In a letter to Warren by Stephen A. O’Connor, MBA’s senior vice president for public policy and industry relations, the trade group states that a direct meeting, rather than a request for comment, would provide lenders a better understanding of the direction of the project so they could offer more informed comments and would offer stakeholders an opportunity to explain challenges under RESPA and TILA and the practical concerns posed by the current prototypes.
“The MBA has long been committed to greater transparency in the mortgage process and appreciates that the [CFPB] is treating this initiative as a high priority and moving expeditiously,” O’Connor wrote. “Nevertheless, we do not believe the weeklong comment period provided, which included the July 4 holiday, was sufficient. This is especially so considering that comments are sought on the presentation of closing costs. This is a matter that the Department of Housing and Urban Development considered for several years through two successive rulemakings that engendered tens of thousands of comments.”
I can’t understand why especially in this time of fiscal austerity that we need another gov’t agency(CFPB) to take another look at something HUD spent an exhaustive amount of time on just a couple years ago.
Posted via email from Title Insurance To put this in context, we are tracking the following foreclosure and mortgage-related cases: (1) borrower class actions – 67 pending class-action suits in 23 states challenging foreclosures based upon robo-signing, defective assignments, reliance upon the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), or the misapplication of payments; (2) class action cases related to the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) – 57 class actions in 25 states alleging impropriety in processing loan modifications regarding HAMP, as well as another 24 class actions in 18 states alleging misconduct under non-HAMP modification programs; (3) investor actions – 21 investor suits in 12 states alleging foreclosure and securitization misconduct that seek to “put back” defaulted loans to the loan originator and damages based upon failure to properly form the securitization trusts, misrepresentation regarding underwriting and other misrepresentations, robo-signing, or the use of MERS; and (4) Attorney General initiated suits – three suits brought by the Attorney General of Ohio against GMAC, and the Attorneys General of Nevada and Arizona against Countrywide and Bank of America. Additional investigations have just recently been undertaken. Absent a settlement with the state Attorneys General, more suits by state Attorneys General are likely to be filed. Although no major judgments have been rendered to date, most of these cases are in the initial phase of litigation. If judgments are rendered for plaintiffs in these cases they could materially forestall the foreclosure process and create considerable uncertainty. Absent resolution to the mortgage servicing practices, claims and investigations regarding past practices will continue to proliferate, likely deferring the recovery of housing and mortgage markets. It is no wonder the market is sluggish. This is taken from recent testimony by FDICs Mark Pearce. If lenders are dealing with these issues, they are going to be reluctant to approve new loans. Posted via email from Title Insurance Do title agencies fall under this scrutiny by Dodd-Franks? Posted via email from Title Insurance
Continuing Ed for Title Agents
FDIC’s Mark Pearce Statement on Mortgage Servicing | LoanSafe.org
Continuing Ed for Title Agents
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requests comment on which non-bank companies should be directly supervised under the Dodd-Frank Act
Continuing Ed for Title Agents
Posts navigation
Online – All the time