Mortgagee Review Board: Administrative Actions, 55492-55495 [2012-22126]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55492
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
basis. The estimated number of
respondents is based on the average of
the number of submissions for NOFA
years 2009 to current. The number of
hours is an average based on grantee
estimates of time to review instructions,
search existing data sources, prepare
required responses to the application,
complete the certification, and assemble
exhibits.
Status of the proposed information
collection: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended.
Dated: August 3, 2012.
Sara Pratt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012–22215 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5657–N–01]
Notice of Availability: Funding for
Tenant-Protection Vouchers for
Certain At-Risk Households in LowVacancy Areas: Request for
Comments
AGENCY:
Note: To receive consideration as public
comments, comments must be submitted
through one of the two methods specified
above. Again, all submissions must refer to
the docket number and title of the rule. No
Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX)
comments are not acceptable.
Office of General Counsel,
HUD.
ACTION:
Notice.
HUD announces the
availability, on its Web site, of
instructions, eligibility, and selection
criteria on the funding process for
tenant protection vouchers for certain
at-risk households in low-vacancy areas,
as provided for in the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
2012 (2012 Appropriations Act), and
seeks public comment on these
instructions and criteria. The
instruction, eligibility and selection
criteria for this funding process are set
forth in a notice posted on HUD’s Web
site at the addresses provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this notice.
DATES: Comment Due Date: October 10,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
the notice posted on HUD’s Web site to
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
7th Street SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
Communications must refer to the above
docket number and title. There are two
methods for submitting public
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:57 Sep 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
comments. All submissions must refer
to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail.
Comments may be submitted by mail to
the Regulations Division, Office of
General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451
7th Street SW., Room 10276,
Washington, DC 20410–0500.
2. Electronic Submission of
Comments. Interested persons may
submit comments electronically through
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly
encourages commenters to submit
comments electronically. Electronic
submission of comments allows the
commenter maximum time to prepare
and submit a comment, ensures timely
receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to
make them immediately available to the
public. Comments submitted
electronically through the
www.regulations.gov Web site can be
viewed by other commenters and
interested members of the public.
Commenters should follow the
instructions provided on that site to
submit comments electronically.
Public Inspection of Public
Comments. All properly submitted
comments and communications
submitted to HUD will be available for
public inspection and copying between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above
address. Due to security measures at the
HUD Headquarters building, an advance
appointment to review the public
comments must be scheduled by calling
the Regulations Division at 202–708–
3055 (this is not a toll-free number).
Individuals with speech or hearing
impairments may access this number
via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal
Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Copies
of all comments submitted are available
for inspection and downloading at
www.regulations.gov.
Any
questions regarding this notice should
be directed to the Housing Voucher and
Management Operations Division,
Office of Public and Indian Housing,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room
4216, Washington, DC 20410–8000,
telephone number 202–708–0477 (this
is not a toll-free number). Individuals
with speech or hearing impairments
may access this number through TTY by
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
calling the toll-free Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The 2012 Appropriations Act (Pub. L.
112–55, approved November 18, 2011)
provides that up to $10,000,000 of the
$75,000,000 appropriated for tenant
protection actions may be made
available to provide housing choice
voucher rental assistance to residents
residing in low-vacancy areas and who
may have to pay rents greater than 30
percent of household income, as the
result of certain specified conditions.
The 2012 Appropriations Act provides
that the tenant protection assistance
may be provided as either enhanced
vouchers or project-based voucher
assistance.
HUD’s notice that provides the
instructions, eligibility, and selection
criteria on the funding process for
tenant protection vouchers for certain
at-risk households in low-vacancy areas
can be found on HUD’s Web site at the
following addresses: https://
portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
program_offices/administration/
hudclips/notices/pih and at https://
portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
program_offices/administration/
hudclips/notices/hsg.
HUD is seeking public comment on
this notice. Following receipt and
consideration of public comment, a final
notice will be issued with final
instructions, eligibility, and selection
criteria, which may include revisions to
the instructions and criteria contained
in the notice that has been posted on
HUD’s Web site, at the Web site
addresses listed above.
Dated: August 30, 2012.
