In This Issue:

- Recent Cases January Through March 2014

..Dodd-Frank Amendments to RESPA

..Dodd-Frank Prohibition on Arbitration Clauses

..Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank

- News & Developments

..CFPB Seeks Comment on International Money Transfer Market Rule

..CFPB Proposes Consumer Debt Collection Survey

..Credit Reporting Agencies Now Accepting Supporting Documentation for Consumer Disputes

..CFPB Releases Source Code for HUD-Approved Counselor Tool

..CFPB to Hold Public Roundtable on Dodd-Frank

..Regulators Release Medium-Sized Bank Stress Test Guidance

..According to Survey, Dodd-Frank Has Significantly Increased Operating Costs for Community Banks

..House Passes Bill Passed at CFPB Reform

..Updated Mortgage Rule Exam Procedures Released

..Fannie Mae Reports Overall 2013 Profits

..CFPB Remarks on Mortgage Servicing Expectations

..CFPB Proposing Changes to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

..CFPB Releases Report on Problems in Mortgage Servicing

- Excerpt from Dodd-Frank Amendments to RESPA:

Ali v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2014 WL 345243 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 24, 2014) -

This action is one of the first decisions issued regarding the forced-placed insurance provision pursuant to the new mortgage servicing regulations under the “Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” (“Dodd-Frank”). In Ali, Plaintiff brought suit against her mortgage lender, mortgage loan servicer, and an insurance company asserting multiple theories of liability related to lender-placed insurance (“LPI”), by which the lender prevented a lapse of coverage for the mortgaged property. LPI, or force-placed insurance, may be obtained by a servicer on behalf of the owner or assignee of a mortgage loan that insures the property securing the loan. See 12 C.F.R. §1024.37. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged Defendants violated section 2605 of RESPA by, inter alia, “charging premiums that [were] unfairly and egregiously costly . . . [that] cost up to ten times the amount of standard insurance that a borrower was previously paying or could obtain on the open market” and receiving a “kickback or commission on each policy” purchased by Defendants. See Pl.’s Compl., ¶¶ 68-77. Defendants moved for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).