PHH Corp., the Department of Justice and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have, in recent weeks, gone back and forth with the filing of briefs on multiple angles associated with the legal dispute the lender has had with the CFPB over alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. However, it looks like the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution will play a more decisive role in the outcome than will issues related to RESPA, according to some top legal observers. PHH and the DOJ both submitted responses to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 22, the deadline set by the court. The government is seeking an en banc review by the full appeals court of a ruling by a three-judge panel. In its brief, the mortgage lender said...
The Federal Housing Finance Agency late last month issued two final rules that will give the Federal Home Loan Banks somewhat more flexibility in setting collateral requirements for advances and managing their acquired member assets (AMA). A new AMA rule was necessary because the Dodd-Frank Act requires financial regulators to remove references to ratings, which had been used in setting limits on their AMA programs, most of which involve purchases of mortgages from member institutions. Under the new rule, the FHLBanks will be able to choose their own models to determine credit enhancement requirements. The FHFA also deferred...
“Mr. Mulvaney has been described as a staunch deficit hawk and his nomination is viewed as sending a signal that federal regulations are likely to face tough scrutiny in a Trump administration,” Mishkin said.
For years, TransUnion has worked to get mortgage lenders and the GSEs to adopt VantageScore, a move that is still under consideration, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
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 ...
Depending on how the PHH Corp. v. CFPB case shakes out, the bureau’s rulemaking abilities will likely be severely challenged by the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump. In a recent client note, Barbara Mishkin, of counsel in the Philadelphia office of the Ballard Spahr law firm, pointed out how Trump’s selection of Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-SC, as his nominee for director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) could become a major impediment for the bureau in its effort to crank out new regulations going forward. “Mr. Mulvaney has been described as a staunch deficit hawk and his nomination is viewed as sending a signal that federal regulations are likely to face tough scrutiny in a Trump administration,” ...
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 ...
RSS