Sheppard Mullin Financial Institutions Law Blog

The Federal Housing Administration has issued a proposed rule that would increase the net worth requirements for approved mortgage lenders and hold them responsible for the lending actions of affiliated mortgage brokers. Currently, the FHA requires approved mortgage lenders to have a net worth of at least $250,000. The proposed rule would require such lenders to maintain a minimum of $1 million in net worth within the first year and at least $2.5 million of net worth within three years of the effective date of the rule. The FHA stated that these changes are consistent with industry standards and will ensure that FHA lenders are sufficiently capitalized to meet potential needs, thereby permitting the FHA to mitigate losses and decrease risks to its insurance fund.

In Junkin v. Golden West Foreclosure Service, Inc. (Jan. 5, 2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1150, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding that because the transaction involved was a joint venture, it was exempted from the usury laws.

In Chae v. SLM Corporation, No. 08-56154 (9th Cir. January 25, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the federal Higher Education Act (the "HEA") preempts student borrowers' ("Plaintiffs") claims that Sallie Mae, Inc.'s ("Sallie Mae") interest rates, late fees, and payment schedules violate California law.

Question: May a Bank who made a construction loan secured by real property seek a right to attach order and writ of attachment against a third party guarantor on its unsecured guaranty security?

Answer: Yes, according to the Fourth District Court Of Appeal, Division Three, in United Central Bank v. Superior Court (G042247), decided November 17, 2009.

The last few years have presented many challenges for mortgage lenders. The latest challenge may be coming from an unlikely source - private mortgage insurance policies. Private mortgage insurance, or PMI, is the insurance that mortgage lenders purchase, or cause their borrowers to purchase, when the borrower does not make a down payment of at least 20% when purchasing a home. The PMI policy is intended to protect the lender in the event of a default by the borrower.

The author is a member of the Firm's Government Contracts & Regulated Industries Practice Group. For additional articles and postings concerning this and related topics, please refer to Sheppard Mullin's Government Contracts Blog, which can be found at www.governmentcontractslawblog.com.

I.  INTRODUCTION
 

Without a doubt, the False Claims Act ("FCA") has been dramatically changed in the last few months. As will be discussed in more detail herein, it certainly appears that the FCA has been retooled so that the playing field is now stacked in favor of the government and qui tam plaintiffs. There is also every indication that lenders who have federally insured mortgages, redevelopment funding, or other financial support from the government, are at risk of being sued for false claims unless they take certain precautions to educate and protect themselves.

The Federal Reserve Board on July 23 proposed significant changes to Regulation Z, the Truth in Lending Act regulation, including new consumer protections for receiving home mortgages and home equity lines of credit. These changes include a prohibition of payments to a mortgage broker or loan officer that are based on the loan's interest rate or other terms (often referred to as "yield spread premiums" or "overages"), and a prohibition of a mortgage broker or loan officer "steering" consumers to transactions that are not in the consumer's best interest in order to increase the mortgage broker's or loan officer's compensation. The Board maintains that consumers rely on the professional expertise of brokers and other loan originators and expect they will act fairly. These expectations, however, are not met when the consumer is steered into a more expensive loan. As a result, the Board's proposal went beyond disclosure revisions and suggested these substantive protections. However, the proposal stopped short of imposing on the originator a fiduciary duty to the customer. Such a responsibility would require that the originator find the “best” loan to meet a consumer's requirements. The proposal only prohibits the originator from steering a customer to a more expensive or risky loan to increase the originator's own fees, but does not require the extra step of requiring the originator to seek out the best available loan product.

Section 3500.5(b)(7) of Regulation X states that a bona fide transfer of a loan obligation in the secondary market is not covered by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). That section goes on to state that "in determining what constitutes a bona fide transfer, HUD will consider the real source of funding and the real interest of the funding lender."

In a memorandum opinion, a United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has held that a real estate broker that charges its customers a percentage based commission and a separate administrative brokerage commission of $149 that is not shared with its sales agents violates Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), because the additional $149 fee was not for services actually performed. JRHBW Realty, Inc. (d/b/a RealtySouth) split its real estate brokerage charge into two components, and showed them on separate lines of the HUD-1 Settlement Statement. The District Court held that the $149 portion of the charge (the administrative brokerage commission) was in essence charged for the same services for which RealtySouth charged its percentage based commission, and therefore was not charged for "services actually performed," and was an unearned fee that violated Section 8(b) of RESPA.

On June 29, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law California's Electronic Discovery Act, which is effective immediately. All discovery propounded or responded to must now comply with the new law. These rules are very similar to the recent revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and bring California in line with the federal e-discovery standards.