Archive for category: Compliance

Legal Q&A: Negotiating Checks Using Transfer by Affidavit

Q: Can a check be negotiated using a transfer by affidavit?

A: It depends.

Whether a check can be negotiated using a transfer by affidavit depends on a bank’s interpretation of the authority granted by the transfer by affidavit. Ultimately, it will be up to bank’s check negotiation policy to decide.

Generally speaking, WBA recommends caution before accepting a transfer by affidavit as sufficient authority to negotiate a check, because the bank is not the “holder” of the property being transferred, so under the statute authorizing the Transfer by Affidavit procedure the bank is not able to rely on the affidavit to make the transfer. In addition, the maker of the check is not able to inspect the transfer by affidavit for endorsement verification purposes.

This question typically arises involving checks made payable to a decedent’s estate. To negotiate a check payable to the decedent’s estate, the person presenting the check must be authorized to act on behalf of the decedent’s estate. Without authority to act on behalf of the estate, the person cannot provide a proper endorsement on the check. So the question becomes whether the transfer by affidavit bestows that authority. Regardless, a bank might make a business decision to negotiate the check, but the bank would be taking on the risk that an improper endorsement claim could be made by the maker of the check.

WBA recommends reviewing bank check negotiation policies when determining whether to accept a transfer by affidavit as authority to negotiate a check.

Note: The above information is not intended to provide legal advice; rather, it is intended to provide general information about banking issues. Consult your institution’s attorney for special legal advice or assistance.

By, Amber Seitz

/by
,

Regulation CC Dollar Amount Adjustment Rule Finalized

The below article is the Special Focus section of the July 2019 Compliance Journal. The full issue may be viewed by clicking here.

On July 3, 2019, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) published a jointly issued final rule (rule) amending Regulation CC that implements a requirement to periodically adjust dollar amounts under the Expedited Funds Availability Act (EFA Act). This requirement stems from a Dodd-Frank Act amendment to the EFA Act a number of years ago. 

The rule also extends Regulation CC’s coverage to American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam, and makes certain other technical amendments. This article will only focus on the dollar amount adjustment provisions of the rule.

Specified Dollar Amounts Subject to Adjustment

Subpart B of Regulation CC implements the requirements set forth in the EFA Act regarding the availability schedules within which institutions must make funds available for withdrawal, exceptions to those schedules, disclosure of funds availability policies, and payment of interest. 

The EFA Act and subpart B of Regulation CC contain the following specified dollar amounts concerning funds availability which are subject to adjustment: (1) The minimum amount of deposited funds that institutions must make available for withdrawal by opening of business on the next day for certain check deposits (“minimum amount’’) under 229.10(c)(1)(vii); (2) the amount an institution must make available when using the EFA Act’s permissive adjustment to the funds availability rules for withdrawals by cash or other means (‘‘cash withdrawal amount’’) under 229.12(d); (3) the amount of funds deposited by certain checks in a new account that are subject to next-day availability (‘‘new account amount’’) under 229.13(a); (4) the threshold for using an exception to the funds availability schedules if the aggregate amount of checks on any one banking day exceed the threshold amount (‘‘large deposit threshold’’) under 229.13(b); (5) the threshold for determining whether an account has been repeatedly overdrawn (‘‘repeatedly overdrawn threshold’’) under 229.13(d); and (6) the civil liability amounts for failing to comply with the EFA Act’s requirements under 229.21(a).

Frequency of Adjustments; Initial and Subsequent Adjustment Dates

The rule specifies that amounts for the six enumerated categories listed above must be adjusted every five years in accordance with a calculation set forth in the rule, with the first adjustment taking effect on July 1, 2020. Thus, each subsequent adjustment following July 1, 2020 will take effect every fifth July 1, (e.g. July 1, 2025; July 1, 2030, etc.).

Calculation Methodology of the Adjustment Amount

The adjustment amount will be calculated across an “inflation measurement period” (defined in the regulation) by the aggregate percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), rounded to one decimal, and then multiplied by the applicable existing dollar amount, the result of which being rounded to the nearest multiple of $25. However, no dollar amount adjustment will be made if the aggregate percentage change is zero or is negative, or when the aggregate percentage change multiplied by the applicable existing dollar amount and rounded to the nearest multiple of $25 results in no change.

When there is an aggregate negative percentage change over an inflation measurement period, or when an aggregate positive percentage change over an inflation measurement period multiplied by the applicable existing dollar amount and rounded to the nearest multiple of $25 results in no change, the aggregate percentage change over the inflation measurement period will be included in the calculation to determine the percentage change at the end of the subsequent inflation measurement period. That is, the cumulative change in the CPI–W over the two (or more) inflation measurement periods will be used in the calculation until the cumulative change results in publication of an adjusted dollar amount in the regulation. 

Adjustments will likely be published in the Federal Register at least one year in advance of their effective date. The Agencies stated they anticipate publishing in the first half of 2024 the adjustment amounts that will take effect on July 1, 2025.

Initial Adjustment Amounts

The following is a list of current dollar amounts that apply prior to July 1, 2020, and the set of first adjustment amounts that will take effect on July 1, 2020.

  1. For purposes of the minimum amount under § 229.10(c)(1)(vii), the dollar amount in effect prior to July 1, 2020 is $200; effective July 1, 2020, the amount will be $225;
  2. For purposes of the cash withdrawal amount under § 229.12(d), the dollar amount in effect prior to July 1, 2020, the amount is $400; effective July 1, 2020, the amount will be $450;
  3. For purposes of the new account amount, large deposit threshold, and the repeatedly overdrawn threshold under §S 229.13(a), (b), and (d) respectively, the dollar amount in effect prior to July 1, 2020, the amount is $5,000; effective July 1, 2020, the amount will be $5,525; and
  4. For purposes of the civil liability amounts under § 229.21(a), the dollar amounts in effect prior to July 1, 2020, are $100, $1,000, and $500,000 respectively; effective July 1, 2020, the amounts will be $100, $1,100, and $552,500 respectively.

