Tag Archives: mortgage license

Oregon’s Senate Bill 879 – Exemptions from Mortgage Loan Originator (MLO) License Requirement

Oregon bill exempts certain individuals from the requirement to hold a mortgage loan originator’s license

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

onlineed news(December 24, 2015) – Senate Bill 879 exempts an individual from the requirement to hold a mortgage loan originator’s license who sells, offers, or negotiates terms of up to three residential mortgage loans secured by dwelling unit owned by an individual or a limited liability company, of which individual is a member, during any 12-month period. The exemption is limited to liability companies consisting of an individual and family members and prohibits an individual or limited liability company from advertising that it is in business of making loans. Finally, the bill limits to holding no more than eight residential loans and requires the individual claiming this exemption to disclose all loans that the limited liability companies hold in aggregate.

In addition, Senate Bill 879 exempts an attorney from having to hold a mortgage loan originator’s license if the attorney negotiates the terms of a residential mortgage loan in representing a client and does not receive compensation from a mortgage banker, broker, loan originator, or lender unless the compensation is from a client who has specified an exemption from the requirement to hold a mortgage loan originators license.

SB 879 becomes effective January 1, 2016.

###

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 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.

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

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Partners, and State Attorneys General File Order Requiring Suntrust to Provide $540 Million in Relief to Homeowners for Servicing Wrongs

Company Also Ordered to Pay $10 Million for Servicing Misconduct and Fined $418 Million by the DOJ

canstockphoto15349787sack of money resized

SunTrust to Provide $540 Million in Relief to Homeowners

(CFPB -WASHINGTON, D.C.) — Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and attorneys general in 49 states and the District of Columbia filed a proposed federal court order requiring SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. to provide $500 million in loss-mitigation relief to underwater borrowers. The order also requires SunTrust to pay $40 million to approximately 48,000 consumers who lost their homes to foreclosure and $10 million to the federal government. The order addresses systemic mortgage servicing misconduct, including robo-signing and illegal foreclosure practices. SunTrust must also pay a $418 million penalty, in a parallel mortgage lending filing announced by DOJ today.

 “Deceptive and illegal mortgage servicing practices have pushed families into foreclosure and devastated communities across the nation,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today’s action will help homeowners and consumers harmed by SunTrust’s unlawful foreclosure practices. The Consumer Bureau will continue to investigate mortgage servicers that mistreat consumers, and we will not hesitate to take action against any company that violates our new servicing rules.”

SunTrust is a mortgage lender and servicer headquartered in Richmond, Va., and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Atlanta-based SunTrust Banks, Inc. As a mortgage servicer, it is responsible for collecting payments from the mortgage borrower on behalf of the owner of the loan. It handles customer service, collections, loan modifications, and foreclosures.

 The CFPB, DOJ, HUD, and state attorneys general uncovered substantial evidence that SunTrust was engaged in systemic mortgage servicing misconduct. According to the complaint filed in the federal district court in the District of Columbia, SunTrust’s illegal practices put thousands of people at risk of losing their homes. Specifically, the complaint alleges that SunTrust:

  •  Took advantage of homeowners with servicing shortcuts and unauthorized fees: SunTrust failed to promptly and accurately apply payments made by borrowers, and charged unauthorized fees for default-related services.
  •  Deceived homeowners about foreclosure alternatives and improperly denied loan modifications: SunTrust failed to provide accurate information about loan modification and other loss-mitigation services, failed to properly process borrowers’ applications and calculate their eligibility for loan modifications, and provided false or misleading reasons for denying loan modifications.
  • Engaged in illegal foreclosure practices: SunTrust provided false or misleading information to consumers about the status of foreclosure proceedings where the borrower was in good faith actively pursuing a loss mitigation alternative also offered by SunTrust. The company also robo-signed foreclosure documents, including preparing and filing affidavits whose signers had not actually reviewed any information to verify the claims.

