FAIR HOUSING AS A WEAPON AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
CLEVELAND BAR JOURNAL, April 2007, Vol. 78 No. 6
By Marilyn Tobocman (principal assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Section), and Edward G. Kramer
The evils of predatory lending have been recognized by the Ohio General Assembly with its passage of SB 185, legislation that responds to some of the abuses by some mortgage brokers, loan officers, appraisers and others taking advantage of vulnerable consumers. This article describes a number of advantages the fair housing laws offer the attorney representing victims of predatory lending practices, making it a logical companion in any enforcement of Ohio’s recently enhanced consumer protections.
What Are Predatory Practices and Loans Predatory loans are a product of the subprime loan market, which is designed to serve consumers ineligible for “A-Credit” loans. In the subprime market, the lenders evaluate the credit-worthiness of a borrower by establishing various risk classifications with associated pricing parameters. There is no standard set of credit risk assessment criteria as exists in the prime market. The subprime market typically takes into consideration a potential borrower’s credit history; the household debt-to-income ratio if the loan is approved; and the combined loan-to-value ratio for home equity loan and other mortgage debt on the property. Standards vary, however, within the subprime market, and different lenders may assign different weights for each of these factors. The borrower pays more because subprime loans are usually more costly to the lender to originate, sell and service than traditional “A-credit” loans.
There is a legitimate place for sub prime lending, but not for predatory lending. When the loan exceeds the borrower’s needs and repayment capacity it is predatory.1 The types of practices which, made in a combination, turn a subprime loan into a predatory loan include:
• Loans sold over the phone, door-to-door or by direct mail
• Loans carrying high interest rates (usually higher than 13 percent)
• Imposing excessive “points” or “fees"
• Requiring the borrower to purchase specific credit, life, accident or unemployment insurance as a condition of the loan
• Monthly payments that exceed the borrower’s income
• Balloon payments that are unexplained to the borrower
• Successive refinancing that increases the interest rate while reducing the monthly payment (“Flipping”)
• Prepayment penalties locking the borrower into unfair terms
• Arranging a subprime loan with high interest rates when the borrower’s credit would qualify them for a lower interest prime loan
• Appraisals that inflate the property’s value, offer cash to the borrower, but leave the mortgage dissatisfied in any subsequent sale, resulting in both foreclosure and bankruptcy for the borrower (“Equity Stripping”)
Predatory Loans that Invoke the Protections of Fair Housing Laws The fair housing laws apply when the lender exploits the need for refinancing or loans for home purchase of a particular group the laws were intended to protect. Therefore, whenever it can be shown that persons have been targeted for unfair lending practices based on their race, color, religion, sex, familial status, ancestry, disability or national origin, the state2 and federal3 fair housing laws provide an additional legal claim for damages. In our very segregated housing market, the most prevalent type of targeting is directed at neighborhoods where the residents are primarily of one national origin or race. Targeting under the fair housing laws is known as “reverse redlining.” One of the reasons minorities are vulnerable to reverse redlining is the history of redlining by traditional banks that has led them to believe that they are not welcome or eligible for prime loans.
The Fair Housing Laws can Expand Who has Standing to Bring a Predatory Lending Action The advantage of a fair housing law claim over consumer protection laws is its history of being liberally construed.
Caucasians have standing to sue when race discrimination deprives African Americans of housing on grounds that the Caucasians are injured by being deprived of the economic, social and educational advantages of interracial association.4 Fair housing organizations have standing on grounds that discrimination frustrates their purpose and diverts their resources.5 Cities have standing when the conduct perpetuates ghettos or has negative impact on housing values.6 The language of the state and federal statutes make this possible by permitting “any person aggrieved” to file a claim.7
Both the federal and state statutes provide for investigations by administrative agencies, giving the private practitioner some free discovery.8 And injury from a discriminatory act is presumed9 without the limits on damages often found in consumer protection statutes.
Fair Housing Laws Stretch the Net of Liability over more Actors Fair housing laws offer a wider choice of parties to be sued. The state law identifies persons liable to suit as any owner, lessor, assignor, builder, manager, broker, salesman, appraiser, agent, employee, lending institution, the state, all political subdivisions, and state authorities, agencies, boards and commissions.10 Federal law covers “any person or entity whose business includes engaging in a residential real estate-related transaction.” That phrase includes making or purchasing loans or providing other financial assistance for purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing or maintaining a dwelling that is secured by residential real estate and the selling, brokering or appraising of residential real property.11
The doctrine of respondeat superior is available to impose liability on both principal and agent.12 One court concluded that the Fair Housing Act’s “overriding societal priority” requires that “the one innocent party with the power to control the acts of the agent, the owner of the property or other responsible superior, must act to compensate the injured party for the harm, and to ensure that similar harm will not occur in the future.”13 Similar reasoning permits fair housing claims against the defendant mortgage company’s president and employee survive the motion to dismiss.14 In this same case, an additional named defendant managed a “Equity Acceleration Program” that paid one extra mortgage payment each year with funds drawn from the mortgagor’s checking account, charging the mortgagor both to sign up for the program and imposing a transaction fee every time payments were made. They argued they were not a mortgage lender, banker, mortgage arranger or creditor. In denying their motion to dismiss, the court noted that the fair housing laws do not apply exclusively to an entity specifically existing for the purpose of engaging in real estate-related transaction. They only need be “included” as one aspect of its overall functioning to come under the statute’s language of “other financial assistance.”
