California v. Federal Housing Finance Agency

Last updated

People of the State of California v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case namePeople of the State of California, ex rel. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingClaudia Wilken

People of the State of California v. Federal Housing Finance Agency was a California state case in which several California-based plaintiffs filed suit against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) for creating a lending rule that impeded the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, a program in which property owners repay energy-related property improvements gradually over time (typically 15–20 years) as an addition to their property tax.

Contents

Background

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs are local government initiatives that pay for up-front costs of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects on a property. The property owner pays back these costs over time (up to 20 years) as an addition to their residential or commercial property tax. The tax remains a part of the property and is transferred from owner to owner until the upgrade costs are paid off. There are little to no up-front costs for the property owner and an average homeowner will save more money on their monthly utility bill than the increase in their property tax bill. [1]

The City of Berkeley's Financing Initiative for Renewable and Solar Technology (FIRST) program, which was adopted in 2008, was an early example of how PACE programs could help eliminate many financial hurdles facing property owners eager to install solar panels on their homes. [2] Following the success of the Berkeley FIRST program, several other local governments in California (e.g., City of Palm Desert, City of San Diego, and Sonoma County) followed suit and the state passed Assembly Bill 811 to allow any local government to implement PACE-type programs. [3] Since 2008, PACE has been adopted by 27 other states. [4]

PACE programs, like all other municipal assessments, require a lien to be placed on the mortgage payment in the event of a default. Due to the recent mortgage crisis, lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were hesitant to offer loans associated with PACE programs for fear of potential risk. The FHFA backed the lenders’ claims and issued a statement in 2010, putting a halt to PACE programs nationwide.

The statement issued in 2010, also known as 'Directives', indicated FHFA's concerns towards energy retrofit lending programs. The FHFA determined that the PACE program presented "significant safety and soundness concerns" because of inherent characteristics of the lending program. The FHFA believed that these types of loans would be difficult to manage due to the size and duration of PACE loans, would present significant risk to lenders due to "key alteration[s] of traditional mortgage lending practices", and would result in collateral-based lending based on uncertain reductions from energy retrofits. [5]

In California, the Attorney General filed suit, quickly followed by Sonoma and Placer County, the Sierra Club, and the City of Palm Desert. All four cases have been consolidated. [3]

Parties

The plaintiffs are the People of the State of California (represented by Attorney General Kamala Harris; originally Edmund G. Brown Jr. in 2010), Sonoma and Placer Counties, the Sierra Club and the City of Palm Desert.

The defendants are the Federal Housing Finance Agency (represented by Acting Director Edward DeMarco), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (represented by Chief Executive Officer Charles E. Haldeman Jr.), and the Federal National Mortgage Association (represented by Chief Executive Officer Michael J. Williams).

Issues and arguments

In order to invoke the court's jurisdiction, the plaintiffs must prove that they have constitutional ‘standing’. As such, the three elements required to satisfy Article III Standing are (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. The Plaintiffs argue that their ‘injuries in fact’ include: interference with state, county, and city PACE law; lost opportunities for participation in PACE programs; lost opportunities to reduce the effects of climate change. With regards to causation and redressability, the plaintiffs argue that the FHFA decision failed to undergo the proper procedure of identifying environmental considerations.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the FHFA's anti-PACE directives violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice-and-comment requirements, 5 U.S.C. section 553. The Plaintiffs allege that the Directives issued in 2010 serve as FHFA's regulations and “final agency action,” not mere guidance because they reflected a change from previous policy. Therefore, the Plaintiffs assert that the FHFA is required to follow the APA's requirements and give notice of the Directives or provide a formal public comment period. In other words, the FHFA created law without undergoing the proper procedures. Therefore, failure to follow APA requirements empowers the court to vacate the directives or to instruct the FHFA to follow proper APA procedure. Another contention is that FHFA is overreaching its power as Conservator. The Plaintiffs argue that Congress never explicitly granted the FHFA substantive rule-making power.

According to the Plaintiffs, the FHFA also violated the APA because the Directives were arbitrary and capricious due to FHFA's failure to provide substantial evidence of ‘risk,’ failure to consider existing data from PACE programs, and failure to consider alternative measures prior to a blanket prohibition on PACE.

If the court finds that the Agency did not violate the APA, the Plaintiffs then argue that the FHFA violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for failure to take a “hard look” at the impacts resulting from action or inaction of the FHFA due to the Directives. NEPA requires preparation of an environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement, prior to major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. [6]

The Defendants argue that the Directives issued in 2010 are to serve as guidelines, not regulations, and therefore not subject to APA requirements. In addition, according to their charter, as Conservator, the FHFA is obligated to take any action to provide a safe and sound housing market. Furthermore, the FHFA argues that Congress intended for the Conservator to be able to take action without interference from any state or federal agency, or court. The main issue, as argued by the Defendants, is that PACE loans are characteristically ‘risky’ due to the additional costs for home-owners. The Defendants contend that these loans increase the burden on home-owners, thereby creating a likelihood for the home-owner to default. And because PACE loans acquire priority lien, they take precedence over mortgage liens.

