whether a consumer is in any way misled or may be misled by an advertisement, the onus will be on the company to prove otherwise!

Indeed, reasonableness is evaluated based on the sophistication and understanding of consumers in the group to which the representation is targeted, which may be a general audience or a specific group, such as senior citizens.[xii] But a claim may be susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, and if one such interpretation is misleading, then the advertisement is deceptive, even if other, non-deceptive interpretations are possible.[xiii]




[i] “Advertising Compliance: Getting Ready for the Banking Examination,” by Jonathan Foxx, National Mortgage Professional Magazine, May 2016, Volume 8, Issue 5, p 94
[ii] For instance, § 1026.16(c), § 1026.24(d)
[iii] Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedures, August 2009, p iii, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve Board Office of Thrift Supervision, National Credit Union Administration
[iv] Idem. p iv
[v] Idem. p 11
[vi] Idem. P 39
[vii] Section 5 of the FTC Act broadly proscribes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
[viii] Deception Policy Statement, at 176–77, Federal Trade Commission Policy Statement on Deception, appended to In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 174–84 (1984) (Deception Policy Statement). See also FTC v. Tashman, 318 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003); FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 950 (9th Cir. 2001); FTC v. QT, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d 908, 957 (N.D. Ill. 2006), aff’d, 512 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2008); FTC v. Think Achievement Corp., 144 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1009 (N.D. Ind. 2000); FTC v. Minuteman Press, 53 F. Supp. 2d 248, 258 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)
[ix] Section 5(n) of the FTC Act sets forth a three-part test to determine whether an act or practice is unfair.
[x] FTC v. QT, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d at 957
[xi] See FTC v. Cyberspace.com, LLC, 453 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2006) (‘‘A solicitation may be likely to mislead by virtue of the net impression it creates even though the solicitation also contains truthful disclosures.’’); FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d at 956 (affirming deception finding based on ‘‘overall ‘net impression’’’ of statements); Removatron Int’l Corp. v. FTC, 884 F.2d 1489, 1497 (1st Cir. 1989)
(advertisement was deceptive despite written qualification); Thompson Med. Co. v. FTC, 791 F.2d 189, 197 (DC Cir. 1986) (literally true statements may nonetheless be deceptive); FTC v. QT, Inc., 448 F. Supp. 2d at 958.
[xii] Op. cit. 4, pp 177-179
[xiii] Idem p 178

Monday, May 23, 2016

Advertising Compliance: Getting Ready for the Banking Examination

President & Managing Director
Lenders Compliance Group

Advertising is often central to a loan originator’s marketing plans. After all, if prospective borrowers can’t even find you when they need mortgage loans, there’s nothing left but word of mouth, dropping off bagels at real estate brokers, giving away pens and pads with your name on it, offering occasional, educational and promotional presentations on loan products, and hanging out a website shingle with the hopes that you will be listed on Page 10 of Google Search.

Informing the public of loan products is a highly regulated activity in mortgage banking and finance. Buzz words, restricted words and phrases, and trigger terms can be a nasty nest of vipers that will catch you up in a regulator’s net. The regulatory areas involving mortgage banking advertising include the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Federal Trade Commission’s Mortgage Advertising Rules, FHA mandates, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP), fair lending, the SAFE Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and state regulations. Clearly, advertising compliance is complex!

My firm looks at thousands of potential advertisements a year that are sent to us by our clients for clearance. Although we provide them with our Advertising Manual, which is deep and broad in application and contains many forms and formats, each advertisement still often needs a review, especially at the commencement of a marketing campaign. Our clients want to comply with federal and/or state advertising regulations; however, they feel continually constrained as to how best to both stay within bounds of regulatory compliance and also create appealing advertisements. Of course, banking examiners don’t much care about how engaging and captivating an advertisement is; these professionals are tasked with protecting the consumer in accordance with required regulatory guidelines.

One of the very first requests a regulator asks at the outset of an examination is to receive for audit all advertisements involving contact with the public during the scope period. Woe be unto the company that does not have each and every advertisement ready and available for audit! And woe be unto the company that lets a regulator somehow uncover an advertisement that was not disclosed at the time of an examination – even if the advertisement had no violations in it, the trust factor with the auditor will not be easily re-established!

As many of you know, Lenders Compliance Group’s orientation is what I call “applied compliance” – not the theoretical approach to compliance that seems to work in theory, but often becomes controversial in the on-going implementation of regulatory compliance. In this article, I am going to provide a practical approach to guiding you through the maze of certain advertising compliance rules as well as regulatory expectations. Obviously, the article is not meant to be comprehensive. But it is aimed at providing suggested ways and means toward the kind of hands-on, applied compliance that my firm handles every single day on behalf of our clients.