Enforcement Action

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. Today’s proposed court order, filed in federal district court in the District of Columbia, would require SunTrust to correct their practices and provide relief to harmed consumers. Under the terms of the order, SunTrust must:

  • Provide at least $500 million in relief to underwater borrowers: Over a three-year period, SunTrust must provide more than $500 million in loss mitigation relief to consumers, including reducing the principal on mortgages for borrowers who are at risk of default and reducing mortgage interest rates for homeowners who are current but underwater on their mortgages. If SunTrust fails to meet this requirement, it must pay a cash penalty equal to at least 125 percent of the shortfall.
  •  Provide $40 million in refunds to foreclosure victims: SunTrust must refund $40 million to consumers whose loans it serviced who lost their homes to foreclosure between Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2013. All consumers who submit valid claims will receive an equal share of the $40 million. Borrowers who receive payments will not have to release any claims and will be free to seek additional relief in the courts. Eligible consumers can expect to hear from the settlement administrator about potential payments later this year.
  •  Pay $10 million to the federal government: SunTrust must pay $10 million to cover losses it caused to the Federal Housing Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Rural Housing Service.
  •  Homeowner protections: Today’s order will require SunTrust to establish additional homeowner protections, including protections for consumers in bankruptcy. Like other servicers, SunTrust is subject to the CFPB’s new mortgage servicing rules that took effect on January 10, 2014. The agreement only covers SunTrust’s violations before the new rules took effect, and does not prevent the CFPB from pursuing civil enforcement actions against SunTrust for violations of these rules.  

 A copy of the SunTrust complaint that was also filed in the federal court in the District of Columbia will be posted at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The proposed federal court order will have the full force of law only when signed by the presiding judge.

The settlement administrator will be in touch with eligible consumers who lost their homes to foreclosure between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2013.  Consumers who are interested in loss mitigation should contact SunTrust at 1-800-634-7928 or by email through the SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. support page at www.SunTrustMortgage.com.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear mortgage loan officers’ pay case

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to weigh a dispute over whether mortgage loan officers are exempt from minimum wage and overtime pay regulations.

The two related cases concern a decision in 2010 by the U.S. Labor Department, which reversed a 2004 finding made during the administration of President George W. Bush that had concluded mortgage loan officers were exempt from the regulations.

The Mortgage Bankers Association challenged the more recent finding in court, leading to the current litigation over whether the government followed the correct process in changing course.

[Read the story]

CFPB Orders Connecticut Lender to Pay $83,000 Civil Penalty

Pay Fine

Connecticut Lender to Pay $83,000

(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – Washington, D.C.) Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered a Connecticut mortgage lender, 1st Alliance Lending, LLC (First Alliance), to pay an $83,000 civil money penalty for violating federal law by illegally splitting real estate settlement fees. First Alliance self-reported these violations to the Bureau, admitted liability, and provided information related to the conduct of other actors that has facilitated other enforcement investigations.

“These types of illegal payments can harm consumers by driving up the costs of mortgage settlements,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “The Bureau will use its enforcement authority to ensure that these types of practices are halted. We will, however, also continue to take into account the self-reporting and cooperation of companies in determining how to resolve such matters.”

First Alliance is a mortgage lender in East Hartford, Conn. that focuses primarily on providing loss-mitigation financing to distressed borrowers. First Alliance obtains troubled mortgages from mortgage servicers, and reaches out to consumers to offer them new loans with reduced principal amounts under federally related mortgage programs.

First Alliance started using a hedge fund to finance its loans in 2010. Under this arrangement, First Alliance split revenues and fees with affiliates of the hedge fund. In 2011, First Alliance secured less costly financing and ended its arrangement with the hedge fund and its affiliates. Although the hedge fund and its affiliates no longer financed First Alliance’s mortgages, First Alliance continued to split origination and loss-mitigation fees with them. The hedge-fund affiliates received payments from 83 First Alliance loans made between August 2011 and April 2012.

In 2013, First Alliance reported to the Bureau that it believed it had violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by paying these unearned fees. RESPA bans a person from paying or receiving a portion or split of a fee that has not been earned in connection with a real estate settlement. First Alliance cooperated with the Bureau’s investigation, and the Bureau concluded that First Alliance’s payments to the hedge fund and its affiliates had violated RESPA. First Alliance’s self-reporting and cooperation, consistent with the Bureau’s Responsible Business Conduct bulletin published on June 25, 2013, were taken into account in resolving this matter.

Under the terms of today’s consent order, First Alliance is required to pay a civil money penalty of $83,000 to the Bureau and agrees not to violate RESPA in the future. The Bureau will continue to enforce RESPA’s provisions to protect consumers and to deter unlawful activity.

A copy of the Bureau’s consent order is available here: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201402_cfpb_consent-order_first-alliance.pdf

###

 For more information about OnlineEd and their pre-license and continuing education for real estate and mortgage brokers, please visit www.OnlineEd.com. For more information about mortgage-specific products for compliance training, tracking, and management, please visit  https://www.onlineed.com/inlineed.php or contact Joseph Mikkelson at 1.866.519.9597.

