Tag Archives: practice

New Mortgage Loan Regulations

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued two regulations that expand the types of mortgage loans subject to federal protections and require creditors to provide loan applicants with written appraisals.  You can access the regulations here.

One of the regulations expands the types of mortgage loans subject to the protections of the Home Ownership and Equity Protections Act HOEPA, which was enacted to address abusive refinancing practices and equity loans with high interest rates or high fees.  HOEPA was amended through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to add protections for high-cost mortgages.

Among the changes, the regulation requires borrowers to receive home ownership counseling before obtaining a high-cost mortgage.

The regulation also adds exemptions for three types of loans the CFPB does not believe are as risky: loans to finance initial construction of a house, loans originated and financed by housing finance agencies, and loans from the U.S. Department of Agricultures Rural Housing Service loan program.

The CFPB also issued a rule that would require creditors to provide applicants with free copies of all appraisals and other written valuations and requiring creditors to notify applicants in writing.

The rule is consistent with an amendment to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Previously, creditors only had to provide copies of appraisals when applicants requested them.

Creditors are prohibited from charging applicants for copies of appraisals, but may charge for appraisals and other written valuations.

Both rules become effective January 18, 2014.

via Courthouse News Service.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, regulations

Wal-Mart Class Action: class not narrowed

I bring to you this legal decision in a sex discrimination class action against Wal-Mart because it provides an example of a class that was not narrowed by the Court.  This is the Dukes case that went up to the Supreme Court to discuss the issue of commonality.  This decision can be found here.

In a 2001 federal complaint led by Betty Dukes, a putative class claimed that Wal-Mart Stores received paid women less and offered them fewer promotions than it offered men in comparable positions.

Though a San Francisco federal judge initially certified a class that would cover estimated 1.5 million women, making it the largest civil rights case in U.S. history, the Supreme Court disbanded that class in 2011 on the basis of lacking commonality. On remand, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint that seeks to certify a narrower class than that rejected by the high court.

The Bentonville, Ark.-based company responded with a motion to strike the class allegations. It claims that the statute of limitations bars the claims, and that the newly proposed class still fails to meet the commonality requirement.

Denying that motion, the Northern District of California set a deadline of Jan. 11, 2013, for the class-certification motion.  Undeterred, Wal-Mart sought leave to file an interim appeal with the 9th Circuit.

Wal-Mart argued that the Dukes Supreme Court decision should be interpreted as a total rejection of plaintiffs’ theories.  The District Court disagreed.  The District Court held that the Dukes Supreme Court decision rested on plaintiffs’ “inadequacy of their proof.”

The District Court explained:

The Supreme Court’s decision foreclosed claims that delegated discretion -alone- is sufficient to state a common question for purposes of Rule 23.  It does not follow that any time a plaintiff alleges that a company has a policy involving some amount of delegated discretion, the plaintiff is precluded from showing a classwide pattern or practice of discrimination or a common mode of exercising delegate discretion susceptible to classwide relief.  That is why the Supreme Court reached the question whether the plaintiffs had evidence on those points sufficient to establish a common question under Rule 23.

In his conclusion, Judge Breyer denied the interlocutory appeal “on the grounds that (1) immediate appeal would not, at this time, materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation in light of the impending certification motion, and (2) no substantial grounds for difference of opinion exist regarding the commonality issue.”

via Courthouse News Service.

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate, courts, employment, legal decision, Supreme Court, wage