Blog

Effective on January 10, 2014 Section 1026.20 of Regulation Z requires, when a rate change accompanied by a payment change occurs on an ARM, a notice to be sent to the consumer at least 60, but no more than 120, days before the first payment at the adjusted level is due. However a different timing rule (at least 25, but no more than 120, days before the first payment at the adjusted level is due) applies

On November 19, 2014 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published proposed changes to Regulations X (RESPA) and Z (TIL). Among other items the proposal contains extensive comment on the definition of the term “delinquency” when used for determining when the first notice regarding foreclosure under section 1024.41(f)(1)(i) may be sent. Section 1024.31 contains definitions for various terms that are used throughout the provisions of subpart C of Regulation X. It does not contain a

Earlier this week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published proposed changes to Regulations X (RESPA) and Z (TIL). The proposed changes focus primarily on clarifying, revising, or amending provisions regarding force-placed insurance notices, policies and procedures, early intervention, and loss mitigation requirements under Regulation X’s servicing provisions; and periodic statement requirements under Regulation Z’s servicing provisions. Extensive proposed comment appears on the definition of the term “delinquency” when used, among other purposes, for determining when

Earlier this week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published a article and issued a bulletin on the topic of Social Security disability income. In our November 10th  article on the same topic we warned you of the discrimination risk involved  in verifying this type of income. Now you can hear the same message from the CFPB. In the past, Social Security disability income recipients have faced special challenges in providing proof that their disability

Recently the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that it has entered into an Initial Decision and Consent Order with American Bank, resolving HUD’s charge that the Rockville, Maryland-based lender discriminated against applicants with disabilities when it allegedly required applicants to provide documentation regarding their disabilities and attempted to obtain information about the nature and extent of those disabilities. Cases similar to this are being common. HUD charged the lender with unlawful