This is a two-part article. In this first part, I will discuss some basics, give you the principal ways to prepare for advertising compliance examinations, and highlight the banking examiner’s expectations. In the second part, we’ll explore marketing campaign development, the use of advertising checklists, triggering terms (the advertised words or phrases that “trigger” the need for additional disclosures), and the way advertisements impact fair lending.

Basics

First and foremost, let’s be clear about what is a viable advertisement.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

TEAM TRID™ - Compliance Solution

Announcement by Jonathan Foxx
President & Managing Director

Lenders Compliance Group is the nationwide mortgage risk management firm. Today we announced TEAM TRID™, the hands-on compliance solution to implementing TILA-RESPA Disclosure Integration. LCG has put their own team together, consisting of subject matter experts in all relevant areas of regulatory compliance, the purpose of which is to ensure that the TILA-RESPA Integration Disclosure (TRID) requirements are implemented for their clients and financial services institutions with a need for compliance support. The compliance effective date for TRID is August 1, 2015.

My concern for several months now has been the misinformation, opinions, pontifications, webinars, seminars, assumptions, admonitions, speculations, disinformation, inaccuracies, exhortations, hedged answers, proclamations, tenuous training, costly forums and other pay-to-play venues, that have been heartily stalking mortgage lenders and originators.

Some purveyors of information are charging as much as $6000 just for TRID manuals, not counting the expensive training fees and hourly hand-holding fees! In my view, people need reasonably priced, expert support at this time, not yet another guide for the perplexed, costly training modules, and stop watch, hourly counseling charges.

The compliance solution offered by LCG is a hands-on approach, offered on a flat fee basis. By retaining Team TRID™, mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, and settlement agents, will receive the tools needed to implement TRID.

According to the Team TRID™ methodology, clients will receive:
  • Webinar and Overview: Four Step Method - Planning Steps 
  • Webinar and Overview: Loan Estimate  
  • Webinar and Overview: Closing Disclosure  
  • Published & Advance Copy White Papers 
  • Implementation Checklists for: 
    • Mortgage Lenders
    • Mortgage Brokers
    • Settlement Agents 
  • Virtual Round Tables 
  • Consultations on TRID implementation 
  • Access to Subject Matter Experts

The difference between us and the cottage industry of information pundits is that we provide an actual team of hands-on experts to work with a client, and we do not charge for forms, checklists, and procedures guidance. We move at the client’s pace. There is no hourly fee!

TRID is certainly a once-in-a-generation change to residential mortgage loan disclosure - it deserves a personal task force devoted assist in its implementation, with careful planning and cost-effective, reliable compliance support.

Click to learn more about Team TRID™.

Friday, March 6, 2015

Right of Rescission after Jesinoski v Countrywide


A few weeks ago I notified you about the denouement of the Supreme Court’s granting of certiorari on April 28, 2014 to decide whether, as held by the Eight Circuit, a borrower must file a lawsuit to exercise and preserve the TILA rescission right within three years of consummating the loan, or whether simply providing written notice of rescission is sufficient to do so. I have followed this litigation virtually from its inception, given the considerable implications for creditors.* [736 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 2013)]

My White Paper on this matter can be found HERE and HERE. It was published on September 2, 2014 and entitled, “TILA versus TILA: Rescission by Notice or Lawsuit.” My analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling, issued on January 13, 2015, was published on the same date as the ruling. You can read it HERE and HERE. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that providing a notice of rescission within the three-year period is timely and sufficient to trigger rescission within the meaning of 15 USC § 1635(f), the operative statute.

The notion that the borrower would have to sue in order to effectuate rescission simply had no traction because, as the court noted, nothing in the applicable section of TILA requires the borrower to sue in order to exercise the right of rescission, and nothing in Section 1635(f) changed this conclusion, because that section tells borrowers “when the right to rescind must be exercised, [but] says nothing about how that right is exercised”. (Emphasis in Original)

Personally, I thought the defendant, Countrywide, had a non-argument, when it allowed for only requiring written notice of rescission within the first three days after the loan closing, pursuant to Section 1635(a), accepting that the written notice was sufficient to rescind a loan within three years after the closing, but, and this is a big BUT, only if the parties agreed that the lender failed to make the required disclosures. Thus, Countrywide argued that if the parties disputed the adequacy of the lender’s disclosures, the written notice would not suffice and a lawsuit was required. I thought this was some pretty fancy footwork on the part of defendant’s counsel, and the Supreme Court certainly rejected this puffed out stretch of an argument. To quote the ruling: “Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.”

Since the ruling, I have been asked several questions regarding certain aspects of the Supreme Court’s findings and its impact on creditors. In this essay, I consolidate my thinking on this subject, with a view to considering the actual and potential issues arising from the ruling.

I think there are a few outcomes of the decision. But first permit me to offer a thumbnail overview of the issue itself.