Updating Disclosures & Notices

Institutions will need to update funds availability policies, disclosures, and notices (including change-in-terms notices for existing accounts) that will be provided on and after the applicable effective date to reflect the appropriate adjusted amount(s). It should be noted that rule has not changed the timing or content requirements for such policies, disclosures, and notices.

Revised and New Commentary Examples in the Regulation

The rule has revised and added certain examples in the commentary to reflect the July 1, 2020 adjustment amounts, and to address the new adjustment amount calculation methodology. However, the rule neither addresses nor modifies model hold notice verbiage or format, as a separate rulemaking is underway for that purpose.

Conclusion

Fortunately, the rule provides a substantial period of time before the first set of adjusted amounts is effective on July 1, 2020. Institutions should read the rule and begin reviewing their funds availability policies, disclosures, and notices to identify needed changes, and devise an implementation strategy for accounts opened prior to July 1, 2020, and those opened on or after that date. In addition, the plan should address procedures for future adjustments. The final rule may be viewed at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-03/pdf/2019-13668.pdf 

By, Ally Bates

/by
House icon and keys

Who Must Sign The Mortgage?

The below article is the Special Focus section of the May 2019 Compliance Journal. The full issue may be viewed by clicking here.

When originating a mortgage loan, banks often find themselves asking “who needs to sign the mortgage”. It’s a great question and the trite, lawyerly answer, is “it depends”! Given the fact that Wisconsin is a community property state and has a marital property act which includes homestead protections, the answer is not necessarily easy.

There are, of course, certain straightforward scenarios that follow the “General Rule”. The General Rule is this: only those parties in title to the property securing the loan are required to sign the mortgage. Of course, there is an exception to the General Rule – when you have a married person(s) in title to the property securing the loan, the spouse of the titled individual may be required to sign the mortgage.

The following hypotheticals demonstrate application of the General Rule.

  1. Mom and Daughter, both unmarried individuals, are borrowers on a loan. The loan will be secured by Mom’s home, for which Mom is the sole titleholder. Though Mom and Daughter are both borrowers, only Mom must sign the mortgage as the sole titleholder.
  2. Same facts as (1) above, except both Mom and Grandma are in title to the property. Grandma is unmarried. In this case, though Mom and Daughter are borrowers, Mom and Grandma must sign the mortgage because they are both titleholders.
  3. Son and Son’s Wife are borrowers on the loan and Dad is a Guarantor. The loan will be secured by a home in which Son and Son’s wife permanently reside, but Dad and Uncle are the titleholders. Dad and Uncle are both unmarried. In this case, Dad and Uncle must sign the mortgage. Son and Son’s Wife are not required to sign the mortgage despite the fact that they are married and the property is their permanent residence – in this case, neither spouse is in title to the property and thus no exceptions to the General Rule apply, as described in further detail below.

Of course, every good rule has exceptions. In this case, the exception to the General Rule is as follows: If a married person is in title to the property securing the loan, the spouse of that individual will also be required to sign the mortgage if the conveyance alienates either or both spouses’ homestead interest, even if the spouse is not in title. See Wis. Stats §706.02(1)(f). This requirement to obtain the spouse’s signature (the “exception”), however, does not apply to purchase money mortgages. See Wis. Stats §706.02(1)(f). In other words, if the mortgage is a purchase money mortgage, you’re back to the General Rule and the spouse of the married titleholder will not be required to sign the mortgage if the spouse is not going to be listed as an owner of the property, even if the property is homestead property or either or both spouses.  

Thus, assuming the bank is not originating a purchase money mortgage, the bank must require signatures of all titleholders PLUS the spouse of a married titleholder if the property is the homestead property of either or both spouses. 

Banks should note that a “homestead” is defined under Wis. Stats. § 706.01(7) as “the dwelling, and so much of the land surrounding it as is reasonably necessary for use of the dwelling as a home, but not less than one-fourth acre, if available, and not exceeding 40 acres.” Customers should indicate to the Bank whether the property is homestead property and such information should be contained on the mortgage itself.

If the bank does not obtain the signature of the married titleholder and the spouse of the titleholder, the mortgage is void and unenforceable. This interpretation of Wis. Stats. § 706.02(1) and (1)(f) was recently confirmed in a 2017 court case – U.S. Bank National Association v. Charles E. Stehno III, 2017 WI App. 57 (August 30, 2017). In Stehno, the Bank attempted to foreclose on mortgages signed by Charles Stehno in December 2002 and April 2003. The property was Stehno’s homestead at the time he signed the mortgages. However, the mortgages were not signed by his then-spouse, Candice Wells. Therefore, according to the court, the mortgages were invalid from the start against both spouses because only Stehno signed them. 