In Hargraves v. Capital City Mortgage Corp.,15 the Fair Housing Act claims survive against the lender who purchased the plaintiffs’ loans even absent any role in establishing the credit terms or originating the loans. In Echols v. A-USA Mortgage Corp., the complaint named everyone connected with the home purchase from the real estate broker, the mortgage broker, the lender, the appraiser, the attorneys who presided over the closing and the loan servicer. The only named defendants dismissed from all claims were the sellers’ agents.16
Beat the Statute of Limitations Defense with the Fair Housing Law The state fair housing law’s statute of limitation is one year for initiating the administrative processing and filing a civil action17 and, for the federal law it is one year for initiation of the administrative process18 and two years for the filing of a civil action.19 The continuing violation theory has expanded the time in which claims can be filed. In Honorable v. The Easy Life Real Estate System, Inc.,20 the court permitted the last of the several sales alleged in the complaint, which were within the limitations period to allow untimely transactions to remain subject to the lawsuit. The allegation was that each home buyer could not know that the defendants were exploiting the dual housing market based on the sale of one home. Only after the plaintiffs learned that defendants engaged in a pattern of similar sales practices against other African Americans in the Austin community could they know that the defendants had the power to exploit the dual market and discriminate against them on the basis of their race. In Hargraves v. Capital City Mortgage Corp.,21 the court permitted the fair housing law claims to continue on the theory that as long as the illegal contracts were in operation, imposing exorbitant interest rates and being enforced through collection letters and foreclosure proceedings, the unlawful acts continued to occur under the continuing violation concept.
In Matthews v. New Century Mortgage Corp.,22 equitable tolling based on fraudulent concealment permitted four plaintiffs to survive what would otherwise be an untimely filing. They ranged in age from 69 to 72, were all single females living on pensions or social security and were solicited for home improvement loans. They received loans ranging from $49,000 to $102,000 on applications describing them as business owners with monthly incomes more than double the actual amounts received in the form of social security or pensions or babysitting. None were given the documents to review before closing or were able to review documents before signing them. They learned the loan terms at the time of foreclosure.23
Conduct that Invites Consideration of a Fair Housing Claim For purposes of alleging a fair housing violation in a standard lending context, the plaintiff must show:
• He or she is a member of a protected class
• He or she applied for and was qualified for the loan
• The loan given was on grossly unfavorable terms
• The lender continues to provide loans to other applicants with similar qualifications, but on significantly more favorable terms
Gonzalez v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.24 provides an example of predatory practices visited on a Hispanic, thereby permitting a fair housing claim. The borrower, who spoke spanish and little or no english, claimed that the brokers actively pursued her to refinance a home loan with the assurance that her monthly payments would increase only marginally. The loan documents, which were in english, disclosed loan payments that exceeded her monthly income. When the borrower closed the loan, she was not provided any closing documents. Her request for copies of all loan documents was met with a demand she pay for them. The complaint alleged that the lender discriminated against her on the basis of race, national origin and gender in violation of the Fair Housing Act based on terms less favorable than those offered to borrowers not better qualified, but of a different race, national origin or gender. These allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the Fair Housing Act and survive a motion to dismiss.
A parallel allegation of discrimination relied on a comparison of conduct of the parent corporation with its subsidiary, a subprime lender. In Chicago, Equicredit, a subsidiary of Bank of America, made loans almost exclusively in minority areas, while the Bank of America made loans in predominantly caucasian areas. The complaint alleged Equicredit imposed unfair credit terms, including high interest rates, terms not imposed by Bank of America entities.25
There is an alternate analysis that brings a predatory lending claim within the prohibitions of the fair housing laws without requiring less favorable treatment, the hallmark of a discrimination claim. In Beard v. Worldwide Mortgage Corp.,26 the allegation that defendants intentionally targeted african americans and african american neighborhoods with fraudulent loan practices designed to take away their homes stated a fair housing violation. In Eva v. Midwest National Mortgage Banc, Inc.,27 the complaint alleged a pattern of predatory and discriminatory lending directed at female borrowers for residential loans by locking them into unaffordable loans that included equity stripping features and allowed defendants to deceive secondary market purchasers. The necessary allegation for purposes of the Fair Housing Act was that the defendants discriminate against women by deliberately targeting them for predatory loans.
When confronting real estate transactions that strip equity from housing, the addition of a Fair Housing Act claim with its history of liberal interpretation may provide a safety net when other consumer claims are lost because their statutes tend to be strictly construed.
1. Hargraves v. Capital City Mortgage Corp., 140 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2000)
2. Ohio Revised Code Section 4112.02(H)
3. 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.
4. Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life, 409 U.S. 205 (1972).
5. Havens v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982).
6. Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.A. 91 (1979).
