Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Barbara Holzer, Broadcast Manager
w. (202) 588-7716
bholzer@citizen.org

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779
kgower@citizen.org

Symone Sanders, Communications Officer, Global Trade Watch division
w. (202) 454-5108
ssanders@citizen.org

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog
Facebook/publiccitizen

Follow us on Twitter

 

July 17, 2012

Legal Immunity for Mortgage Lenders Would Undermine Efforts to Combat Abusive Practices

Statement by Christine Hines, Consumer and Civil Justice Counsel, Public Citizen

An effort by some congressional lawmakers to let mortgage lenders off the hook for violating rules and offering shoddy mortgages to consumers is an irresponsible appeal that could upend much-needed mortgage reforms before they even take effect.

Led by U.S. Rep. Shelley Capito, (R-W.Va.), 108 lawmakers sent a letter to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Richard Cordray, arguing for legal immunity for mortgage lenders. The lawmakers were commenting on a proposed rule for determining borrowers’ “ability-to-repay” and the definition of a qualified mortgage, required under the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The proposed rule leaves open the question of legal liability for bad practices. The bureau must decide whether to allow mortgage lenders to be completely shielded from lawsuits, i.e. give them a “safe harbor,” or whether to protect them with a standard that presumes their compliance with the rules, but gives vulnerable borrowers the opportunity to provide evidence of the lenders’ wrongdoing.
Talk about short memories.

It was just five years ago that the U.S. economy imploded partly because toxic mortgages were given to mostly unaware borrowers. Mortgage lenders were able to hide their untenable risk-taking from the public and government oversight until it was too late. This irresponsible behavior led to the shutdown of large financial institutions, record home foreclosures and high unemployment. Now, unbelievably, lobbyists have convinced some lawmakers that bankers should be shielded from lawsuits, returning us to that place where perilous actions would remain in the dark and borrowers would be barred from seeking redress in court for their lenders’ wrongdoing.

Adding a “safe harbor” to once again protect lenders from their reckless acts is arbitrary;  if the industry is granted immunity at the outset, there would be no opportunity to address the facts underlying each case. A safe-harbor would undermine the CFPB’s rulemaking on mortgages because consumers would not be able to enforce their rights and assure accountability.

Enabling borrowers to rebut the presumption with evidence of wrongdoing is a step forward, but aggrieved borrowers should be able to seek redress under the Dodd-Frank Act without being forced to use either of these standards.

It is clear that given the recent past, strong underwriting rules are necessary to protect the market from abusive lending practices. It also is evident that lenders need incentives to comply with the rules, and that legal accountability is such an incentive.

The CFPB should not shield mortgage lenders from liability, or else the laws passed to guard against another mortgage meltdown will be in vain.
 

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.