Skip to main content

Notice of Errors

Jonathan Foxx
May 21, 2018

Question: We dealt with a complaint by a borrower who had sent a notice of error to the wrong address at our company. Our disclosures are clear about which address to send these letters to; however, this borrower was miffed that he could not be sure, so he sent it to a general mailbox. When we didn’t respond, he escalated the complaint to our regulator. Why should we be responsible if a borrower can’t read plain English and mistakenly sends his letter to the wrong company address?
The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), like the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), offers mortgage loan servicers the opportunity to designate an address to which requests for information (RFIs) or notices of error (NOEs) (some of which are considered “qualified written requests” or QWRs under the RESPA statute) must be sent.
The idea that a financial institution should treat borrower NOEs according to a borrower’s level of sophistication has not fared well in the courts. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rejected the idea. It found that the borrower in a similar situation had adequate notice of the loan servicer’s designated address for the receipt of QWRs and that the servicer’s statutory duty to respond to the borrower’s letter was never triggered.
Crucially, the 2nd Circuit refused to consider another argument raised by the borrower because he hadn’t pursued it until his appeal–that a mortgage servicer must establish a separate physical office for responding to QWRs. [Regulation X § 1024.35(c) and Comments 35(c)-2 and-3. Mack v. ResCap Borrower Claims Trust, 678 Fed. Appx. 10 (2nd Cir. 2017)]
In another case, the 11th Circuit dismissed the same argument and held that the servicer’s use of the same address for additional purposes was irrelevant to RESPA liability. The 11th Circuit noted that the servicer had subjected itself to the administrative burden of evaluating and prioritizing a larger quantity of mail to identify QWRs (or NOEs or RFIs), perhaps to minimize customer confusion, and that to penalize it for doing so would be perverse. [Bivens v. Bank of America, 868 F.3d 915 (11th Cir. Aug. 17, 2017)]
Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA is Chairman and Managing Director of Lenders Compliance Group, the first and only full-service, mortgage risk management firm in the United States, specializing exclusively in outsourced mortgage compliance and offering a suite of services in residential mortgage banking for banks and non-banks. If you would like to contact him, please e-mail [email protected].

May 21, 2018
Mortgage Forbearance Changes Create Challenges for Servicers

65% Of All Plans Would Expire By The End of 2021

Regulation and Compliance
Aug 02, 2021
CFPB Reports Trends In Financial Assistance

The latest developments from this study reveal that most consumers have exited the payment assistance they received at the start of the pandemic.

Analysis and Data
Jul 14, 2021
CFPB Orders GreenSky To Refund $9M In Unauthorized Loans

The consent order requires GreenSky to refund or cancel up to $9 million in loans for the customers harmed by this illegal conduct.

Regulation and Compliance
Jul 13, 2021
CFPB Warns Landlords And Consumer Reporting Agencies To Report Accurate Rental Information

Inaccurate rental or eviction information can unfairly block families and individuals from safe, affordable housing.

Regulation and Compliance
Jul 01, 2021
FHFA Mandates Quarterly Fair Lending Reports

FHFA issued orders for all enterprises to submit quarterly Fair Lending Reports with data and information to improve the FHFA’s capabilities. 

Regulation and Compliance
Jul 01, 2021
FHFA Follows CFPB To Protect Borrowers Once COVID-19 Foreclosure And Eviction Moratoriums End

The Federal Housing Finance Agency made it clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac servicers are not permitted to make first notice or filing for foreclosure that would be prohibited by the CFPB protections for borrowers affected by COVID-19.

Regulation and Compliance
Jun 30, 2021