DSNews delivers stories, ideas, links, companies, people, events, and videos impacting the mortgage default servicing industry.
Issue link: http://digital.dsnews.com/i/1481911
67 interim final rule, the CFPB's 2021 COVID-19 final rule once again added a new exception to the anti-evasion clause in Regulation X, this time for certain streamlined modification options. At that time, the CFPB realized that the law accounted for, and allowed, forbearance and deferral options, but did not necessarily include a good way for servicers to quickly and efficiently evaluate borrowers who may need additional payment relief for a modification of the underlying loan. e result was another new exception to the anti-evasion clause, this time eliminating the barriers that otherwise would have stood in the way of quickly offering loan modification options to borrowers impacted by COVID-19, provided certain criteria are satisfied. is recent history has clearly shown how streamlined loss mitigation options can simultaneously benefit consumers and the servicing industry. Unfortunately, though, there are currently only a limited number of exceptions to the anti-evasion clause, and many of them now relate to COVID-19 options. From both a policy and regulatory perspective, the CFPB ought to either discard of the anti- evasion clause altogether (and instead rely upon more permissive guardrails) or expand upon the enumerated exceptions. For example, in the context of a natural disaster, why shouldn't a borrower be able to follow the same streamline path (forbearance followed by either a deferral or modification, or both) that a COVID-19- impacted borrower could take? Although the expansion should probably be broader than just for natural disaster scenarios, that minimum action should be a no-brainer. Additionally, it is worth noting that, notwithstanding the CFPB's existing regulatory restraints, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently instruct servicers to evaluate borrowers who have been impacted by natural disasters for their disaster payment deferral programs. To make matters worse, they both require that servicers establish quality right party contact, evaluate certain information from the borrower, and then go so far as to say that servicers "must not require" borrowers to complete an application in order to be offered the deferral. is creates obvious tension with the CFPB's anti-evasion clause in Regulation X. Without an enumerated exception, can servicers legally offer those deferrals? is highlights a final point worth mentioning briefly. Another thing that has become clear over the past couple of years is that consumers and mortgage servicers all benefit when there are clear rules of the road. Ambiguities, conflicts, and unresolved questions in new and existing laws or guidelines all create risks for servicers and inevitably will lead to variation amongst different entities. Everyone wins when there are clear and consistent requirements. To that end, it would greatly benefit the industry and mortgage loan borrowers for the CFPB, government agencies, and the GSEs to come together and align their directives. Having inconsistencies and even misconceptions of what the law allows and what it does not—like the disaster deferral example— is unacceptable more than eight years after the framework became effective, and could easily be remedied. Particularly as the agencies and GSEs continue to add on to their already heavy- handed guides and requirements of servicers, full alignment is critical. It is certainly easy to wonder whether there is even any appetite for making much needed reforms to improve the servicing landscape of the future and, admittedly, mortgage servicing does not have a place on the CFPB's current rulemaking agenda. However, the history outlined above shows that the CFPB can and does make changes to the existing regulatory framework when there is good reason to do so. In fact, that has happened multiple times just over the last handful of years. erefore, there is reason to be optimistic that the CFPB will consider measured changes that benefit both consumers and the industry alike, hopefully sooner rather than later. Two items that should make all of our wish lists include (1) loosening the restrictions in Regulation X to allow for more streamlined options, and (2) harmonizing the various laws, guidelines, and directives to eliminate ambiguities, conflicts, and risks. Jonathan R. Kolodziej is a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Everyone wins when there are clear and consistent requirements. To that end, it would greatly benefit the industry and mortgage loan borrowers for the CFPB, government agencies, and the Government- Sponsored Entities to come together and align their directives.