The following hypotheticals demonstrate application of the Exception to the General Rule:

  1. Husband and Wife are refinancing their homestead property. They are both listed as borrowers on the loan. Husband is the sole titleholder on the property. Both Husband and Wife must sign the mortgage because it’s conveying an interest in the homestead property of both spouses on a non-purchase money loan.
  2. Daughter and Daughter’s Husband are borrowers on second mortgage loan. The property securing the loan is titled in Dad’s name only and it’s Dad’s homestead property. Dad is married to Stepmom who does not live in the property. Both Dad and Stepmom must sign the mortgage because this is a non-purchase money loan which conveys the homestead interest of one spouse.
  3. Daughter and Son are refinancing their parents’ homestead property and are borrowers on the loan. Dad is married to Mom and the property securing the loan is both Dad’s and Mom’s homestead. Dad and Grandma are in title to the property. Grandma is unmarried. Dad, Mom, and Grandma must sign the Mortgage. Dad and Grandma must sign because they are titleholders. Mom must sign because this is a non-purchase money loan which conveys the homestead interest of Mom and Dad.
  4. Husband and Wife are looking to originate a purchase money mortgage loan for which they will both be borrowers. The loan will be secured by property held by husband only. Husband only will live in the property as his homestead. In this case, only husband must sign the mortgage because this is a purchase money loan and, therefore, the Exception to the General Rule does not apply.

In summary, taken altogether, the signatures needed on a mortgage are as follows: (1) All titleholders and (2) if the loan is not secured by a purchase money mortgage, the spouse of any married titleholder to the extent the property is the homestead of one or both spouses.

Finally, it’s best to obtain a title insurance policy that lists the owners of the property being mortgaged. Title insurance companies will also list the names of all individuals required to sign the mortgage so banks may have additional comfort that the correct individuals are signing the mortgage.

WBA wishes to thank Atty. Lauren C. Capitini, Boardman & Clark, llp for providing this article.

Learn more about the Wisconsin Marital Property Act at the June session of the WBA Compliance Forum.

By, Ally Bates

/by
,

What Are Brokered Deposits and What Is the Significance of FDIC Reform?

The below article is the Special Focus section of the April 2019 Compliance Journal. The full issue may be viewed by clicking here.

Brokered deposits are relatively simple in concept but subject to complex regulatory restrictions. By concept, “brokered deposit” is a term used to describe a source of funding for financial institutions. That is, funds managed by a deposit broker, being an individual who accepts and places funds in investment instruments at financial institutions, on behalf of others. This concept has evolved over the years, grown controversial, and subjected to regulatory restriction. To that extent, the question is: what deposits are considered brokered for purposes of regulatory coverage? 

According to section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) and Section 227 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) rules and regulations, brokered deposit means any deposit that is obtained, directly or indirectly, from or through the mediation or assistance of a deposit broker.1 A deposit broker is:

  1. Any person engaged in the business of placing deposits, or facilitating the placement of deposits, of third parties with insured depository institutions, or the business of placing deposits with insured depository institutions for the purpose of selling interests in those deposits to third parties; and
  2. An agent or trustee who establishes a deposit account to facilitate a business arrangement with an insured depository institution to use the proceeds of the account to fund a prearranged loan.

This broad language gives FDIC significant discretion to determine whether a deposit is brokered, making the above question difficult to answer. 

Emerging technologies continue to create innovative deposit opportunities. For example, internet and mobile banking did not exist when the rules were written. Brokered deposits were born from new technologies, but those technologies continue to evolve, and with them, the concept of what a brokered deposit is. 

Background 

The inception of brokered deposits came with the ability to transfer funds electronically. These technologies made it quick, easy, and cheap to access before un-reached markets, which enabled greater bank liquidity and growth. Controversy exists as to whether such growth contributed to the 1980 financial crisis, an examination of which is outside the scope of this article. However, the 1980 financial crisis did result in FDIC launching a study into brokered deposits which led the agency to write rules in 1989 and amend them in 1991. 

The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 added Section 29 of the FDI Act, titled “Brokered Deposits” (Section 29). Section 29 places certain restrictions on “troubled” institutions. Specifically, Section 29 provides:

  1. Acceptance of brokered deposits is restricted to well-capitalized insured depository institutions.
  2. Less than well-capitalized institutions may only offer brokered deposits under certain circumstances, and with restricted rates.

In 1991 Congress enacted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA). The FDICIA resulted in threshold adjustments to the brokered deposit restrictions under Section 29 and gave FDIC the ability to waive those restrictions under certain circumstances. 

More recently, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) amended Section 29 which excepted certain reciprocal deposits from treatment as brokered deposits. As seen above, Section 29 does not define the term “brokered deposit.” Rather, it defines the term “deposit broker.” Following EGRRCPA, on February 6, 2019, FDIC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment on unsafe and unsound banking practices: brokered deposits and interest rate restrictions (ANPR). The ANPR announces FDIC’s comprehensive review of its regulatory approach to brokered deposits and their interest rate caps. As part of its re-evaluation FDIC seeks comment on how it should revamp its definition of brokered deposits and interest rate restrictions. 

While the EGRRCPA implementation is specific to reciprocal deposits, FDIC’s ANPR is broader in scope, and presents an opportunity to re-examine the definition and treatment of brokered deposits as a whole. 

Impact 

How Brokered Deposits are Used 

Brokered deposits are a relatively new mechanism to the financial service industry. They provide:

  1. A quick, cheap, alternative sources of funding from national markets.
  2. An additional tool for institutions to maintain liquidity and interest rate risk analysis for balance sheet management.
  3. A potential tool for community banks to expand their deposits and maintain funds that do not move away when the local market shifts.
  4. Flexibility in availability of funds to institutions with varying demands in regional markets for deposits vs. loans.
  5. Greater opportunities to match deposit terms to loan funding.
  6. Alternative, competitive rates for investors.
  7. An additional tool for investing institutions to manage funds.

