PNC, nine other banks agree to pay $8.5B for foreclosure abuse
WASHINGTON — Ten major banks and mortgage companies agreed Monday to pay $8.5 billion to settle federal complaints that they wrongfully foreclosed on homeowners who should have been allowed to stay in their homes.
The banks, which include PNC Financial Services, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, will pay billions to homeowners to end a review process of foreclosure files that was required under a 2011 enforcement action. The review was ordered because banks mishandled people's paperwork and skipped required steps in the foreclosure process.
Under the new settlement, people who were wrongfully foreclosed on could receive from $1,000 up to $125,000. Failing to offer someone a loan modification would be considered a lighter offense; unfairly seizing and selling a person's home would entitle that person to the biggest payment, according to guidelines released last summer by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Monday's settlement was announced jointly by the OCC and the Federal reserve.
The agreement covers up to 3.8 million people who were in foreclosure in 2009 and 2010. Of those, about 400,000 may be entitled to payments, advocates estimate.
About $3.3 billion would be direct payments to borrowers, regulators said. Another $5.2 billion would pay for other assistance including loan modifications.
The companies involved in the settlement also include: Citigroup, MetLife Bank, Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank and Aurora. The 2011 action also included GMAC Mortgage, HSBC Finance Corp. and EMC Mortgage Corp.
The deal “represents a significant change in direction” from the original, 2011 agreements, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry said in a statement.
Banks and consumer advocates had complained that the loan-by-loan reviews required under the 2011 order were time consuming and costly without reaching many homeowners. Banks were paying large sums to consultants who were reviewing the files. Some questioned the independence of those consultants, who often ruled against homeowners.
Curry said the new deal meets the original objectives “by ensuring that consumers are the ones who will benefit, and that they will benefit more quickly and in a more direct manner.”
“It has become clear that carrying the process through to its conclusion would divert money away from the impacted homeowners and also needlessly delay the dispensation of compensation to affected borrowers,” Curry said.
Some consumer advocates said that the agreement lets banks off the hook for payments that could have ended up being much higher.
“It's another get out of jail free card for the banks,” said Diane Thompson, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. “It caps their liability at a total number that's less than they thought they were going to pay going in.”
Leaders of a House oversight panel asked regulators for a briefing on the proposed settlement on Friday. Regulators agreed to brief committee staff after the settlement was announced on Monday.
Daniel Wagner can be reached at www.twitter.com/wagnerreports .
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- IRS cybersecurity breach touches lives of homebuyers, others
- Pitt study suggests health law attracting young to balance insurers’ risks
- Task force to plot ways of alleviating gas glut in Pennsylvania via pipelines
- Many Americans have no retirement savings, Fed survey shows
- UPMC offering buyouts to 3,500 employees in cost-cutting move
- Exxon, Chevron shareholders reject big oil restrictions
- Shoppers pay premium for organic chicken
- Automakers do U-turn on infotainment systems
- Apple finds bug that causes iPhones to crash
- Financial planning for disabled people a little-tapped field
- Cuba’s dairy industry, once touted as a success, is struggling