The Defendants also requested for dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims, for failure to state a claim. In other words, the Defendants allege that the Plaintiffs only offered speculative claims rather than legitimate contentions. The Defendants allege that the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because the FHFA acted within its powers as granted by Congress. In addition, the relief sought by Plaintiffs would restrain and severely hinder FHFA's purpose of preserving and conserving the assets and property of the lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Defendants argue protection under federal preemption because federal law preempts state-law. In addition, the FHFA argues that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) intended to delegate authority for the purpose of providing a safe and sound housing market. The Defendants allege that if states were able to impose PACE first-lien mortgages, these mortgages would undermine the effectiveness of the FHFA because of the lack of uniformity.

Furthermore, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ APA claims fail because the FHFA was not created to protect environmental interests. As stated in the charters for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they were created to ensure the safe and sound operation of the mortgage markets. With the absence of APA jurisdiction, the Defendants argue for dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ NEPA claims. The Defendants assert that NEPA does not contain a private right of action, and therefore are reviewable if jurisdiction exists. However, the court does not have jurisdiction under APA, and therefore does not have jurisdiction under NEPA. In addition, in response to the Plaintiffs’ claim of violation of NEPA, the Defendants assert that the Directives issued in 2010 did not require that municipalities shut down their PACE programs, thus maintaining that the Directives were not a federal regulation. [7]

Court decision

Judge Claudia Wilken denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case on August 26, 2011 and on September 13, 2011 issued a preliminary injunction requiring FHFA to begin rulemaking on PACE. FHFA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on January 26, 2012, with public comments due by March 26, 2012. The plaintiffs filed for a motion of summary judgement to be heard on May 3, 2012. [3]

Other PACE litigation

In the State of New York, the Town of Babylon and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed separate cases against the FHFA. Both cases are to be heard in tandem in June 2012.

In the State of Florida, Leon County filed suit against FHFA. As of May 2012, no hearing date has been set.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Housing Administration</span> U.S. government agency responsible for mortgage insurance

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), also known as the Office of Housing within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is a United States government agency founded by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, established in part by the National Housing Act of 1934. Its primary function is to provide insurance for mortgages originated by private lenders for various types of properties, including single-family homes, multifamily rental properties, hospitals, and residential care facilities. FHA mortgage insurance serves to safeguard these private lenders from financial losses. In the event that a property owner defaults on their mortgage, FHA steps in to compensate the lender for the outstanding principal balance.

A mortgage is a legal instrument of the common law which is used to create a security interest in real property held by a lender as a security for a debt, usually a mortgage loan. Hypothec is the corresponding term in civil law jurisdictions, albeit with a wider sense, as it also covers non-possessory lien.

This aims to be a complete list of the articles on real estate.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a United States government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) and, since 1968, a publicly traded company. Founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal, the corporation's purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgage loans in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on locally based savings and loan associations. Its brother organization is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac. In 2023, Fannie Mae was ranked number 28 on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations by total revenue.

Title insurance is a form of indemnity insurance predominantly found in the United States and Canada which insures against financial loss from defects in title to real property and from the invalidity or unenforceability of mortgage loans. Unlike some land registration systems in countries outside the United States, US states' recorders of deeds generally do not guarantee indefeasible title to those recorded titles. Title insurance will defend against a lawsuit attacking the title or reimburse the insured for the actual monetary loss incurred up to the dollar amount of insurance provided by the policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreclosure</span> Legal process where a lender recoups an unpaid loan by forcing the borrower to sell the collateral

Foreclosure is a legal process in which a lender attempts to recover the balance of a loan from a borrower who has stopped making payments to the lender by forcing the sale of the asset used as the collateral for the loan.

A reverse mortgage is a mortgage loan, usually secured by a residential property, that enables the borrower to access the unencumbered value of the property. The loans are typically promoted to older homeowners and typically do not require monthly mortgage payments. Borrowers are still responsible for property taxes or homeowner's insurance. Reverse mortgages allow older people to immediately access the home equity they have built up in their homes, and defer payment of the loan until they die, sell, or move out of the home. Because there are no required mortgage payments on a reverse mortgage, the interest is added to the loan balance each month. The rising loan balance can eventually grow to exceed the value of the home, particularly in times of declining home values or if the borrower continues to live in the home for many years. However, the borrower is generally not required to repay any additional loan balance in excess of the value of the home.

A mortgage broker acts as an intermediary who brokers mortgage loans on behalf of individuals or businesses. Traditionally, banks and other lending institutions have sold their own products. As markets for mortgages have become more competitive, however, the role of the mortgage broker has become more popular. In many developed mortgage markets today,, mortgage brokers are the largest sellers of mortgage products for lenders. Mortgage brokers exist to find a bank or a direct lender that will be willing to make a specific loan an individual is seeking. Mortgage brokers in Canada are paid by the lender and do not charge fees for good credit applications. In the US, many mortgage brokers are regulated by their state and by the CFPB to assure compliance with banking and finance laws in the jurisdiction of the consumer. The extent of the regulation depends on the jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Security interest</span> Legal right between a debtor and creditor over the debtors property (collateral)

In finance, a security interest is a legal right granted by a debtor to a creditor over the debtor's property which enables the creditor to have recourse to the property if the debtor defaults in making payment or otherwise performing the secured obligations. One of the most common examples of a security interest is a mortgage: a person borrows money from the bank to buy a house, and they grant a mortgage over the house so that if they default in repaying the loan, the bank can sell the house and apply the proceeds to the outstanding loan.