Camille E. Acevedo,
Associate General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2012–22120 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5661–N–01]
Mortgagee Review Board:
Administrative Actions
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with section
202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act,
this notice advises of the cause and
description of administrative actions
taken by HUD’s Mortgagee Review
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
Board against HUD-approved
mortgagees.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy A. Murray, Secretary to the
Mortgagee Review Board, 451 Seventh
Street SW., Room B–133/3150,
Washington, DC, 20410–8000; telephone
(202) 708–2224 (this is not a toll-free
number). Persons with hearing or
speech impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Service at (800)
877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1708(c)(5)) requires that HUD
‘‘publish a description of and the cause
for administrative action against a HUDapproved mortgagee’’ by the
Department’s Mortgagee Review Board
(‘‘Board’’). In compliance with the
requirements of Section 202(c) (5), this
notice advises of actions that have been
taken by the Board from August 1, 2011
to December 31, 2011.
I. Settlement Agreements, Civil Money
Penalties, Withdrawals of FHA
Approval, Suspensions, Probations,
Reprimands, and Administrative
Payments
1. Euro Mortgage Bankers, Inc., Melville,
NY [Docket No. 11–1120–MR]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Action: On November 30, 2011, the
Board issued a Notice of Administrative
Action permanently withdrawing the
FHA approval of Euro Mortgage
Bankers, Inc. (‘‘EMB’’).
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: EMB used falsified and/or
conflicting information in the
origination of HUD/FHA loans; failed to
ensure loan applications were taken and
processed by authorized employees;
failed to ensure that documents were
not handled by an interested third party;
failed to adequately document the
income used to qualify the borrower;
failed to document the source of funds
used for the downpayment and/or
closing costs; failed to perform quality
control on all loans that went into
default within the first six months; and
failed to timely submit audited financial
statements and supplementary reports
to HUD.
2. Superior Mortgage Corporation,
Hammonton, NJ [Docket No. 11–1177–
MR]
Action: On October 11, 2011, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Superior Mortgage
Corporation (‘‘Superior’’) that required
Superior to pay a civil money penalty in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:57 Sep 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
55493
the amount of $10,000, without
admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: Superior failed to notify the
Department that it had paid a fine in the
amount of $30,000 to the Department of
Banking of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; failed to ensure that only
principal owners or corporate officers
submit the annual certification report;
and submitted a false certification to
HUD when it submitted its electronic
annual certification for 2011.
FAMC to pay a civil money penalty in
the amount of $14,500, without
admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: FAMC failed to notify HUD that
it paid a fine in the amount of $6,750
to the Department of Banking of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to
resolve allegations that FAMC had
violated the Mortgage Licensing Act,
and submitted a false certification to
HUD when it submitted it electronic
annual certification for 2011.
3. Town Square Mortgage &
Investments, Inc., Frisco, TX [Docket
No. 11–1194–MR]
Action: On September 20, 2011, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Town Square Mortgage
& Investments, Inc. (‘‘Town Square
Mortgage’’) that required Town Square
Mortgage to pay a civil money penalty
in the amount of $11,000, without
admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: Town Square Mortgage submitted
false audited financial statements to
HUD for Fiscal Year ending April 30,
2010, when it claimed ownership of a
residential condominium unit located in
Apollo Beach, Florida; submitted
audited financial statements to HUD
that were not in conformity with
Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles due to the improper
capitalization of a residential
condominium unit; and displayed the
FHA/HUD logo on its Web site when
promoting its FHA mortgage services.
6. Midland Mortgage Co., Oklahoma
City, OK [Docket No. 10–1999–MR]
Action: On November 23, 2011, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Midland Mortgage
Company (‘‘MMC’’) that required MMC,
without admitting fault or liability, to
pay a civil money penalty in the amount
of $1,300,000 and to pay all outstanding
mortgage insurance premiums owed to
HUD.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: MMC failed to remit mortgage
insurance premiums to HUD/FHA on
3,438 loans, and failed to notify HUD/
FHA within fifteen (15) days of the
termination of 2,488 contracts for
mortgage insurance.
4. Wall Street Financial Corporation,
Fairfield, NJ [Docket No. 11–1179–MR]
Action: On November 8, 2011, the
Board issued a Notice of Administrative
Action withdrawing the FHA approval
of Wall Street Financial Corporation
(‘‘WSFC’’) for a period of one year.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: WSFC failed to timely submit or
complete its audited financial
statements for its fiscal year ending
December 31, 2010; failed to pay its
annual certification fee; and failed to
submit its annual certification for 2010.
