Tag Archives: Mortgage education

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by the Numbers

CFPB Actions Result in $11.7 Billion in Relief to 27 Million Consumers

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

canstockphoto24908732consumer protection(July 15, 2016) – July 21, 2016, will mark five years since the CFPB opened its doors. After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress created the CFPB as the only federal agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers in the financial marketplace.

To date, the CFPB has provided almost $12 billion in relief to over 27 million consumers. Here’s how their numbers stack up:

  • $11.7 billion: Approximate amount of relief to consumers from CFPB supervisory and enforcement work, including:
    $3.6 billion in monetary compensation to consumers as a result of enforcement activity
    $7.7 billion in principal reductions, cancelled debts, and other consumer relief as a result of
    enforcement activity
    $347 million in consumer relief as a result of supervisory activity
  • 27 million: Consumers who will receive relief as a result of CFPB supervisory and enforcement work
  • $440 million: Money ordered to be paid in civil penalties as a result of CFPB enforcement work
  • 930,700: Complaints CFPB has handled as of July 1, 2016
  • 12 million: Unique visitors to Ask CFPB
  • 1.9 million: Mortgages consumers closed on after receiving the CFPB’s Know Before You Owe
    disclosures
  • 135: Banks and credit unions under the CFPB’s supervisory authority as of March 2016
  • 12 million: Consumers who take out payday loans each year; the CFPB has proposed rules to put an end to payday debt traps
  • 70 million: Consumers who have debts in collection on their credit record; the CFPB is developing proposed rules to protect consumers from harmful collection practices
  • 3,400 Colleges voluntarily adopting the CFPB and Dept. of Ed Financial Aid Shopping Sheet
  • 138: Visits to military installations by the Office of Servicemember Affairs since 2011
  • 61: Times senior CFPB officials have testified before Congress
  • 36: Cities where CFPB has held public town halls or field hearings

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

Court Upholds $5 Million Judgment for Violating Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule

(Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd) –  The US Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, has issued a decision upholding a district court ruling that several defendants in the US and Canada deceived consumers through a telemarketing scheme designed to sell phony mortgage assistance and debt relief programs. The district court’s order bars the defendants from working in the debt relief or mortgage assistance industries and enters judgment of $5,706,135 to be used for refunds to injured consumers.

In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against E.M.A Nationwide and other defendants, alleging that since at least 2010 they cold-called thousands of US consumers pitching programs that were to help them pay, reduce, or restructure their mortgage and other debts.

The FTC charged the defendants with violating the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule, which prohibits mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification services from collecting fees until homeowners have a written offer from their lender or servicer that they deem acceptable.

“The courts decision announced today is a major win for consumers nationwide,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It affirms that marketers can’t get away with using misleading sales pitches and then burying ‘disclaimers’ in lengthy documents given to consumers later.”

To summarize it’s ruling, the appellate court wrote, “A court need not look past the first contact with a consumer to determine the net impression from that contact, and a court may consider individual advertisements or messages to determine that net impression . . . . Defendants cannot make considerable material misrepresentations to consumers and then bury corrections and disclaimers in subsequent communications . . . Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgement.”

The FTC works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information the help spot, stop, and avoid them.

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

This article was published on August 18, 2014. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained by third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

 

Mortgage Lender to Pay $104,000 for Income Discrimination

canstockphoto15349787sack of money resized (Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd) – The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that Freedom Mortgage Corporation will pay $104,000 to settle allegations that it discriminated against mortgage loan applicants with disabilities by requiring them to provide medical or other documentation regarding their disability.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Freedom will set up a three-tiered system of relief. Aggrieved applicants will receive $1,000, $2,000, or $5,000 in damages; Freedom will amend its underwriting guidelines to abolish disability-related income verification; and require employees to attend Fair Housing training.

“Applicants who are otherwise qualified for a home loan may not have additional requirements placed on them because of a disability,” said Gustavo Velasquez, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “We are pleased that this national mortgage lender, through the agreement, is making a commitment to comply with its obligation to treat persons with disabilities the same way they treat those who are no disabled.”

 ###

This article was published on August 15, 2014. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained by third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

For more information about HUD, visit http://www.hud.gov/.

 

 

 

Amerisave to Pay $19.3 Million for Bait and Switch

Amerisave to pay $19.3 million for bait and switch

© Can Stock Photo Inc. / iqoncept

 (Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd) – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has found that Amerisave lured consumers by advertising misleading interest rates, locked them in with costly up-front fees, failed to honor its advertised rates, and then illegally overcharged them for affiliated third-party services.

According CFPB, Amerisave Mortgage Corporation, its affiliate Novo Appraisal Management Company, and the owner of both companies, Patrick Market, engaged in a bait-and-switch mortgage scheme that harmed tens of thousands of its customers. Amerisave and Novo will pay $14.8 million in refunds to harmed customers and pay a $4.5 million penalty. Patrick Market, as and individual, will pay a $1.5 million penalty.

