When it comes to contemplating the wide range of mortgage lending compliance challenges in 2012, it might be useful to borrow from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: there are “knowns,” things we know and things we know we don’t know, and there are “unknowns,” things we don’t know that we don’t know.In terms of some of the “knowns,” the mortgage servicing exam procedures released back in October by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provide a roadmap for some of the emphasis areas mortgage lenders can expect from their new regulator, according to Christopher Willis, partner in the Atlanta office of Ballard Spahr. “I think fair lending is going to be a very big emphasis area for them,” he said. The recent settlement between the Department of Justice and Bank of America “sets the stage for that to continue to be a very public, very big issue. And that was an origination case; that wasn’t even a servicing case.“And if you read the mortgage servicing exam procedures, the CFPB is saying they want to apply fair lending analysis to things like foreclosures and loan modifications,” he added. “I think that’s going to be a major source of activity.”

Dozens of mortgage lender groups have jointly submitted amici curiae briefs before the Supreme Court of the United States in Magner v. Gallagher, a case in which the high court will address whether the disparate impact theory of discrimination is applicable under the Fair Housing Act or whether plaintiffs have to prove intentional discrimination instead.The Independent Community Bankers of America, the Consumer Mortgage Coalition and the American Financial Services Association argued jointly that proof of discriminatory intent is required to establish a violation of the act.The American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Housing Policy Council joined dozens of state banking groups to argue that the text of the law provides no basis for claims of disparate impact, and that lenders are not subject to disparate-impact claims under the FHA.The International Municipal Lawyers Association, the National League of Cities and the League of Minnesota Cities sided with the mortgage lending industry...

In Commonwealth Property Advocates LLC v. MERS, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver recently ruled that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. must be granted the right to foreclose.The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that “by the clear language of the deeds of trust, MERS has the authority to foreclose and sell the property on behalf of both the original lender and the ‘lender’s successors.’”The judges rejected all of the plaintiff’s arguments that MERS lacked the authority under state law to foreclose, noting that the Utah Court of Appeals had previously decided this issue and found that MERS has the ability to foreclose and act as the beneficiary on a Utah deed of trust. The court also noted that the Utah Supreme Court declined to review the Utah Court of Appeals case.

California. Late last month, the state Department of Real Estate warned consumers about illegal loan modification schemes and urged victims to submit formal complaints. The most common ploy is for a scammer to guarantee a loan mod in exchange for a fee paid ahead of time (which is against the law in the state), and then to do little or nothing to obtain the loan mod for the borrower once the fee has been paid. The DRE advised consumers who are looking for a loan mod to never pay an upfront fee for such services, and to be wary of guaranteed success. Indiana. The state Department of Financial Institutions recently expanded the purpose of Title 750, Article 9 of the Indiana Administrative Code to conform the mortgage lending regulation to state and federal laws, rules and regulations, as well as policies and guidance from state and federal authorities. The DFI also revised the IAC to specify that an expunged criminal conviction does not result in an automatic denial or revocation of a mortgage lender or originator’s license. However, the underlying facts of the crime at issue can still be considered.

Gibbs & Brun, the Houston-based law firm that spearheaded a massive investor lawsuit against Bank of America, has drawn a bead on Wells Fargo. The company announced this week that its non-agency MBS investor clients have asked two trustees – U.S. Bank and HSBC – to investigate whether ineligible mortgages were pooled in some $19 billion of Alt A and jumbo MBS issued by Wells Fargo between 2005 and 2007. Some 48 securitization trusts are covered by the action, and Gibbs & Brun said it represented investors who collectively held over a quarter of the voting rights in those trusts. “Clients...

Bank of America and the Department of Justice recently agreed to the largest residential fair lending settlement in history – for $335 million. The DOJ claimed that Countrywide Financial allowed pricing discrimination against minority borrowers as well as unchecked steering to subprime loans. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, will mark the first time that the DOJ has obtained relief for borrowers who were steered into loans based on race or national origin. The DOJ said the practice “systematically placed borrowers of color into subprime mortgage loan products while placing non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar creditworthiness in prime loans.” ...

The government-sponsored enterprises’ increased subprime activity in the mid-part of the last decade was driven by compensation incentives for former executives, the Securities and Exchange Commission claims. The allegations were included in recent lawsuits filed by the SEC regarding Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s disclosure of non-prime activity. In December, the SEC filed securities fraud lawsuits against six former GSE executives. The SEC claims the executives – including former Fannie CEO Daniel Mudd and former Freddie CEO Richard Syron – knew of and approved misleading statements in 2007 and 2008 claiming that the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgages. ...

There’s a very good chance the final disposition of securities fraud charges leveled by the Securities and Exchange Commission against six former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac top executives could be determined at trial rather than by a pre-trial settlement, thanks in part to a recent adverse SEC court decision, according to one legal expert. On Dec. 16, the SEC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that former Fannie and Freddie executives made material misstatements to the public, investors and the media about the two government-sponsored...

Bank of America reached a landmark $335 million agreement with the Department of Justice to settle allegations that Countrywide systematically discriminated against African-American and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom, manipulating them into taking subprime loans when they were qualified for prime financing. It’s the largest settlement ever for a residential fair lending claim. The case also marks the first time the Justice Department has alleged and obtained relief for borrowers who were steered into mortgages on the basis of their race or national origin, a practice that placed...

The outcome of the securities fraud case leveled against six former top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could hinge on what exactly is considered a subprime loan. At least one defendant is prepared to argue that there is no standard definition.In fact, the GSEs appear to still be reporting their subprime and Alt A exposure in much the same way they did in the period covered by the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuits.Late last week, the SEC pulled the trigger on its three-year investigation of claims that the two GSEs failed to disclose to investors the companies’ exposure to subprime mortgages prior to the 2008 housing market crash.