5. Franklin American Mortgage
Company, Franklin, TN [Docket No. 11–
1202–MR]
Action: On October 4, 2011, the Board
entered into a Settlement Agreement
with Franklin American Mortgage
Company (‘‘FAMC’’) that required
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7. UnionFederal Mortgage Corporation,
Nanuet, NY [Docket No. 11–1205–MR]
Action: On November 30, 2011, the
Board issued a Notice of Administrative
Action withdrawing the FHA approval
of UnionFederal Mortgage Corporation
(‘‘UFMC’’) for a period of one year.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violation of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: UFMC failed to notify HUD that
it voluntarily surrendered its license to
the New York State Banking Department
on or about October 20, 2010.
8. Vanguard Funding, LLC, Garden City,
NY [Docket No. 11–1102–MR]
Action: On November 28, 2011, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Vanguard Funding,
LLC (‘‘VF’’) that required VF, without
admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil
money penalty in the amount of
$101,500, to indemnify HUD against
losses relating to five (5) FHA-insured
loans for a period of five (5) years from
the date of the Settlement Agreement,
and to require third party training for its
underwriters.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
55494
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
HUD: VF failed to notify HUD within
ten (10) business days that it was the
subject of two state enforcement actions
prohibiting it from originating
mortgages; VF originated six (6) FHAinsured mortgages in the state of New
York while it was the subject of an order
from the state of New York suspending
its mortgage banker license; VF
permitted a non-FHA approved
mortgage broker to perform loan
origination services on two (2) FHAinsured loans; VF approved three (3)
loans for borrowers who were ineligible
for federally insured mortgages due to
outstanding delinquent federal debt; VF
approved two (2) FHA-insured loans
without adequately documenting the
income used to qualify the borrowers;
VF approved three (3) FHA-insured
loans without resolving discrepancies in
the loan files relating to the borrowers’
income and employment; VF failed to
document the source of gift funds on
three (3) FHA-insured loans; VF
approved a loan when the borrower did
not meet the minimum credit
requirements; VF approved one loan
where it omitted a liability of the
borrower in the underwriting analysis;
VF accepted three (3) loan applications
from loan correspondents for which VF
was not an FHA approved Sponsor; and
VF failed to review five (5) FHA-insured
loans that went into early payment
default within the first six (6) months of
repayment.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
9. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Minneapolis,
MN [Docket No. 11–1183–MR]
Action: On December 20, 2011, the
Board issued a letter of reprimand to
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (‘‘Wells Fargo’’).
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: Wells Fargo failed to comply with
property preservation and protection
requirements on two (2) HUD-insured
homes following foreclosure.
10. MetLife Bank, N.A., Bridgewater, NJ
[Docket No. 11–1148–MR]
Action: On December 12, 2011, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with MetLife Bank, N.A.
(‘‘MetLife’’) that required MetLife,
without admitting fault or liability, to
pay an administrative payment in the
amount of $41,250 and waive all
insurance benefits or indemnify HUD
against any losses relating to eleven (11)
FHA-insured mortgages for a period of
five (5) years from the date of the
Settlement Agreement.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements self-reported by
MetLife: MetLife violated HUD/FHA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:57 Sep 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
requirements when it approved eleven
(11) FHA-insured loans without
identifying irregularities and resolving
discrepancies and conflicting
information in the loan files; MetLife
violated HUD/FHA requirements on six
(6) FHA-insured loans when it failed to
adequately document the borrowers’
income; MetLife violated HUD/FHA
requirements when it approved four (4)
FHA-insured loans after failing to
ensure that documents were not
handled by an interested third party;
MetLife violated HUD/FHA
requirements on four (4) FHA-insured
transactions when it failed to document
the source of funds used for the
borrowers’ down- payments and/or
closing costs; MetLife violated HUD/
FHA requirements when it approved
three (3) FHA-insured loans and omitted
monthly debt obligations from its
underwriting analysis; MetLife violated
HUD/FHA requirements when it
approved an FHA-insured loan for a
borrower who was ineligible because of
an outstanding court-ordered judgment;
MetLife violated HUD/FHA
requirements when it approved a loan
for FHA mortgage insurance without
ensuring the borrower met the statutory
3.5% minimum investment
requirement; and MetLife violated HUD/
FHA requirements when it approved a
loan for a borrower that was overinsured by $3,598.54, because it had
failed to consider the seller’s
inducement to purchase.
outstanding mortgage insurance
premiums and late fees owed to HUD.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: VCB failed to timely remit
mortgage insurance premiums on fortyfour (44) loans.