Significance of Regulation under Current Rules 

As discussed above, Section 29 restricts acceptance of brokered deposits and limits deposit interest rates. A well-capitalized institution is, generally, unrestricted. However, an undercapitalized institution may not accept, renew, or roll over any brokered deposit. An adequately capitalized institution may not accept, renew, or roll over any brokered deposit unless FDIC grants a waiver. Even though a well-capitalized institution is unrestricted, examiners consider the presence of core2 and brokered deposits when evaluating liquidity management programs and assigning liquidity ratings.

Furthermore, brokered deposits are a significant source of assets for some institutions. Institutions also seek to meet their customers deposit needs in an age of constantly evolving technologies. This creates uncertainty as to whether a particular deposit qualifies as a brokered deposit. The answer to that question is complex, as it lies not only in statute, but FDIC issued studies, interpretations, advisory opinions, regulations, and an FAQ on identifying, accepting, and reporting brokered deposits. 

Brokered deposit determinations are fact-specific and influenced by a number of factors. FDIC has broad discretion in application of its rules, which involves complex methodologies for determining and adjusting rates, and considers brokered deposit determinations on a case-by-case basis. For example, the term deposit broker has been applied to social media platforms, fintech, homeowners associations, and employee benefits providers. How FDIC views brokered deposits is also up to interpretation. Fortunately, FDIC states its view of brokered deposits in its 2016 FAQ:3 

“Brokered deposits can be a suitable funding source when properly managed as part of an overall, prudent funding strategy. However, some banks have used brokered deposits to fund unsound or rapid expansion of loan and investment portfolios, which has contributed to weakened financial and liquidity positions over successive economic cycles. The overuse of brokered deposits and the improper management of brokered deposits by problem institutions have contributed to bank failures and losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund.”

FDIC still appears to view brokered deposits as volatile and scrutinizes them accordingly. One direct result is rate cap limitations. By rule, rate caps only apply to less-than well capitalized banks. However, regulators have looked to the limits during exams, regardless of capital levels, pointing to potential volatility. Furthermore, under its 2009 calculation method, current rate caps are artificially low and hardly reflect what a customer can get from other sources. For example, as of April 22, 2019, a 12-month CD had a national average rate of 0.66% and a cap at 1.141%.4 On April 22, 2019, the Treasury yield was at 2.46%.5  

So, the current rules require financial institutions to identify deposits that are brokered, mind the rate cap limitations, and consider liquidity rating implications, in anticipation of regulatory examination. As technologies continue to evolve, and the financial industry follows those trends, the brokered deposit regulations designed before the age of online banking are outdated. For example, such broad coverage means banks seeking deposits through the internet could be subject to rate caps.

Significance of FDIC’s ANPR

The ANPR is an opportunity to comment and guide FDIC’s future approach to brokered deposits. Issues to comment on include:

  1. Clarify the definition of brokered deposit and deposit broker for the modern era of technology.
  2. Create a methodology to calculate a rate cap that appropriately reflects the cost of deposits.
  3. Provide examples of what brokered deposits mean to your institution with today’s modern technologies (ex: internet deposits such as online, mobile banking, and social media).
  4. Refocus of policy goals: original intent was to restrict large volumes of volatile funds. Brokered deposits were suspect of this category of deposit, but did not, and do not, necessarily continue to merit fierce restrictions.
  5. Reconsider limitations on brokered deposit offerings for well-capitalized institutions.

FDIC’s ANPR means a potential to modernize and even narrow the designation of a deposit as brokered, given the current wide scope of interpretation, stigmatization, limitation, and regulatory burden over a broad categorization of deposits. An update to Section 29 could mean new opportunities for banks to seek funding from new sources and explore new technological applications to deposits.

Conclusion

In 2019, many consumers bank from their phone. Various internet technologies give access to funds quickly, and new technologies are surely on the horizon. As businesses, banks need to accommodate these technologies in order to stay competitive. The ANPR is an opportunity to explore how brokered deposits are treated and can be better utilized. Comments can direct FDIC’s regulatory framework to enhance the functionality of brokered deposits as another deposit tool. 

Comments on the ANPR are due May 7, 2019. After the ANPR, FDIC will issue a proposed rule, with another opportunity for comment prior to a final rule. The ANPR can be found here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/board/2018/2018-12-18-notice-sum-i-fr.pdf 

1. 2 C.F.R. § 337.6(a)(2)

2. Core deposits are distinct from brokered deposits in that they are considered “stable,” including checking, savings, and CD accounts made by individuals rather than a deposit broker.

3. FIL-42-2016, Identifying, Accepting and Reporting Brokered Deposits: Frequently Asked Questions (Updated June 30, 2016; Revised July 14, 2016).

4. https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/resources/rates/

5. https://www.macrotrends.net/2492/1-year-treasury-rate-yield-chart

By, Ally Bates

/by
,

Private Flood Insurance

The below article is the Special Focus section of the March 2019 Compliance Journal. The full issue may be viewed by clicking here.

On February 12, 2019 the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council published a final rule on loans in areas having special flood hazards (2019 final rule). The 2019 final rule amends the flood regulations for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Farm Credit Administration, and the National Credit Union Administration (Agencies). The Agencies issued the 2019 final rule to implement the private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert-Waters Act). The 2019 final rule was published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2019 and compliance is manditory on July 1, 2019; however, lenders may begin following the rule now.

Background

The Biggert-Waters Act includes a statutory definition of private flood insurance and directs the Agencies to implement acceptance through rulemaking. In 2013 the Agencies proposed a rule requiring the acceptance of private flood insurance pursuant to the statutory definition. The proposed rule generated interpretive uncertainties that ultimately resulted in the Agencies issuing a revised proposed rule in 2016. The 2019 final rule is an attempt to clarify the definition of private flood insurance under the Biggert-Waters Act.