This article was published on February 25, 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.

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.

CFPB Takes Action Against Castle & Cooke for Paying Employees to Steer Consumers into Expensive Mortgages

(CFPB – WASHINGTON, D.C.) — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today filed a complaint in federal district court against a Utah-based mortgage company, Castle & Cooke Mortgage LLC, and two of its officers for illegally giving bonuses to loan officers who steered consumers into mortgages with higher interest rates. The Bureau is seeking an end to this unlawful practice, restitution for those consumers who were upcharged, and civil money penalties.

“Today we are taking action against the type of practices that precipitated the financial crisis,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Consumers should be able to get a mortgage without worrying about how the financial incentives of their loan officers may cause them to pay higher rates than they actually qualify for.”

Castle & Cooke is a mortgage company that originated approximately $1.3 billion in loans in 2012. The company does business in approximately 22 states and maintains approximately 45 branches across the country.

The CFPB alleges that Castle & Cooke, through the actions taken by its president, Matthew A. Pineda, and senior vice-president of capital markets, Buck L. Hawkins, violated the Federal Reserve Board’s Loan Originator Compensation Rule that had a mandatory compliance date of April 6, 2011. That rule banned compensation based on loan terms such as the interest rate of the loan.

The CFPB alleges that the company violated the rule with its quarterly bonus program, which paid more than 150 Castle & Cooke loan officers greater bonus compensation when they persuaded consumers to take on more expensive loans. The average quarterly bonus ranged from $6,100 to $8,700. By contrast, those loan officers who did not charge consumers higher interest rates did not receive quarterly bonuses. The CFPB estimates that more than 1,100 illegal quarterly bonuses were paid and that tens of thousands of customers may have been upsold since April 2011. By tying bonuses to the interest rate of the loans in this manner, the CFPB alleges that Castle & Cooke was in direct violation of the law.

The CFPB also believes Castle & Cooke violated laws that require companies to retain their compliance records for a certain period of time. Creditors are required to retain evidence of compliance with the rule. The complaint alleges that Castle & Cooke did not record what portion of each loan officer’s quarterly bonus was attributable to a particular loan and did not reference its quarterly bonus program in each loan originator’s compensation agreement, in violation of federal consumer financial law.

The CFPB’s complaint seeks to:

  • End unlawful compensation practices: The complaint seeks to prohibit Castle & Cooke from continuing its practice of incentivizing loan officers to upcharge consumers by distributing quarterly bonuses based on the interest rates of loans sold.
  • Ensure that Castle & Cooke retain records of compensation: The complaint seeks to ensure that Castle & Cooke complies with federal law that requires creditors to retain evidence of compliance.
  • Secure restitution for consumers: The CFPB is looking to secure restitution for consumers of Castle & Cooke who may have been upsold.
  • Obtain civil money penalties: The CFPB is looking to obtain civil money penalties for each bonus paid out. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act allows civil penalty amounts to be determined under a three-tiered framework: up to $5,000 for any violation; up to $25,000 for reckless violations; and up to $1,000,000 for knowing violations.

This case was referred to the CFPB by investigators with the Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Real Estate. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, where the company is located and where the individual defendants reside.

A copy of the complaint filed today can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201307_cfpb_complaint_Castle-and-Cooke-Complaint.pdf

 

###
 To learn more about InlineEd Compliance and Education Management System for the mortgage industry, visit www.InlineEd.com. For more about OnlineEd, visit www.OnlineEd.com

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit www.consumerfinance.gov.

The CFPB Issues Procedural Rule on Supervising Nonbanks That Pose Risks to Consumers

(CFPB -WASHINGTON, D.C.) —The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a rule that establishes procedures to bring under its supervisory authority certain nonbanks whose activities it has reasonable cause to determine pose risks to consumers. Nonbanks subject to the rule are companies that offer or provide consumer financial products or services but do not have a bank, thrift, or credit union charter.

“This is an important step in our effort to continue building a strong supervision program,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “This rule clearly lays out how we plan to implement our supervisory authority over nonbanks that we determine pose risk to consumers. We are also providing industry with a streamlined process that is fair and efficient.”