13. E Mortgage Management, LLC,
Haddon Township, NJ [Docket No. 11–
1200–MR]
Action: On February 3, 2012, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with E Mortgage
Management, LLC (‘‘EMM’’) that
required EMM to pay a civil money
penalty in the amount of $14,500,
without admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: EMM failed to notify HUD that
EMM agreed to pay a fine in the amount
of $61,500 to the Department of Banking
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and submitted a false certification to
HUD when it submitted its electronic
Annual Certifications for 2011.
11. Reliance First Capital, LLC Melville,
NY [Docket No. 11–1203–MR]
Action: On December 22, 2011, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Reliance First Capital,
LLC (‘‘Reliance’’) that required Reliance
to pay a civil money penalty in the
amount of $11,000, without admitting
fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: Reliance failed to notify HUD that
it agreed to pay a fine in the amount of
$5,000 to the Department of Banking of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
and submitted a false certification to
HUD when it submitted its electronic
annual certification for 2011.
14. Master Mortgage Corporation,
Bayamon, PR [Docket No. 11–1147–MR]
Action: On February 3, 2012, the
Board issued a Notice of Administrative
Action withdrawing the FHA approval
of Master Mortgage Corporation
(‘‘MMC’’) for five years.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: MMC failed to timely submit
audited financial statements and
supplementary reports to HUD, and
failed to notify HUD that MMC and
MMC’s President were issued a
Complaint and Cease and Desist Order
from the Commissioner of Financial
Institutions of Puerto Rico that required
MMC to pay fines totaling $280,000,
ordered MMC to permanently cease and
desist from operating and engaging in
the business of a mortgage institution in
Puerto Rico, required MMC to
immediately surrender its mortgage
institution’s license, and barred MMC’s
president from serving as an officer,
director, or owner of any financial
institution.
12. Virginia Commonwealth Bank,
Petersburg, VA [Docket No. 11–1273–
MR]
Action: On December 8, 2011, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Virginia
Commonwealth Bank (‘‘VCB’’) that
required VCB, without admitting fault
or liability, to pay a civil money penalty
in the amount of $6,725 and to remit all
15. Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc.,
Greenwood Village, CO [Docket No. 10–
1798–MR]
Action: On February 23, 2011, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Clarion Mortgage
Capital, Inc. (‘‘Clarion’’) that required
Clarion to pay a civil money penalty in
the amount of $45,000, without
admitting fault or liability.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 175 / Monday, September 10, 2012 / Notices
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: Clarion failed to comply with
HUD’s quality control requirements;
violated HUD’s mortgagee employee and
staffing requirements; and charged
unallowable and unsupported fees.
16. PHH Home Loans, LLC, Mount
Laurel, NJ [Docket No. 11–1201–MR]
Action: On February 15, 2012, the
Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with PHH Home Loans, LLC
(‘‘PHH’’) that required PHH to pay a
civil money penalty in the amount of
$14,500, without admitting fault or
liability.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: PHH failed to notify HUD that
PHH agreed to pay a fine of $11,750 to
the Department of Banking of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; failed
to notify HUD that it paid a fine of
$50,000 to the Illinois Department of
Financial and Professional Regulation;
and submitted a false certification to
HUD when it submitted its electronic
annual certification for 2011.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17. HomeState Mortgage Company, LLC,
Anchorage, AK [Docket No. 11–1286–
MR]
Action: On April 3, 2012, the Board
entered into a Settlement Agreement
with HomeState Mortgage Company,
LLC (‘‘HMC’’) that required HMC,
without admitting fault or liability, to
pay a civil money penalty in the amount
of $15,000 and to complete a six-month
period of probation, during which time
HMC must submit all marketing
materials to HUD on a quarterly basis
for review and approval.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: HMC reproduced the official HUD
seal on an advertisement or business
solicitation, and disseminated a
misrepresentative or misleading
advertisement or business solicitation to
the public.
18. United Northern Mortgage Bankers,
LTD, Levittown, NY [Docket No. 11–
1149–MR]
Action: On March 16, 2012, the Board
entered into a Settlement Agreement
with United Northern Mortgage Bankers
LTD (‘‘UNMB’’) that required UNMB,
without admitting fault or liability, to
pay a civil money penalty in the amount
of $25,000, indemnify HUD against
losses relating to two FHA-insured loans
for a period of five years, and complete
a six-month period of probation during
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:57 Sep 07, 2012
Jkt 226001
which time UNMB must submit the
results of its monthly QC audits and
certifications as to its QC staffing and
operations.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: UNMB failed to ensure that the
quality control reviews for early
payment defaults were completed; used
conflicting information in originating
and obtaining HUD/FHA mortgage
insurance; and failed to adequately
document the stability of income used
to qualify the borrowers.
19. Fifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH
[Docket No. 10–1998–MR]
Action: On April 27, 2012, the Board
entered into a Settlement Agreement
with Fifth Third Bank (‘‘Fifth Third’’)
that required Fifth Third to pay a civil
money penalty in the amount of
$700,000, without admitting fault or
liability.
Cause: The Board took this action
based on the following violations of
HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
HUD: Fifth Third failed to timely remit
mortgage insurance premiums to HUD/
FHA, and failed to notify HUD/FHA
within 15 calendar days of the
termination, transfer or sale of mortgage
insurance contracts.
II. Lenders That Failed To Timely Meet
Requirements for Annual
Recertification of HUD/FHA Approval
Action: The Board entered into
settlement agreements with the lenders
listed below, which required the lender
to pay a $7,500 or $3,500 civil money
penalty, without admitting fault or
liability.
Cause: The Board took this action
based upon allegations that the lenders
listed below failed to comply with the
Department’s annual recertification
requirements in a timely manner.
1. Anchor Funding Corporation,
Norcross, GA ($7,500.00) [Docket No.
11–1225–MRT]
2. Freyre Mortgage Corp., San Juan,
PR. ($3,500.00) [Docket No. 11–1229–
MRT]
III. Lenders That Failed To Meet
Requirements for Annual
Recertification of HUD/FHA Approval
Action: The Board voted to withdraw
the FHA approval of each of the lenders
listed below for a period of one year.
Cause: The Board took this action
based upon allegations that the lenders
listed below were not in compliance
with the Department’s annual
recertification requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55495
1. First Home Mortgage, Inc.,
Jonesboro, AR [Docket No. 12–1642–
MRT].
2. HCL Finance Inc., San Jose, CA
[Docket No. 12–1641–MRT].
3. Ikon Mortgage Lenders, Inc., Fort
Lauderdale, FL [Docket No. 09–9910–
MRT].
4. Delta Home and Lending, Inc.,
Sacramento, CA [Docket No.12–1643–
MRT].
5. Axiom Mortgage Bankers
Corporation, Irvine, CA [Docket No. 11–
1234–MRT].
6. Red Rock Mortgage & Lending,
LLC., Oklahoma City, OK [Docket No.
11–1233–MRT].
Dated: August 31, 2012.
Carol J. Galante,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing–
Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2012–22126 Filed 9–7–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLAZP02000.L54100000.FR0000.
LVCLA10A5170.241A; AZA 35235]
Notice of Realty Action: Application for
Conveyance of Federally Owned
Mineral Interests in Maricopa County,
AZ
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) is processing an
application under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act to convey
the federally owned mineral interests of
111.33 acres located in Maricopa
County, Arizona, to the surface owner,
Gavilan Peak Estates, LLC. Upon
publication of this notice, the BLM is
temporarily segregating the federally
owned mineral interests in the land
covered by the application from all
forms of appropriation under the mining
and mineral leasing laws for up to 2
years while the BLM processes the
application.
SUMMARY:
Interested persons may submit
written comments to the BLM at the
address listed below. Comments must
be received no later than October 25,
2012.
DATES:
Bureau of Land
Management, Arizona State Office, One
North Central Avenue, Suite 800,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004. Detailed
information concerning this action is
available for review at this address.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\10SEN1.SGM
10SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55492-55495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22126]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-5661-N-01]
Mortgagee Review Board: Administrative Actions
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing
Act, this notice advises of the cause and description of administrative
actions taken by HUD's Mortgagee Review
[[Page 55493]]
Board against HUD-approved mortgagees.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy A. Murray, Secretary to the
Mortgagee Review Board, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room B-133/3150,
Washington, DC, 20410-8000; telephone (202) 708-2224 (this is not a
toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may
access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal
Information Service at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(c)(5)) requires that HUD ``publish a description of
and the cause for administrative action against a HUD-approved
mortgagee'' by the Department's Mortgagee Review Board (``Board''). In
compliance with the requirements of Section 202(c) (5), this notice
advises of actions that have been taken by the Board from August 1,
2011 to December 31, 2011.
I. Settlement Agreements, Civil Money Penalties, Withdrawals of FHA
Approval, Suspensions, Probations, Reprimands, and Administrative
Payments
1. Euro Mortgage Bankers, Inc., Melville, NY [Docket No. 11-1120-MR]
Action: On November 30, 2011, the Board issued a Notice of
Administrative Action permanently withdrawing the FHA approval of Euro
Mortgage Bankers, Inc. (``EMB'').
