The Devil's In the Data: HUD Settles Complaint Arising From HMDA Data

MB
Mayer Brown

Contributor

Mayer Brown is a distinctively global law firm, uniquely positioned to advise the world’s leading companies and financial institutions on their most complex deals and disputes. We have deep experience in high-stakes litigation and complex transactions across industry sectors, including our signature strength, the global financial services industry.
On June 8, 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a conciliation agreement with a bank, ...
United States Finance and Banking

On June 8, 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a conciliation agreement with a bank, resolving allegations that the bank engaged in discrimination by denying the mortgage applications of African-American and Hispanic applicants at a disproportionally higher rate than white applicants.  The complaint, filed on December 23, 2011, resulted from a HUD review of the bank's 2010 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data.  During its investigation, HUD analyzed mortgages that were first denied by an automated underwriting system (AUS), and then manually underwritten, and determined that white applicants received unjustified preferential treatment in the manual underwriting process in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Although neither the conciliation agreement nor HUD's press release on the settlement mentioned redlining, the settlement terms included provisions typically associated with resolving redlining claims.  As part of the settlement, the bank agreed not to engage in discriminatory practices on the basis of race or national origin relating to a residential real-estate transaction, including soliciting applications for loans, the manual underwriting of credit, and providing residential loans.  The agreement also prohibited the bank from discriminating in (i) the selection of sites for and the provision of services at branch offices, (ii) marketing, and (iii) demarcating Community Reinvestment Act assessment areas.

The bank additionally committed to creating a uniform and objective set of guidelines for the secondary review of retail channel residential loan applications initially denied by the AUS  to ensure that the bank's manual underwriting activities are nondiscriminatory.  It agreed to hire three mortgage banker market specialists to focus on diverse lending in specific counties in South Carolina, and to provide at least 50 special purpose credit loans or obtain at least 125 completed special purpose credit applications in those counties.  The conciliation agreement will also require 4 hours of fair lending training for the bank's employees and agents substantially involved in the manual underwriting of mortgages, and the bank must conduct financial education programs in the state through partnering with non-profit organizations or community groups.  Finally, the bank must provide at least $140,000 to nonprofits that provide credit and housing counseling, financial literacy, and other programs for first-time homebuyers in South Carolina, and $20,000 for marketing and outreach to residents in majority-minority census tracts in the state.

Among other matters, the settlement underscores the importance of closely monitoring manual decision making for potential fair lending risk.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2016. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More