2019 Final Rule

In addition to attempting to clarify the statutory definition of private flood insurance, the 2019 final rule includes a compliance aid to enable institutions to identify acceptable private policies. Additionally, subject to certain restrictions, it permits institutions to exercise discretionary acceptance of flood insurance policies that do not meet the definition of private flood insurance. Finally, the rule specifies how lenders may accept policies issued by “mutual aid societies” such as certain Amish Aid Plans.

Definition of Private Flood Insurance

The statutory definition of private flood insurance under the Biggert-Waters Act incorporated factors from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Mandatory Purchase of Flood Insurance Guidelines. The 2019 final rule attempts to clarify this statutory definition. As such, institutions familiar with the statutory definition will notice slight variations when compared to the 2019 final rule’s definition. For purposes of this article, the analysis will focus on the 2019 final rule’s definition and not make a comparison.

Under the 2019 final rule, private flood insurance means an insurance policy that: 

  1. Is issued by an insurance company that is: 
    • Licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located; or 
    • Recognized, or not disapproved, as a surplus lines insurer by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property; 
  2. Provides flood insurance coverage that is at least as broad as the coverage provided under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) for the same type of property, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer. To be at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP, the policy must, at a minimum: 
    • Define the term “flood” to include the events defined as a “flood” in an SFIP; 
    • Contain the coverage specified in an SFIP, including that relating to building property coverage; personal property coverage, if purchased by the insured mortgagor(s); other coverages; and increased cost of compliance coverage; 
    • Contain deductibles no higher than the specified maximum, and include similar nonapplicability provisions, as under an SFIP, for any total policy coverage amount up to the maximum available under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) at the time the policy is provided to the lender; 
    • Provide coverage for direct physical loss caused by a flood and may only exclude other causes of loss that are excluded in an SFIP. Any exclusions other than those in an SFIP may pertain only to coverage that is in addition to the amount and type of coverage that could be provided by an SFIP or have the effect of providing broader coverage to the policyholder; and 
    • Not contain conditions that narrow the coverage provided in an SFIP; 
  3. Includes all of the following:
    • A requirement for the insurer to give written notice 45 days before cancellation or non-renewal of flood insurance coverage to:  
      • The insured; and 
      • The lending institution that made the designated loan secured by the property covered by the flood insurance, or the servicer acting on its behalf; 
    • Information about the availability of flood insurance coverage under the NFIP; 
    • A mortgage interest clause similar to the clause contained in an SFIP; and 
    • A provision requiring an insured to file suit not later than one year after the date of a written denial of all or part of a claim under the policy; and
  4. Contains cancellation provisions that are as restrictive as the provisions contained in an SFIP.

Compliance Aid

Pursuant to the above definition, a national bank or Federal savings association must accept private flood insurance in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirements. Thus, a financial institution is required to accept private flood insurance and must also ensure it meets the above definition. However, the 2019 final rule provides a compliance aid to assist in that mandatory acceptance. Pursuant to the compliance aid, a financial institution may determine that a policy meets the definition of private flood insurance without reviewing the policy, if the following statement is included within the policy or as an endorsement to the policy:

“This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”

While the compliance aid provides a safe harbor to financial institutions that accept policies containing the above language, there is no requirement for insurers to include the compliance aid language. Furthermore, because the 2019 final rule prescribes mandatory acceptance of private flood insurance that meets the above definition, financial institutions must accept policies that meet the above definition whether it includes the compliance aid or not. Meaning, a financial institution cannot reject a policy for the sole reason that it does not contain the compliance aid language.

Discretionary Acceptance

The 2019 final rule provides financial institutions the discretionary ability to accept or reject policies that do not meet the above definition of private flood insurance. Lenders may accept such policies, at their own discretion, if the policy:

  1. Provides coverage in the amount required by the NFIP; 
  2. Is issued by an insurer that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located; or in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property, is issued by a surplus lines insurer recognized, or not disapproved, by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction where the property to be insured is located; 
  3. Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees, except in the case of a policy that is provided by a condominium association, cooperative, homeowners association, or other applicable group and for which the premium is paid by the condominium association, cooperative, homeowners association, or other applicable group as a common expense; and 
  4. Provides sufficient protection of the designated loan, consistent with general safety and soundness principles, and the national bank or Federal savings association documents its conclusion regarding sufficiency of the protection of the loan in writing.

Mutual Aid Societies

In order to meet the mandatory acceptance provisions for private flood insurance, the 2019 final rule permits lenders to accept policies written by mutual aid societies if:

  1. The applicable supervisory agency has determined that such plans qualify as flood insurance for purposes of the Act; 
  2. The plan provides coverage in the amount required by the NFIP; 
  3. The plan covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees; and
  4. The plan provides sufficient protection of the designated loan, consistent with general safety and soundness principles, and the national bank or Federal savings association documents its conclusion regarding sufficiency of the protection of the loan in writing.

In addition, the rule defines mutual aid society to mean an organization:

  1. Whose members share a common religious, charitable, educational, or fraternal bond; 
  2. That covers losses caused by damage to members’ property pursuant to an agreement, including damage caused by flooding, in accordance with this common bond; and
  3. That has a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements to cover losses to members’ property caused by flooding.

Conclusion

With the 2019 final rule becoming effective July 1, 2019, and optional compliance available under the 2019 final rule now, WBA recommends financial institutions review their policies on acceptance of private flood insurance. Financial institutions will need to understand the definition of private flood insurance policies pursuant to the rule, even if they had previously adhered to the statutory definition, as the 2019 final rule implements slight changes. Furthermore, institutions should be prepared to understand the relation of the compliance aid to the mandatory acceptance requirements.