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: EMB used falsified and/or
conflicting information in the origination of HUD/FHA loans; failed to
ensure loan applications were taken and processed by authorized
employees; failed to ensure that documents were not handled by an
interested third party; failed to adequately document the income used
to qualify the borrower; failed to document the source of funds used
for the downpayment and/or closing costs; failed to perform quality
control on all loans that went into default within the first six
months; and failed to timely submit audited financial statements and
supplementary reports to HUD.
2. Superior Mortgage Corporation, Hammonton, NJ [Docket No. 11-1177-MR]
Action: On October 11, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Superior Mortgage Corporation (``Superior'') that
required Superior to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of
$10,000, without admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Superior failed to notify the
Department that it had paid a fine in the amount of $30,000 to the
Department of Banking of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; failed to
ensure that only principal owners or corporate officers submit the
annual certification report; and submitted a false certification to HUD
when it submitted its electronic annual certification for 2011.
3. Town Square Mortgage & Investments, Inc., Frisco, TX [Docket No. 11-
1194-MR]
Action: On September 20, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Town Square Mortgage & Investments, Inc. (``Town Square
Mortgage'') that required Town Square Mortgage to pay a civil money
penalty in the amount of $11,000, without admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Town Square Mortgage submitted
false audited financial statements to HUD for Fiscal Year ending April
30, 2010, when it claimed ownership of a residential condominium unit
located in Apollo Beach, Florida; submitted audited financial
statements to HUD that were not in conformity with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles due to the improper capitalization of a
residential condominium unit; and displayed the FHA/HUD logo on its Web
site when promoting its FHA mortgage services.
4. Wall Street Financial Corporation, Fairfield, NJ [Docket No. 11-
1179-MR]
Action: On November 8, 2011, the Board issued a Notice of
Administrative Action withdrawing the FHA approval of Wall Street
Financial Corporation (``WSFC'') for a period of one year.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: WSFC failed to timely submit or
complete its audited financial statements for its fiscal year ending
December 31, 2010; failed to pay its annual certification fee; and
failed to submit its annual certification for 2010.
5. Franklin American Mortgage Company, Franklin, TN [Docket No. 11-
1202-MR]
Action: On October 4, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Franklin American Mortgage Company (``FAMC'') that
required FAMC to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $14,500,
without admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: FAMC failed to notify HUD that
it paid a fine in the amount of $6,750 to the Department of Banking of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to resolve allegations that FAMC had
violated the Mortgage Licensing Act, and submitted a false
certification to HUD when it submitted it electronic annual
certification for 2011.
6. Midland Mortgage Co., Oklahoma City, OK [Docket No. 10-1999-MR]
Action: On November 23, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Midland Mortgage Company (``MMC'') that required MMC,
without admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil money penalty in
the amount of $1,300,000 and to pay all outstanding mortgage insurance
premiums owed to HUD.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: MMC failed to remit mortgage
insurance premiums to HUD/FHA on 3,438 loans, and failed to notify HUD/
FHA within fifteen (15) days of the termination of 2,488 contracts for
mortgage insurance.
7. UnionFederal Mortgage Corporation, Nanuet, NY [Docket No. 11-1205-
MR]
Action: On November 30, 2011, the Board issued a Notice of
Administrative Action withdrawing the FHA approval of UnionFederal
Mortgage Corporation (``UFMC'') for a period of one year.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violation
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: UFMC failed to notify HUD that
it voluntarily surrendered its license to the New York State Banking
Department on or about October 20, 2010.
8. Vanguard Funding, LLC, Garden City, NY [Docket No. 11-1102-MR]
Action: On November 28, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Vanguard Funding, LLC (``VF'') that required VF, without
admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil money penalty in the
amount of $101,500, to indemnify HUD against losses relating to five
(5) FHA-insured loans for a period of five (5) years from the date of
the Settlement Agreement, and to require third party training for its
underwriters.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by
[[Page 55494]]
HUD: VF failed to notify HUD within ten (10) business days that it was
the subject of two state enforcement actions prohibiting it from
originating mortgages; VF originated six (6) FHA-insured mortgages in
the state of New York while it was the subject of an order from the
state of New York suspending its mortgage banker license; VF permitted
a non-FHA approved mortgage broker to perform loan origination services
on two (2) FHA-insured loans; VF approved three (3) loans for borrowers
who were ineligible for federally insured mortgages due to outstanding
delinquent federal debt; VF approved two (2) FHA-insured loans without
adequately documenting the income used to qualify the borrowers; VF
approved three (3) FHA-insured loans without resolving discrepancies in
the loan files relating to the borrowers' income and employment; VF
failed to document the source of gift funds on three (3) FHA-insured
loans; VF approved a loan when the borrower did not meet the minimum
credit requirements; VF approved one loan where it omitted a liability
of the borrower in the underwriting analysis; VF accepted three (3)
loan applications from loan correspondents for which VF was not an FHA
approved Sponsor; and VF failed to review five (5) FHA-insured loans
that went into early payment default within the first six (6) months of
repayment.
9. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Minneapolis, MN [Docket No. 11-1183-MR]
Action: On December 20, 2011, the Board issued a letter of
reprimand to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (``Wells Fargo'').
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Wells Fargo failed to comply
with property preservation and protection requirements on two (2) HUD-
insured homes following foreclosure.
10. MetLife Bank, N.A., Bridgewater, NJ [Docket No. 11-1148-MR]
Action: On December 12, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with MetLife Bank, N.A. (``MetLife'') that required MetLife,
without admitting fault or liability, to pay an administrative payment
in the amount of $41,250 and waive all insurance benefits or indemnify
HUD against any losses relating to eleven (11) FHA-insured mortgages
for a period of five (5) years from the date of the Settlement
Agreement.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements self-reported by MetLife: MetLife violated HUD/
FHA requirements when it approved eleven (11) FHA-insured loans without
identifying irregularities and resolving discrepancies and conflicting
information in the loan files; MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements on
six (6) FHA-insured loans when it failed to adequately document the
borrowers' income; MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements when it
approved four (4) FHA-insured loans after failing to ensure that
documents were not handled by an interested third party; MetLife
violated HUD/FHA requirements on four (4) FHA-insured transactions when
it failed to document the source of funds used for the borrowers' down-
payments and/or closing costs; MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements
when it approved three (3) FHA-insured loans and omitted monthly debt
obligations from its underwriting analysis; MetLife violated HUD/FHA
requirements when it approved an FHA-insured loan for a borrower who
was ineligible because of an outstanding court-ordered judgment;
MetLife violated HUD/FHA requirements when it approved a loan for FHA
mortgage insurance without ensuring the borrower met the statutory 3.5%
minimum investment requirement; and MetLife violated HUD/FHA
requirements when it approved a loan for a borrower that was over-
insured by $3,598.54, because it had failed to consider the seller's
inducement to purchase.
11. Reliance First Capital, LLC Melville, NY [Docket No. 11-1203-MR]
Action: On December 22, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Reliance First Capital, LLC (``Reliance'') that required
Reliance to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $11,000, without
admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Reliance failed to notify HUD
that it agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $5,000 to the Department
of Banking of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and submitted a false
certification to HUD when it submitted its electronic annual
certification for 2011.
12. Virginia Commonwealth Bank, Petersburg, VA [Docket No. 11-1273-MR]
Action: On December 8, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Virginia Commonwealth Bank (``VCB'') that required VCB,
without admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil money penalty in
the amount of $6,725 and to remit all outstanding mortgage insurance
premiums and late fees owed to HUD.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: VCB failed to timely remit
mortgage insurance premiums on forty-four (44) loans.
13. E Mortgage Management, LLC, Haddon Township, NJ [Docket No. 11-
1200-MR]
Action: On February 3, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with E Mortgage Management, LLC (``EMM'') that required EMM
to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $14,500, without
admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: EMM failed to notify HUD that
EMM agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $61,500 to the Department of
Banking of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and submitted a false
certification to HUD when it submitted its electronic Annual
Certifications for 2011.
14. Master Mortgage Corporation, Bayamon, PR [Docket No. 11-1147-MR]
Action: On February 3, 2012, the Board issued a Notice of
Administrative Action withdrawing the FHA approval of Master Mortgage
Corporation (``MMC'') for five years.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: MMC failed to timely submit
audited financial statements and supplementary reports to HUD, and
failed to notify HUD that MMC and MMC's President were issued a
Complaint and Cease and Desist Order from the Commissioner of Financial
Institutions of Puerto Rico that required MMC to pay fines totaling
$280,000, ordered MMC to permanently cease and desist from operating
and engaging in the business of a mortgage institution in Puerto Rico,
required MMC to immediately surrender its mortgage institution's
license, and barred MMC's president from serving as an officer,
director, or owner of any financial institution.
15. Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc., Greenwood Village, CO [Docket No.
10-1798-MR]
Action: On February 23, 2011, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc. (``Clarion'') that
required Clarion to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $45,000,
without admitting fault or liability.
[[Page 55495]]
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Clarion failed to comply with
HUD's quality control requirements; violated HUD's mortgagee employee
and staffing requirements; and charged unallowable and unsupported
fees.
16. PHH Home Loans, LLC, Mount Laurel, NJ [Docket No. 11-1201-MR]
Action: On February 15, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with PHH Home Loans, LLC (``PHH'') that required PHH to pay a
civil money penalty in the amount of $14,500, without admitting fault
or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: PHH failed to notify HUD that
PHH agreed to pay a fine of $11,750 to the Department of Banking of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; failed to notify HUD that it paid a fine
of $50,000 to the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional
Regulation; and submitted a false certification to HUD when it
submitted its electronic annual certification for 2011.
17. HomeState Mortgage Company, LLC, Anchorage, AK [Docket No. 11-1286-
MR]
Action: On April 3, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with HomeState Mortgage Company, LLC (``HMC'') that required
HMC, without admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil money penalty
in the amount of $15,000 and to complete a six-month period of
probation, during which time HMC must submit all marketing materials to
HUD on a quarterly basis for review and approval.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: HMC reproduced the official HUD
seal on an advertisement or business solicitation, and disseminated a
misrepresentative or misleading advertisement or business solicitation
to the public.
18. United Northern Mortgage Bankers, LTD, Levittown, NY [Docket No.
11-1149-MR]
Action: On March 16, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with United Northern Mortgage Bankers LTD (``UNMB'') that
required UNMB, without admitting fault or liability, to pay a civil
money penalty in the amount of $25,000, indemnify HUD against losses
relating to two FHA-insured loans for a period of five years, and
complete a six-month period of probation during which time UNMB must
submit the results of its monthly QC audits and certifications as to
its QC staffing and operations.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: UNMB failed to ensure that the
quality control reviews for early payment defaults were completed; used
conflicting information in originating and obtaining HUD/FHA mortgage
insurance; and failed to adequately document the stability of income
used to qualify the borrowers.
19. Fifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH [Docket No. 10-1998-MR]
Action: On April 27, 2012, the Board entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Fifth Third Bank (``Fifth Third'') that required Fifth
Third to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $700,000, without
admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations
of HUD/FHA requirements alleged by HUD: Fifth Third failed to timely
remit mortgage insurance premiums to HUD/FHA, and failed to notify HUD/
FHA within 15 calendar days of the termination, transfer or sale of
mortgage insurance contracts.
II. Lenders That Failed To Timely Meet Requirements for Annual
Recertification of HUD/FHA Approval
Action: The Board entered into settlement agreements with the
lenders listed below, which required the lender to pay a $7,500 or
$3,500 civil money penalty, without admitting fault or liability.
Cause: The Board took this action based upon allegations that the
lenders listed below failed to comply with the Department's annual
recertification requirements in a timely manner.
1. Anchor Funding Corporation, Norcross, GA ($7,500.00) [Docket No.
11-1225-MRT]
2. Freyre Mortgage Corp., San Juan, PR. ($3,500.00) [Docket No. 11-
1229-MRT]
III. Lenders That Failed To Meet Requirements for Annual
Recertification of HUD/FHA Approval
Action: The Board voted to withdraw the FHA approval of each of the
lenders listed below for a period of one year.
Cause: The Board took this action based upon allegations that the
lenders listed below were not in compliance with the Department's
annual recertification requirements.
1. First Home Mortgage, Inc., Jonesboro, AR [Docket No. 12-1642-
MRT].
2. HCL Finance Inc., San Jose, CA [Docket No. 12-1641-MRT].
3. Ikon Mortgage Lenders, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL [Docket No. 09-
9910-MRT].
4. Delta Home and Lending, Inc., Sacramento, CA [Docket No.12-1643-
MRT].
5. Axiom Mortgage Bankers Corporation, Irvine, CA [Docket No. 11-
1234-MRT].
6. Red Rock Mortgage & Lending, LLC., Oklahoma City, OK [Docket No.
11-1233-MRT].
Dated: August 31, 2012.
Carol J. Galante,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2012-22126 Filed 9-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