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the CFPB has the authority to supervise, after following certain procedures, any nonbank that it has reasonable cause to determine has engaged or is engaging in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to consumer financial products or services. Such conduct may involve, for example, potentially unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, or other acts or practices that potentially violate federal consumer financial law. The Bureau must base such reasonable cause determinations on complaints collected by the Bureau, or on information from other sources, such as judicial opinions and administrative decisions.

This rule outlines procedures to notify a nonbank that it is being considered for supervision because the CFPB may have reasonable cause to determine that it poses a risk to consumers. The rule also sets out the procedures that the CFPB will follow to give the nonbank in question a reasonable opportunity to respond to such notice. For example, the rule dictates what the CFPB requires in both the notice and the response. And, the rule creates a mechanism for nonbanks to file a petition to terminate the CFPB’s supervisory authority after two years.

Importantly, notifying a nonbank under this rule simply means that the CFPB may be supervising it. The Bureau is authorized to require reports from and conduct examinations of nonbanks subject to its supervision.

In addition to the authority to bring nonbanks under the CFPB’s supervisory authority based on risk determinations, the Bureau also has authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to supervise nonbanks, regardless of size, in certain specific markets: mortgage companies (originators, brokers, and servicers including loan modification or foreclosure relief services); payday lenders; and private education lenders. The CFPB can also supervise the “larger participants” in other nonbank markets as the Bureau defines by rule. The Bureau has issued two rules defining larger participants: one rule for the consumer reporting market that went into effect in September 2012, and the other for the debt collection market that went into effect in January 2013. A proposed larger-participant rule for the student loan servicing market was issued in March 2013.

Although the Dodd-Frank Act does not require that the CFPB issue this rule, the CFPB is issuing it to be transparent in the procedures it intends to use to implement its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act. In May 2012 the CFPB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for public comment. Based on feedback received from the public and stakeholders, the CFPB is issuing the final rule today. The rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The rule is available online at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201206_cfpb_final-rule_certain-nonbank-covered-persons-risk-determination.pdf

 ###

  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit www.ConsumerFinance.gov. For more information about OnlineEd, visit www.OnlineEd.com. For more information about mortgage compliance, visit www.InlineEd.com.

CFPB Issues Proposed Modifications to Mortgage Rules

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ISSUES PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO MORTGAGE RULES

Proposal Would Resolve Implementation Issues and Clear Way for Better Consumer Protections

 (CFPB, WASHINGTON, D.C.)  Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed clarifications and some narrow revisions to its January 2013 mortgage rules. The proposal issued today would resolve questions that have been identified during the implementation process and would help the rules deliver their intended value for consumers.

“When we published our mortgage rules, we pledged to be attentive to issues that arose through the implementation process,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today’s proposal revises and clarifies certain aspects of our rules to ease implementation and to pave the way for more effective consumer protections in the marketplace.”

The CFPB finalized several mortgage rules in January 2013 that are addressed by today’s proposal. The Ability-to-Repay rule protects consumers from irresponsible mortgage lending by requiring that lenders make a reasonable, good-faith determination that prospective borrowers have the ability to repay their loans. The mortgage servicing rules established strong protections for homeowners facing foreclosure, and the loan originator compensation rules address certain practices that incentivized steering borrowers into risky and/or high-cost loans. The CFPB also finalized rules that strengthened consumer protections for high-cost mortgages, and instituted a requirement that escrow accounts be established for a minimum of five years for certain higher-priced mortgage loans.

The proposal issued today involves clarifications and some narrow revisions to those mortgage rules. Among other things, today’s proposal would:

  • Outline procedures for obtaining follow-up information on loss-mitigation applications: According to the CFPB’s servicing rule, within five days of receipt of a loss mitigation application, a servicer must acknowledge receipt of the application and inform the borrower whether it deems the application complete or incomplete. If incomplete, the servicer must identify for the borrower what is needed to complete it. The proposal would outline procedures for servicers to follow, if, after conducting an initial review and sending the notice to the borrower, they discover that they do not have the information needed to complete an assessment.

o   The proposal clarifies that servicers are required to seek the additional information from the borrower if they cannot complete the assessment without it.

o   The proposal also requires that servicers ensure that the borrower does not lose certain protections under the rule, such as a foreclosure ban during the first 120 days of delinquency, until the borrower has had a reasonable time to supply the needed documents or information.