“Amerisave lured consumers in with deceptive advertising, trapped them with costly upfront fees, and then illegally overcharged them for services from and undisclosed affiliate,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordary. “By the time consumers could have discovered the advertised low rates were too good to be true, they had already committed to pay hundreds of dollars to Amerisave. Today’s action puts an end to Amerisave’s unacceptable bait-and-switch scheme and holds Patrick Markert personally responsible for his illegal actions.”

Amerisave Mortgage Corporation is an Atlanta-based online mortgage lender that advertises and lends in all 50 states. CFPB found that between 2011 and 2014 Amerisave advertised its interest rates and terms using online banner ads and searchable rate tables on third-party rate tables designed to entice consumers. When consumers made their way to the actual Amerisave web site, they were given mortgage quotes based on an 800 FICO score, even if the consumer had previously entered a score lower than 800 on these third-party sites. CFPB determined this approach by Amerisave offered many consumers misleading low quotes. At loan closing, Amerisave also charged consumers for “appraisal validation” reports, but did not disclose that this service was provided by its affiliate Novo Appraisal Management Company. The finding claims that Novo marked up these reports by as much as 900 percent and alleges that consumers trusted Amerisave had bargained in food faith for this third-party service, which was offered by Amerisave to its customers as a “special deal.”

Bureau findings against Amerisave:

  • Amerisave deceptively advertised low interest rates that were not available on its website, banner add, third-party rate publishers
  • Amerisave locked consumers in with costly up-front by leading consumers to believe they were obligated to pay costly fees, often $400 or more, and by marking up the price of credit reports as much as 350 percent;
  • Amerisave failed to properly disclose its affiliate relationship with Novo and referred all customer appraisal orders to them but violated RESPA by not disclosing their affiliated relationship; and
  • Amerisave charged unfairly inflated prices for services through its affiliate and its owner, Patrick Markert, received three million dollars indirect profit distributions as a result.

Enforcement actions:

  • Amerisave and Novo must provide $14.8 million in refunds to harmed consumers;
  • Amerisave is to stop advertising unavailable mortgage rates;
  • Amerisave is to stop charging illegal fees;
  • Pay a $6 million in fines – Amerisave will pay $4.5 million penalty payment, and Patrick Markert will an additional payment of $1.5 million, to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

The full text of the CFPB’s order is found here: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201408_cfpb_consent-order_amerisave.pdf

###

This article was published on August 14, 2014. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained by third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

For more information about CFPB, visit http://www.consumerfinance.gov/.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three Charged In Connection With $18.5 Million Mortgage Modification Scheme

canstockphoto5220295 handcuffs white collar crime  (Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd) Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Christy Romero, Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“SIGTARP”), announced charges against PED ABGHARI, also known as “Ted Allen,” DIONYSIUS FIUMANO, also known as “D,” and JUSTIN ROMANO for a mortgage modification scheme that defrauded over 8,000 homeowners in all 50 states out of over $18.5 million. Each defendant is charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. ABGHARI and FIUMANO were arrested this morning in Irvine, California, and are expected to appea today in federal court in Los Angeles. ROMANO was arrested this morning in Blue Point, New York and is expected to appear today in Manhattan federal court.

“As alleged, these defendants preyed on thousands of homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments and meet their financial obligations. This Office has zero tolerance for those who target and exploit financially vulnerable people, and we will continue to work to hold these and like-minded defendants accountable,”  said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

The Special Inspector General for TARP, Christy Romero, said “Earlier today, SIGTARP special agents arrested Abghari, Fiumano, and Romano after our investigation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office uncovered an alleged massive, nationwide mortgage modification fraud scheme that purportedly targeted homeowners behind on their mortgage payments who simply wanted help from TARP’s housing program, HAMP. The defendants are alleged to have stolen more than $18.5 million from more than 8,000 struggling homeowners by making empty promises that the homeowners would be preapproved for lower mortgage payments through HAMP. This was all a purported ruse used to trick vulnerable homeowners into paying the defendants thousands of dollars in up-front fees for which zero meaningful work was ever actually done. SIGTARP has aggressively pursued these allegations, working closely with Preet Bharara’s office, to protect homeowners in New York and across our nation from becoming victims of this crime and to bring perpetrators to justice.”

###

 This article was published on August 8, 2014. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

NMLS Smart Deadlines for 2014 License Renewal

(OnlineEd – Jeff Sorg) – The deadline to complete NMLS CE for MLO license renewal is December 31, 2014. However, NMLS Rules allow course providers seven days to report their course completions to NMLS. This means licensees will not want to wait until the last minute before completing their education requirement. If the licensee completes before the deadline, but the provider does not submit until after the deadline, the licensee is prevented from submitting for renewal on time.