The 2019 final rule may be found here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-20/pdf/2019-02650.pdf ■

By, Ally Bates

/by

Legal Q&A: POA and IRA or Trust Accounts

Q: Can a power of attorney act on an IRA or Trust Account?

A: Yes, but only if the power of attorney (POA) agreement permits it.

The extent of an agent’s authority to act under a POA agreement will always depend on the language within the agreement.

Wisconsin’s Uniform Power of Attorney for Finances and Property Act under Chapter 244 governs POA agreements in Wisconsin. Chapter 244 provides for general authority with respect to banks and other financial institutions. One general power granted under statute permits an agent certain actions on an account. Account is a defined term under Wis. Stat. 705.01(1). That definition is broad enough to include an IRA.

For a trust account, an additional consideration to make is that of granting authority. A trust is a separate legal entity from an individual, meaning it has its own interests and authorities distinct from that of an individual person. A power of attorney agreement creates authority between a principal (the person granting authority) and an agent (the person granted authority). A POA agreement giving authority to act on the finances of a natural person principal does not automatically mean the agent can act on accounts owned by a trust, even if the principal is a trustee of the trust. Because a trust account has its own authority and ownership interests, the principal must grant an agent authority to act through their powers as trustee. Authority to do so is derived from the trust agreement.

If a financial institution is unsure about its interpretation of the scope of an agent’s authority within a POA agreement, WBA recommends working with an attorney to receive a legal opinion.

By, Scott Birrenkott

/by
,

TRID 2.0 – Disclosing Inspection/Draw/Handling Fees for Construction Loans

The below article is the Special Focus section of the November 2018 Compliance Journal. The full issue may be viewed by clicking here.

Complying with TRID 2.0 became mandatory on October 1, 2018. TRID 2.0 represents the first set of major changes to the TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID) since its inception back in 2015. These changes primarily addressed areas of TRID 1.0 which left a lot to be desired – disclosures for construction loans and simultaneous subordinate liens.  Lucky for banks, a number of these changes (e.g. the dreaded Cash to Close table) were, in all likelihood, addressed by your vendor. However, certain changes require bank intervention or, at the very least, bank knowledge. One of those changes is the disclosure of inspection/draw/handling fees for the staged disbursement of construction loan proceeds.  Under revised TRID rules, how you disclose inspection/draw/handling fees depends upon when those fees are collected from the consumer. Banks should also be aware of how these changes affect tolerance calculations.

In a construction or construction to permanent loan, banks or title companies often assess an Inspection/Draw/Handling fee (or separate, itemized fees) for the staged disbursement of construction loan proceeds. If such fees are collected from the consumer at or before closing, such fees are disclosed on the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure as usual – in the Loan Costs table in sections A, B, or C, as appropriate. Under revised TRID rules, however, if these fees are collected from the consumer AFTER closing (either by the bank or third party, such as a title company), the Inspection/Draw/Handling Fee(s) must be disclosed on a separate Addendum, which must accompany the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure. The Addendum must be titled “Inspection and Handling Fees Collected After Closing”. Importantly, irrespective of how these fees are collected – before, at, or after closing – a bank must list the fees on the Written List of Providers (a.k.a. Shopping List) if the consumer has the ability to shop for the services, according to informal guidance provided by CFPB.

It appears that CFPB modified the disclosure requirements for Inspection/Draw/Handling Fees collected post-closing in order for such fees to be more accurately reflected in the disclosures on the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure. For example, if an Inspection/Draw/Handling Fee is collected from the consumer after closing, certainly that fee should not affect the “Cash to Close” calculation. To this end, CFPB did provide the following guidance for Inspection/Draw/Handling fees collected post-closing and disclosed on an Addendum:

  • Such fees are considered “loan costs.” Therefore, such fees should be included in the Total of Payments calculation and the In 5 Years calculation.
  • Such fees are finance charges and are included as finance charges anywhere a finance charge is included on the disclosures (e.g. in the APR calculation), except these fees should be excluded from all Cash to Close calculations on the disclosures.
  • If such fees are withheld from the proceeds of the credit, the fees are prepaid finance charges and the Amount Financed Calculation should reflect the fee(s).  Otherwise – that is, if a post-closing Inspection/Draw/Handling fee is not a prepaid financed charge – the Amount Financed calculation should not reflect these fees.  

Finally, it’s important to note the impact on tolerance calculations for Inspection/Draw/Handling fees under revised TRID rules.  

  1. Inspection/Draw/Handling Fees Collected at or before Consummation. First, if these fees are disclosed in the Loan Costs Table because they are collected at or before closing, they are subject to tolerance just like any other fees disclosed in the Loan Costs table. That is, the tolerance standard is zero, 10%, or unlimited.  No change under TRID 2.0.  
  2. Inspection/Draw/Handling Fees Disclosed on an Addendum and Collected Post-Closing. If an Inspection/Draw/Handling fee is disclosed on an Addendum (because it’s intended to be collected post-closing) and such fees are actually collected post-closing, the best information reasonably available standard applies. Therefore, no tolerance violation will occur.  
  3. Post-Closing Inspection/Draw/Handling Fees Change Between Addenda.  According to informal guidance provided by CFPB, if a post-closing inspection/draw/handling fee amount changes between the time an Addendum is issued with the Loan Estimate (or a revised disclosure) and the Addendum issued with the final CD, a conservative reading of the rule is that the fees disclosed on the Addenda may not be governed by the “best information reasonably available standard”. Rather, the fees will be governed by the tolerance category that would apply to those loan costs absent an Addendum.  That is, the fees could be subject to 10%, 0%, or unlimited tolerance depending on whether or not the fee is an origination charge and whether or not shopping is permitted/the customer shopped.  Put simply, the tolerance is based on whether the fee would be located in Loan Costs section A, B, or C if there wasn’t an Addendum.  

