The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last week saved PHH Mortgage and its parent more than $100 million when it sent the lender’s dispute with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over issues related to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act back to the bureau, basically starting over.

Last week, the en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in the tussle between the CFPB and PHH Corp. The ruling addressed two distinct issues in the dispute, the first being the leadership structure of the CFPB, which PHH alleged was unconstitutional. The district court had previously sided with PHH, but the appeals court reversed that component of the ruling, and did so largely on party lines. On the other hand, the appeals court judges transcended party orientation and sided with PHH on the part of the dispute that deals with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. (See following story.) On the question of the constitutionality of the ...

The second part of last week’s ruling by the en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit went in favor of PHH Mortgage in its lengthy legal dispute with the CFPB over issues tied to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The court upheld the original three-judge panel interpretation of RESPA and its application to PHH in this case, stating that it was improperly applied and that the lender is entitled to the relief granted.More specifically, the en banc court reinstated the Oct. 11, 2016, panel decision related to the RESPA issues, which included vacating the bureau’s order imposing $109 million in disgorgement penalties, and remanded the matter for further proceedings based ...

In response to last week’s ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that confirmed the constitutionality of the CFPB but rejected the bureau’s interpretation of RESPA in its legal dispute with PHH Mortgage, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-TX, suggested CFPB Acting Director Mick Mulvaney appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. “I am deeply disappointed with the court’s decision and hope the Supreme Court will review the ruling in short order,” said Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. “In the meantime, I take great solace in the fact that Mick Mulvaney can use his unchecked, unilateral powers to continue the agency’s transformation into one that will, as he said, ‘exercise [its] statutory authority to enforce the ...

The en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Wednesday in favor of PHH Mortgage in its long-running legal dispute with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over issues tied to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Some top compliance attorneys are optimistic that the CFPB under Acting Director Mick Mulvaney, or another President Trump appointee, will provide greater regulatory relief and clarity for lenders, and an easing of enforcement activity. Included in that mix could well be a return to the more traditional interpretation the Department of Housing and Urban Development had for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Gerald Sachs, formerly senior counsel for policy and strategy at the bureau and now a partner with the Venable law firm in Washington, DC, told Inside the CFPB recently he anticipates that “mortgage rules would be amended or revised to lessen the regulatory burden, clarify industry concerns or issues, and allow more access to credit.” In addition, ...

It’s likely that mortgage lenders and servicers will get some degree of consideration and accommodation from the CFPB during the Trump administration, thanks to some reviews the bureau is required to make of its major rulemaking as per the Dodd-Frank Act. “The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB to look back and conduct an assessment of each significant rule not later than five years after its effective date,” said former CFPB official Benjamin Olson, now a partner in the Washington, DC, office of the Buckley Sandler law firm, during a webinar last week sponsored by Inside Mortgage Finance. The purpose of this assessment is to look at the effectiveness of the rule in meeting its purposes and objectives under the statute ...

It’s possible that mortgage lenders and servicers will see the CFPB during the tenure of Acting Director Mick Mulvaney use the five-year “look back” the bureau is required to perform to make significant changes to a pair of major rulemakings: the Truth in Lending Act/Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act integrated disclosure rule (TRID) and the ability-to-repay rule. Donald Lampe, a partner with Morrison & Foerster law firm in Washington, DC, explained, “In Dodd-Frank, there’s a five-year required regulatory review, and there are two of those regulatory reviews that are still under advisement: one for TRID and the other for the ATR/qualified mortgage rule. “If I’m thinking about 2018, I feel pretty confident to say that those processes bear careful attention ...

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee recently passed a bipartisan measure that will provide some noteworthy relief from a handful of CFPB regulations, especially for small and regional lenders. Under S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, certain mortgages originated and retained in portfolio by banks and credit unions with less than $10 billion in total assets would be deemed qualified mortgages under the bureau’s ability-to-repay rule. The act also would provide regulatory relief under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act for small depository institutions that have originated less than 500 closed-end mortgage loans or less than 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. The Government Accountability Office would ...

The CFPB recently told a U.S. District Court it opposes Ocwen Financial’s motion to submit the Department of Justice’s brief filed in another case in lieu of the department’s inaction when it comes to weighing in on Ocwen’s dispute with the bureau. Ocwen recently asked the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, for permission to file a supplemental memorandum (an earlier brief by the DOJ in PHH Corp. v. CFPB as to the unconstitutionality of the bureau) in defense of the company’s motion to dismiss the consumer regulator’s case against it. The common thread in both cases is that Ocwen and PHH similarly assert that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional. During the Obama administration, the ...