A secured loan is a loan in which the borrower pledges some asset as collateral for the loan, which then becomes a secured debt owed to the creditor who gives the loan. The debt is thus secured against the collateral, and if the borrower defaults, the creditor takes possession of the asset used as collateral and may sell it to regain some or all of the amount originally loaned to the borrower. An example is the foreclosure of a home. From the creditor's perspective, that is a category of debt in which a lender has been granted a portion of the bundle of rights to specified property. If the sale of the collateral does not raise enough money to pay off the debt, the creditor can often obtain a deficiency judgment against the borrower for the remaining amount.

Mortgage fraud refers to an intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission of information relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase, or insure a loan secured by real property.

QBE Insurance Group Limited is a general insurance and reinsurance company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange and headquartered in Sydney. The company employs more than 11,700 people in over 27 countries. Across its operations, QBE offers commercial, personal and specialty products and risk management products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008</span> US act of congress to address the subprime mortgage crisis

The United States Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was designed primarily to address the subprime mortgage crisis. It authorized the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee up to $300 billion in new 30-year fixed rate mortgages for subprime borrowers if lenders wrote down principal loan balances to 90 percent of current appraisal value. It was intended to restore confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by strengthening regulations and injecting capital into the two large U.S. suppliers of mortgage funding. States are authorized to refinance subprime loans using mortgage revenue bonds. Enactment of the Act led to the government conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac</span> Action by the U.S. Treasury to lessen the subprime mortgage crisis

In September 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced that it would take over the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Both government-sponsored enterprises, which finance home mortgages in the United States by issuing bonds, had become illiquid as the market for those bonds collapsed in the subprime mortgage crisis. The FHFA established conservatorships in which each enterprise's management works under the FHFA's direction to reduce losses and to develop a new operating structure that will allow a return to self-management.

Loan modification is the systematic alteration of mortgage loan agreements that help those having problems making the payments by reducing interest rates, monthly payments or principal balances. Lending institutions could make one or more of these changes to relieve financial pressure on borrowers to prevent the condition of foreclosure. Loan modifications have been practiced in the United States since the 1930s. During the Great Depression, loan modification programs took place at the state level in an effort to reduce levels of loan foreclosures.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is an American privately held corporation. MERS is a separate and distinct corporation that serves as a nominee on mortgages after the turn of the century and is owned by holding company MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., which owns and operates an electronic registry known as the MERS system, which is designed to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgages in the United States. According to the Department of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, MERS is an agent for lenders without any reference to MERS as a principal. On October 5, 2018, Intercontinental Exchange and MERS announced that ICE had acquired all of MERS.

PACE financing is a means used in the United States of America of financing energy efficiency upgrades, disaster resiliency improvements, water conservation measures, or renewable energy installations in existing or new construction of residential, commercial, and industrial property owners. Depending on state legislation, PACE financing can be used to finance water efficiency products, seismic retrofits, resiliency, and other measures with social benefits.

The Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) is a federal program of the United States, set up by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in March 2009, to help underwater and near-underwater homeowners refinance their mortgages. Unlike the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which assists homeowners who are in danger of foreclosure, this program benefits homeowners whose mortgage payments are current, but who cannot refinance due to dropping home prices in the wake of the U.S. housing market correction.

The Making Home Affordable program of the United States Treasury was launched in 2009 as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The main activity under MHA is the Home Affordable Modification Program.

The Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA), N.J.S.A §§ 2A:50-53 to 2A:50-73, is a state law that protects residential mortgage debtors and establishes a uniform statutory framework under which courts can more clearly identify the rights and remedies of the parties involved in foreclosure proceedings throughout New Jersey. The FFA was approved by the New Jersey State Legislature on September 5, 1995, and signed into law by Governor Christine Todd Whitman on December 6, 1995—nearly two years after the bill was first introduced in the State General Assembly on January 24, 1994. The New Jersey Legislature amended the FFA on September 19, 2017, to require mortgage servicers to consider debtors' good faith short sale offers and respond within 60 days of receiving them.

References

  1. ↑ "Solar Financing for Residential Solar Panels". Archived from the original on May 10, 2012. Retrieved May 1, 2012.
  2. ↑ "Berkeley FIRST Program" . Retrieved May 1, 2012.
  3. 1 2 3 "Office of the CA State Attorney General - PACE Protection Litigation". Archived from the original on June 14, 2012. Retrieved May 1, 2012.
  4. ↑ "PACENow" . Retrieved May 1, 2012.
  5. ↑ "FHFA Statement 2010" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 12, 2012. Retrieved May 1, 2012.
  6. ↑ "Office of the CA State Attorney General - Opening Brief filed April 19, 2012" (PDF). Retrieved May 1, 2012.
  7. ↑ "Office of the CA State Attorney General - Motion for Dismissal" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 10, 2012. Retrieved May 1, 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.