Creditors must notify borrowers in writing that borrowers have three business days to rescind the credit transaction by providing written notice of their intent to do so to the creditor. [§ 1635(a)] This right of rescission procedure is well known. Indeed, given any consumer credit transaction that results in the creditor retaining or acquiring a security interest in the borrower’s principal dwelling, the right of rescission is mandatory. By ‘consumer credit transaction’, I mean to include subordinate mortgage loans and refinance mortgage loans wherein borrowers receive additional credit.

If a creditor fails to provide the written disclosure, or provide inadequate written disclosure, the borrower’s rescission rights are extended to three years after the loan was originated. [§ 1635(f)]

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether borrowers are required to provide a notice of intent to rescind, or affirmatively sue the creditor to effectuate the rescission rights within the three year limitation period. [Jesinoski, 135 S. Ct. 790, 790 (2015)]  The decision reached by the Supreme Court was that the plain language of the statute (supra) requires only the former, stating that “[t]he language of the statute leaves no doubt that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind.” [Idem at 792]

The defendant’s gambit was to use the equitable principle in common law for rescission. Under common law, the equitable principle is that borrowers must be able show that they can tender the property received at origination back to the creditor before being permitted to rescind the loan. Specifically, rescission traditionally requires either that the rescinding party return what was received before a rescission could be effectuated (rescission at law) or else that a court must affirmatively decree rescission (rescission in equity). The Supreme Court’s position, however, was that this principle cannot be applied to interpret the TILA rescission regime. [Idem at 793]

Countrywide’s argument fell flat when it argued that Congress could not have intended to eliminate both of these long-standing common law requirements and allow a borrower to rescind a loan simply by writing to its lender. Furthermore, the defendant advanced a counterfactual conundrum which hypothesized that allowing rescission in this manner would simply encourage frivolous claims from borrowers. But the Supreme Court had the last word: “The clear import of §1635(a) is that a borrower need only provide written notice to a lender in order to exercise his right to rescind. To the extent §1635(b) alters the traditional process for unwinding such a unilaterally rescinded transaction, this is simply a case in which statutory law modifies common-law practice.”

Now, as I see it, there are several outcomes of this decision.

  • Borrowers preserve their TILA rescission claims by merely notifying their creditors in writing of their intent to rescind within the applicable three-year time period.
Outcome: Creditors could see some increase of rescission notices and will continue to see distressed borrowers allege TILA rescission claims, in some instances commencing such claims many years after rescission notices are received.
  • If a creditor disputes a borrower’s rescission notice, it is an open question as to when the borrower must file suit to enforce the right of rescission.
Outcome A: It is possible that the limitations period could be indefinite, as long as the borrower timely provides the rescission notice.
Outcome B: As the CFPB posited in Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Services, the general TILA one-year statute of limitations [in 15 USC § 1640(e)] may begin to run from the date the borrower sent the rescission notice. [707 F.3d 255, 266 n. 8 (3rd Cir. 2013)]
  • Creditors will need to reevaluate their responses to borrower rescission notices that they intend to dispute.
Outcome: Creditors must consider the cost of disputing the rescission attempt against the potentially added cost and complexity of rescinding a loan many years after origination, since the procedures of rescission generally require creditors to return all funds received from the borrower and to terminate security interests - even if borrowers are unable to return any funds they received at origination. In other words, the costs to creditors will be far higher over time as rescission takes place from the date of the loan. [12 USC 1635(b)]
  • A lender has twenty days to determine whether the rescission notice is valid or whether it is going to seek a declaratory judgment in court that would block the rescission based on the theory that it provided sufficient disclosures.
    Outcome A: Creditors may consider retaining a security interest in the mortgage or give up its rights to get repaid. This means going through records from mortgages from commencement of origination.
    Outcome B:  Creditors may consider having a blanket policy of challenging all such rescission notifications in order to protect their interests, by seeking a declaratory judgment that there was no disclosure violation.
  • Repayment of principal is going to be a contested area in the future. The Supreme Court did not address the question of what happens when the borrower does not return the principal. In a rescission a lender is supposed to return any points and fees that a borrower paid on a mortgage, release its senior secured lien, and be repaid the principal amount of the loan.
Outcome: A reading of the decision is that, due to recsission, a creditor may be left without a return of the principal and without any claim against the borrower. It is relatively easy to predict that future litigation will center on who owes whom what - and when whatever it is that must be repaid will be repaid!
After Jesinoski, lenders face questions of how to handle rescission notices received more than three days after the close of a transaction. For instance, what if the lender disagrees with the borrower’s assertion that the lender failed to provide the requisite disclosures, and thus rescission should not be available? Does the lender still have to release the mortgage? Can (or must) a lender file suit within twenty days of receipt of such a letter to protect its interest? What internal policies and procedures will the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be looking for lenders to establish?  Presumably, lower courts will answer these questions. In the meantime, creditors should revisit their right of rescission policies and procedures, with a view of ascertaining that they reflect the Jesinoski ruling. 
________________________________
* Jonathan Foxx, President & Managing Director