  • Facilitate servicers’ offering of short-term forbearance plans: The proposal would make it easier for servicers to offer short-term forbearance plans for delinquent borrowers who need only temporary relief without going through a full loss mitigation evaluation process. For example, under the proposal, a servicer could provide a two-month forbearance to a borrower who is suffering a short-term hardship.
  • Facilitate lending in rural or underserved areas: Some of the Bureau’s mortgage rules contain provisions applicable to certain small creditors that operate predominantly in “rural” or “underserved” areas. The Bureau recently announced that it would reexamine the definitions of rural or underserved over the next two years. Today’s proposal would clarify how existing definitions may apply while that reexamination process is underway for purposes of two exceptions under the existing rules.

o   The proposal would extend an exception to a ban on high-cost mortgages featuring balloon payments – large, lump sum payments usually due at the end of the loan – to small creditors that do not operate predominantly in rural or underserved counties so long as the loans meet certain restrictions.

o   The proposal would revise an exemption from a requirement to maintain escrows on certain higher-priced mortgage loans for small creditors who operate predominantly in rural or underserved areas and that also meet other criteria. To prevent creditors from losing eligibility for the exemption in 2014 due to changes in which counties are defined as rural, the proposal would extend availability to small creditors that qualified in any of the previous three calendar years.

  • Make clarifications about financing of credit insurance premiums: The Dodd-Frank Act prohibition on creditors financing credit insurance premiums in connection with certain mortgage transactions was adopted in the Bureau’s loan originator compensation rule. Questions have arisen during the regulatory implementation process concerning the application of that prohibition. Today’s proposal seeks to answer those questions.

o   The proposal would clarify what constitutes financing of credit insurance premiums by a creditor – particularly as the rule applies to “level” or “levelized” premiums, where the monthly premium is the same each month rather than decreasing along with the loan balance.

o   The proposal would provide guidance on when credit insurance premiums are considered to be calculated and paid on a monthly basis for purposes of an exclusion from the statutory prohibition.

  •  Clarify the definition of a loan originator: Under the CFPB’s new rules, persons classified as loan originators are required to meet qualification requirements, and are also subject to certain restrictions on compensation practices. Creditors and loan originators have expressed concern that tellers or other administrative staff could be unintentionally classified as loan originators for engaging in routine customer service activities. Today’s proposal would clarify the circumstances under which a loan originator’s or creditor’s administrative staff acts as loan originators.
  • Clarify the points and fees thresholds for manufactured housing employees:  For retailers of manufactured homes and their employees, the proposal would clarify what compensation must be counted toward certain thresholds for points and fees under the ability-to-repay and high-cost mortgage rules.
  • Revise effective dates of Loan Originator rule and ban on financing of credit insurance: Currently, the 2013 Loan Originator Compensation Final Rule is scheduled to take effect on January 10, 2014.

o   The CFPB is seeking comment on whether to change the effective date to January 1, 2014 for portions of the loan originator rule. The Bureau believes that having the rule take effect at the beginning of a calendar year may help compliance since compensation plans, training, and licensing and registration are often structured on an annual basis.

o   The Bureau is also seeking comment on whether to adjust the effective date for the ban on financing credit insurance. The Bureau had previously delayed that date in order to provide additional guidance on the issues discussed above, and is now seeking comment on whether the rule should take effect on January 10, 2014, or earlier in light of how much time creditors would need to adjust billing practices.

 The CFPB is committed to assisting with the mortgage industry’s compliance with the new consumer protections. Throughout 2013, the CFPB has been working for a smooth transition. In addition to clarifying critical questions about the new mortgage rules, the Bureau has also published plain-language guides for each rule and some interim examination procedures. The CFPB also plans to educate the public about their protections under the rules.

The Bureau recently published a new Regulatory Implementation web page, which consolidates all of the new 2013 mortgage rules and related implementation materials, and can be found here:http://www.consumerfinance.gov/regulatory-implementation

 Comments on today’s proposal must be received on or before July 22, 2013.

A copy of today’s proposal can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201306_cfpb_proposed-modifications_mortgage-rules.pdf

 ###

 The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit www.ConsumerFinance.gov. For more information about OnlineEd, visit www.OnlineEd.com. For more information about mortgage compliance, visit www.InlineEd.com.

Free List of Mortgage Abbreviations and Acronymns

(Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd) – Is your CAN-SPAM in compliance with your GENESYS or are they both in need of PEP? Don’t be confused by all the mortgage abbreviations and acronyms being tossed around today! OnlineEd has put together a list of the most commonly used mortgage industry abbreviations in this free PDF

Capture

###

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

This article was published on May 30, 2013.  All information contained in this posting was 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.