[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 146 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39002-39003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18727]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner
[Docket No. FR-3911-N-02]
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) of the National Housing Act,
notice is hereby given of the cause and description of administrative
actions taken by HUD's Mortgagee Review Board against HUD-approved
mortgagees.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Heyman, Director, Office of
Lender Activities and Land Sales Registration, 451 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20410, telephone (202) 708-1515. The
Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) number is (202) 708-4594.
(These are not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing
Act (added by Section 142 of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Reform Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-235), approved December 15,
1989, requires that HUD ``publish in the Federal Register a description
of and the cause for administrative action against a HUD-approved
mortgagee'' by the Department's Mortgagee Review Board. In compliance
with the requirements of Section 202(c)(5), notice is hereby given of
administrative actions that have been taken by the Mortgagee Review
Board from April 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995.
1. Community Lending Corporation, College Park, Maryland
Action: Probation and proposed civil money penalty in the amount of
$5,000.
Cause: Failure by the company to remit to the Department mortgage
insurance premiums collected from borrowers in connection with five
HUD-FHA insured mortgage transactions; and failure to timely submit
loans to HUD-FHA for mortgage insurance endorsement.
2. World Wide Credit Corporation, San Diego, California
Action: Proposed Settlement Agreement of a civil money penalty in
the amount of $1,500; indemnification for any claim losses in
connection with 10 improperly originated Title I loans; and
implementation of a Quality Control Plan.
Cause: A HUD monitoring review that disclosed violations of HUD-FHA
Title I program requirements that included: failure to document
borrower's source of funds required for loan fees and closing costs;
advising borrowers that loan fees may be deducted from loan proceeds;
improperly advising borrowers to obtain gift letters; and omitting the
loan disbursement date on the Note.
3. Greystone Servicing Corporation, Inc., New York, New York
Action: Settlement Agreement that includes a payment to the
Department in the amount of $228,000 and assurance by the company of
compliance with the requirements of the Government National Mortgage
Association (GNMA).
Cause: Violation of GNMA requirements resulting from the improper
termination of 57 GNMA mortgage-backed securities pools.
4. Whitehall Funding, Inc., Davenport, Iowa
Action: Settlement Agreement that includes a payment to the
Department in the amount of $75,000 and assurance by the company of
compliance with the requirements of the Government National Mortgage
Association (GNMA).
Cause: Violation of GNMA requirements resulting from the improper
termination of 13 GNMA mortgage-backed securities pools.
5. Washington Credit Union, Lynwood, Washington
Action: Probation and proposed civil money penalty in the amount of
$10,000.
Cause: A HUD monitoring review that disclosed violations of HUD-FHA
Title I property improvement loan program requirements that included:
failure to comply with HUD-FHA reporting requirements under the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA); failure to comply with dealer approval
requirements; failure to report to HUD-FHA borrowers' uncompleted
property improvements; failure to resolve a borrower complaint against
a dealer; failure to verify a borrower's source of funds for the
required initial payment; and inaccurate completion certificates.
6. Carl I Brown & Company, Kansas City, Missouri
Action: Proposed Settlement Agreement that includes payment to the
Department of $75,000; payment of a civil money penalty in the amount
of $30,000; and corrective action by the company to assure compliance
with HUD-FHA requirements.
Cause: Review by HUD's contractor of the company's single family
mortgage insurance claims submissions and loan servicing procedures
that disclosed violations of HUD-FHA requirements. The violations
included: overpayment by HUD of expenses paid; payment for preservation
and protection work not performed; overpayment for tax refunds;
improperly prepared claims submissions; inadequate quality control;
improper dispositions of mortgagor escrow surpluses; and inadequate
servicing of defaulted loans.
7. PNC Mortgage Corp. of America, Vernon Hills, Illinois
Action: Proposed Settlement Agreement that includes payment to the
Department in the amount of $84,375, and if determined to be
appropriate, reimbursement for marketing losses resulting from untimely
submitted insurance claims.
Cause: Review by HUD's contractor of the company's single family
mortgage insurance claims submissions citing violations of HUD-FHA
requirements that included: untimely submission of insurance claims;
and incorrect dates on claim forms.
8. Charter Mortgage Corporation, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Action: Probation
Cause: A HUD monitoring review that disclosed violations of HUD-FHA
requirements that included: failure to comply with HUD-FHA reporting
requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA); failure to
maintain an adequate Quality Control Plan; permitting improperly
secured secondary financing to close HUD-FHA insured mortgages; failure
to remit to HUD-FHA Up-Front Mortgage Insurance Premiums (UFMIPs) and
late charges; submission of erroneous HUD-1 Settlement Statements; and
failure to retain complete loan origination files.
[[Page 39003]]
9. The Professional Investment & Financial Group, San Gabriel,
California
Action: Proposed Settlement Agreement that includes payment to the
Department of a civil money penalty in the amount of $1,000; and
revision of the advertising used by the company in its HUD-FHA Title I
program activities.
Cause: Use of misleading advertising by the company in connection
with the Title I property improvement loan program.
10. Magna Financial Corporation, Irvine, California
Action: Settlement Agreement that includes indemnification to the
Department for any claim losses in connection with five improperly
originated Title I loans; payment to the Department of a civil money
penalty in the amount of $1,000; and corrective action to assure
compliance with HUD-FHA requirements.
Cause: A HUD monitoring review that disclosed violations by the
company of HUD-FHA Title I property improvement loan program
requirements that included: failure to verify borrowers' source of
funds required for initial payment; failure to properly verify
borrower's income; requiring a minimum loan amount; failure to meet
program requirements for the promissory note; failure to ensure that
detailed descriptions of improvements were provided by borrowers; and
failure to comply with HUD-FHA reporting requirements under the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).
11. Randall Mortgage, Inc., Maitland, Florida
Action: Settlement Agreement that includes: indemnification to the
Department in the amount of $87,657 for its claim loss in connection
with an improperly originated HUD-FHA insured mortgage; indemnification
for any future claim losses in connection with seven improperly
originated mortgages; payment to the Department of a civil money
penalty in the amount of $2,500; and corrective action to assure
compliance with HUD-FHA requirements.
Cause: A HUD monitoring review that disclosed violations of HUD-FHA
requirements that included: failure to maintain an adequate Quality
Control Plan for the origination of HUD-FHA insured mortgages; failure
to verify borrowers' source of funds used for downpayment; failure to
ensure that borrowers made the minimum required investment in the
property; requiring a borrower to deposit excess escrow funds at
closing; inadequate or lack of face-to-face interviews with borrowers;
and failure to properly complete HUD Form 92900 Applications.
Dated: July 20, 1995.
Jeanne K. Engel,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing--Federal Housing
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 95-18727 Filed 7-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-27-P