Banks should also note that if there is a change to when an Inspection/Draw/Handling Fee will be collected from the consumer, this will likely be a changed circumstances and tolerance will reset for the Inspection/Draw/Handling fee(s). For example, Bank issued a Loan Estimate and disclosed a Draw fee on an accompanying Addendum because Title Company, who was managing the draws, planned to collect the amount from the consumer post-closing.  Two days after the Loan Estimate is issued and weeks before the Closing Disclosure must be issued, Bank decides it will now manage the draws itself and will be collecting the Draw fee from the consumer at closing. According to informal guidance provided by CFPB, this is likely a changed circumstance and, as such, the Bank may reset tolerance for the Draw fee with the issuance of the appropriate disclosure (here, a revised Loan Estimate). The revised disclosure should list the Draw fee in the Loan Costs section, in A, B, or C, as appropriate.  

In summary, banks should familiarize themselves with these changes, as applicable to their practices. In addition, it’s important to ensure that your vendor is capable of managing the bank’s construction lending practices for the assessment of Inspection/Draw/Handling fees.

WBA wishes to thank Atty. Lauren C. Capitini, Boardman & Clark, llp for providing this article. 

By, Ally Bates

/by

Excel for CECL Compliance: "Can" vs. "Should"

Preparation is fully underway among Wisconsin's banks for the new CECL standards, which were issued by FASB on June 16, 2016 and fundamentally change how banks estimate losses in their allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL). Among other considerations, banks must develop or purchase new systems and/or processes to conduct those calculations. One hotly debated question: whether or not banks can utilize a simpler solution than software, namely an Excel spreadsheet.

The answer: banks can use Excel, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should. 

There are several key considerations for banks when selecting a tool for CECL compliance, including the capabilities of that tool, the bank's complexity, staff expertise, and cost. Prior to any of that, however, bank management must determine which model is the right fit for their institution. "We've seen a number of different allowance calculations," said Mark A. Zeihen, assistant deputy controller with the OCC's Milwaukee/Iron Mt. Field Office. "Banks can use a variety of calculations today and going forward under CECL." While the more complex models aren't inherently bad, it is important to select the right tool for the job. "The selection of the methodology is important," said Ryan Abdoo, CPA, partner at Plante Moran. "That decision will have a long-term impact. With increased complexity comes increased data requirements and, thus, risk of error, so if you're an institution that has historically not complicated things, I would advise not complicating them." 

Tom Danielson, principal – financial institutions at CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP, recommends the "remaining life method"—which was outlined in a regulatory webinar on Feb. 27, 2018—as a good starting point for most community banks. If necessary, they can move to a more complex model in the future. "A key consideration is whether the model is right for your organization," he said. "Does it give you an ALLL computation that is correct, understandable, and easy for you to explain to shareholders, board members, auditors, and examiners?"

Along with selecting the most appropriate model, bank management must evaluate the data capabilities of their chosen solution. "CECL will require banks to maintain, manage, and store larger amounts of data," said Zeihen. "Each tool will vary greatly, so it's important for banks to consider how quickly they can retrieve and tailor reports." A key component of that evaluation is determining whether or not the bank's CECL solution integrates with its core. "Whether they integrate with your core processer is a big piece for making sure you have historic data points," explained Tom Mews, president, First National Community Bank, New Richmond, adding that a vendor who can supply industry data is also important. 

When evaluating different solutions for CECL compliance, bank management must first consider the level of complexity of the model that best fits their bank's needs. "When purchasing or building a model, we believe simple banks do not need complex models," said Danielson. "There are certain pros and cons with each option. Some of the software tools available are more complex than what many community banks need, which could lead to higher costs and some complexities within the model that are not needed by the user," added David Braden, CPA, manager – financial institutions at CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP. "However, the one concern with using an Excel-based model is you might not have enough staff who are comfortable modifying the spreadsheet accurately over time, and maintaining a proper control structure around that process." Bank management should also keep in mind that their institution's complexity may change. Software can be more flexible than a spreadsheet by supplying different methodology options, which could be an important feature for growth-oriented banks, according to Abdoo. "CECL allows for half a dozen different methodologies that range in complexity," he explained. "Due to the fact that the more complex the methodology gets, the more data the software needs, that flexibility allows you to start with a less complex methodology and then transfer to a more complex one as you grow without changing products."

Another important factor to consider is the expertise and time required by bank staff in order to effectively use the chosen tool. "Value the time your people put into managing the components and training backups," Mews advised. "Under the current CECL requirements, to train multiple people under that model is very difficult, with time constraints being the biggest component." That evaluation is likely one of the most difficult bank leadership will face when it comes to CECL implementation. "The difficult decision is the analysis of the skillset of your current employees and an honest assessment about the challenges and skills needed to build, maintain, and validate a CECL model using Excel," said Danielson. "Many banks may conclude that while it's possible, it's not cost-beneficial to do." Staff aren't the only ones responsible for understanding the model; management are required to fully comprehend how the model works. "Management has to be in charge of the internal control structure, and that escalates as the community bank grows in size," Braden explained. "The individuals at the bank need to understand how the inputs go into the structure and interpret what the outputs mean." 