In order to allow enough time for CE to be reported into the system and for the MLO to file for renewal, NMLS sets Smart Deadlines each year. These 2014 Smart Deadlines are:

SMART: Course(s) reported by your provider to NMLS by Friday, December 19
AT RISK TO MISS: Course(s) reported by your provider to NMLS by Friday, December 26
GUARANTEED TO MISS: Course(s) reported by your provider to NMLS on Wednesday, December 31

At OnlineEd®, we report your course completions just as fast as we possibly can! This means completions are usually reported to NMLS not later than the next business day from completion (weekends, holidays, and NMLS closures excluded). For completions during the At Risk to Miss and Guaranteed To Miss, we upload completions several times daily. While we do as much as we possibly can to upload in a timely manner, it remains the licensee’s responsibility to know the rules and complete in time for provider reporting to take place before the deadline.

 

###

This article was published on July 31, 2014. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com. OnlineEd is NMLS Sponsor: 1400327

Oregon Amends Provisions of Foreclosure Avoidance Notice

Visit OnlineEd for all of your real estate educational needs

Oregon amends Foreclosure Avoidance Measure Notice

(Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd – Portland, OR) Oregon has amended the provisions of its Foreclosure Avoidance Notice by providing for the form and content of the notice when a lender determines that a homeowner is not eligible for foreclosure avoidance measures or has not complied with an already agreed upon avoidance measure.

The form [Form 20] requires the lender to include homeowner name, lender name, and the subject property address. The lender will then check an appropriate box on the form indicating either that the homeowner is not eligible for any foreclosure avoidance measure or that the homeowner is not in compliance with the terms of an agreement already reached with the lender. The lender must describe with specificity and in plain language their basis for their determination. The form also notifies the homeowner of the date and location set for the sale of the property, cautions the homeowner to seek legal advice, and provides information about agencies and organizations to assist the homeowner.

View  or download a copy of this form.

###

For more information about OnlineEd’s mortgage and real estate broker education visit www.OnlineEd.com. For more information about mortgage-specific learning management systems and products for compliance training, tracking, and management visit  https://www.onlineed.com/inlineed.php or contact Joseph Mikkelson at 1.866.519.9597.

This article was published on February 12, 2014. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements, laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

8 New Mortgage Regulation Deadlines Coming Out of the CFPB

OnlineEd Mortgage Compliance Management System

OnlineEd

(OnlineEd – Portland, OR) – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) gave 12 months (and sometimes less) from the “issue date” to implement the majority of these new requirements.  Because the CFPB considers the “issue date” as the date of publication on the CFPB’s website – rather than publication in the Federal Register,  your company will have less time to comply with the final rules.

Below lists the recent regulations along with a link to the regulation page on the CFPB website and the effective date.

June 1, 2013 – Escrow Requirements for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans

June 1, 2013 – Prohibition on Mandatory Arbitration and Financing of Credit Insurance Premiums (from MLO Compensation Regulation)

January 10, 2014 – Qualified Mortgage and Ability-to-Repay Requirements

January 10, 2014 – Mortgage Servicing Requirements – Reg Z (TILA) and Reg X (RESPA)

January 10, 2014 – Loan Originator Compensation and Training, Certification and Identifier Disclosure

January 10, 2014 – High-Cost/HOEPA Mortgage Loans and Homeownership Counseling Disclosures

January 18, 2014  – Disclosure and Delivery of Free Copies of Appraisals – Regulation B

January 18, 2014 – Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans

Make sure your company is keeping tabs on when these regulations go into effect and has a plan in place to ensure complete compliance in the event of an audit.

###

If you would like information about OnlineEd’s® Compliance Management System, InlineEd, developed for the mortgage industry, please visit www.InlineEd.com or telephone (866) 519-9597.

If you have questions or would like to learn more about OnlineEd®, please visit www.OnlineEd.com.

This article was published on May 15, 2013.  All information contained in this posting is correct and current as of this date.  Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements, laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and if cited, should be verified before use by the user.

OnlineEd Offers MLO Continuing Ed at CAMP Convention

California

 

(OnlineEd) – It’s time for Summer Camp! The California Association of Mortgage Professionals annual trade show will be happening in San Jose, CA on August 4-5, 2011.  The two-day event will include continuing education to cover both NMLS and California Department of Real Estate requirements.  The OnlineEd continuing education courses are approved by NMLS and the California Department of Real Estate for license renewal.

The OnlineEd 8-hour approved continuing education is scheduled for August 4th from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM at the San Jose Marriott, located at 301 South Market Street in downtown San Jose, CA.  Seating at the facility is limited, and with advance registrations already nearing 200,  those who are interested in attending should also register in advance.  Early Bird, Full Conference, and Thursday Day Pass registrations for the convention each include the education at no additional cost.

For more information and to enroll in the convention, please visit the CAMP Web site at: http://ca-amp.org/news/summercamp.htm