Finally, bank management must weigh the costs of a potential CECL solution against its benefits. The key is to include all of the costs involved. "Don't consider just the initial cost but also the ongoing costs," said Zeihen, using employee training and implementation costs as an example. "Cost definitely plays into every decision a community bank makes," said Mews. "We could train one person internally, but because of the in-depth knowledge it takes, it would be difficult to have any backup." It's critical for bank leadership to consider the long-term costs and benefits of each potential solution rather than selecting the least expensive option in the short-term. "It doesn't make sense to pay for more than you need, but one of the poorest business decisions you can make is to buy the cheapest solution out there and find out later that it is ineffective," said Danielson. Bank management should also factor in the staff time required to utilize a software solution. "Each institution has someone responsible for loan loss allowance calculation," Abdoo pointed out. "Whether you use Excel or not, that person will still be putting in time documenting and entering data. You still will have to put in time and effort to calculations, no matter what the tool."

Ultimately, regulators are more concerned about compliance with the principles of CECL than the specific tools being used. "The bottom line is banks will continue to have flexibility in choosing a solution that meets their needs as long as the CECL principles are followed and objectives are met," said Zeihen. "The OCC isn't expecting or requiring banks to purchase from a third party vendor or purchase a new system. It's possible for banks to use the tools they already have, but some modifications will be required. We expect them to have proper controls over the input, the appropriate calculations, and controls over changes in outputs."

If a bank does decide to pursue using Excel for CECL compliance, be sure to leave plenty of time for testing and adjustments during implementation. "Community banks who want to consider using Excel will need to start very early in building their models so they can develop or hire the skills they need and change course if necessary," said Danielson. "It can be done, but don't make that decision lightly."

Helpful Resources

Plante Moran is a WBA Silver Associate Member. 
CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP is a WBA Bronze Associate Member.

By, Amber Seitz

/by

Legal Q&A: NPCs Covered by CDD Requirements for Certification of Beneficial Ownership

Q: Are non-profit corporations covered by the customer due diligence requirements for certification of beneficial ownership?

A: Yes. All corporations that file articles of incorporation with the State of Wisconsin are covered by the Customer Due Diligence (CDD) Rule regardless of non-profit status.

The CDD Rule requires covered financial institutions to develop written procedures to identify and verify beneficial owners of legal entity customers upon opening of new account. A legal entity customer is described, in part, as a Corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that is created by the filing of a public document with a Secretary of State. Thus, a non-profit corporation would be a legal entity customer for purposes of the CDD rule.

The key determination is whether the customer is a "legal entity customer." Tax status, such as non-profit status, does not directly affect a customer's legal entity status. Meaning, a non-profit organization such as a church could decide to incorporate, file articles of organization, or otherwise file with the State and be covered by the CDD Rule. Typically, however, a non-profit organization will opt for an unincorporated association status. Unincorporated associations are not legal entity customers and are not covered by the CDD rule. Wisconsin's Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act can be found under chapter 184 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

For this reason, non-profits are often exempt from the CDD rule. This is, however, by their decision to organize as an unincorporated association rather than their tax status.

Note: The above information is not intended to provide legal advice; rather, it is intended to provide general information about banking issues. Consult your institution's attorney for special legal advice or assistance.

By, Scott Birrenkott

/by

Legal Q&A: Authority to Act Under a POA Agreement

Q: How can I be Certain an Agent has Authority to Act under a Power of Attorney Agreement?

A: WBA continues to field a variety of questions about when and how an agent may act under a Power of Attorney (POA) agreement. This Q&A is dedicated to that question generally.

A POA agreement is a legal document whereby one party (the principal) designates authority to act on their behalf to another party (the agent). Always ensure that any POA agreement bank receives relates to powers over finances. Take a copy of and review any POA agreement related to finances the bank may receive for its customers. Customers may bring in the model agreement provided by Wisconsin in accordance with Chapter 244 or one drafted by an attorney. Both are equally valid methods, but may contain different terms and provisions. Confirm whether the POA agreement is: durable, non-durable, or springing. This refers to when the agent may act: either while the principal is incapacitated, cease while the principal is incapacitated, or after a predetermined event.

All of the agent’s authority to act comes from what is written within the POA agreement. Ideally, the POA agreement is clear and specific. Sometimes, it may not be. For example, the POA agreement may refer to “general powers of finances.” Wisconsin Statute Section 244.41 indicates which authority is covered by a general grant and those powers that require a specific grant. You will want to review that portion of the statute to assist in determining the agent’s authority. In any case, carefully review the document, and consider obtaining an opinion from the bank’s own counsel.

Special rules exist for agency on joint deposit accounts. All parties to the joint account must designate the agent to have authority on the account for the agency to be valid. However, only one party needs to revoke that authority in order for the revocation to be effective. 

Generally, agents may not appoint other agents, and generally may not conduct estate planning activities on behalf of the principle. Look for specific language granting this authority if an agent wishes to act in this way and consider obtaining an opinion from the bank’s own counsel.

A POA agreement for personal finances of an individual doesn’t automatically mean that an agent can act with respect to any fiduciary authority the ward has. For example, while a trustee may have the authority to appoint an agent over a trust, in order for the trustee to appoint an agent over a trust they should do so in their capacity as a trustee rather than as an individual.

As a final reminder, POA agreements for health care do not apply to deposit accounts. They relate to health care decisions rather than finances.

As always, if you have any questions on POA matters or other compliance-related concerns, call the WBA legal hotline at 608-441-1200 or email us at wbalegal@wisbank.com.

Note: The above information is not intended to provide legal advice; rather, it is intended to provide general information about banking issues. Consult your institution's attorney for special legal advice or assistance.

By, Scott Birrenkott

/by
Wisconsin Bankers Association logo

questions@wisbank.com

608-441-1200

4721 S Biltmore Ln.
Madison, WI 53718

Get our Newsletter!
Subscribe