These 11 Facts Explain Why Steve Mnuchin is the Foreclosure King

Steve Mnuchin’s Foreclosure Machine

Background: IndyMac Bank failed in 2008, and was taken over by the FDIC. In March 2009, Steven Mnuchin and a group of wealthy investors bought Indymac from the FDIC.  As part of their purchase, they negotiated what would turn out to be a lucrative “shared loss” agreement from the FDIC that would help cover some of the bank’s costs and losses associated with foreclosing on homeowners. OneWest also negotiated shared loss agreements when it purchased First Federal Bank in 2009 and La Jolla Bank in 2010.

Allowing private equity investors to purchase a failed bank was unusual for the FDIC,[1] and it appears that Steve Mnuchin and his investors may have considered themselves “above the law,” especially when it came to following state laws like the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, which protects homeowners from predatory, illegal, and inept mortgage servicing.[2]

As part of the FDIC shared loss agreements, OneWest committed to modifying mortgages for homeowners when possible. However, a host of evidence suggests homeowners weren’t receiving modifications, and that OneWest cut corners in order to foreclose faster on families.[3]

1.Attorney General’s office investigation finds “widespread misconduct.” Most recently, in a 2013 memo, attorneys in the California Attorney General’s office explained their investigation had: “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct.”


The memo alleges that OneWest rushed delinquent homeowners out of their homes by violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdating key documents, and effectively gaming foreclosure auctions. Beyond the deeply concerning memo from the California Attorney General’s office, almost every single measurement of OneWest Bank’s servicing track record raises serious concerns about the bank, and whether its problematic approach to homeowners resulted in needless foreclosures against families.

2. Three out of Four Homeowners Denied Help Under HAMP: The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was the federal government’s response to assisting homeowners facing foreclosure, and provided incentives to banks like OneWest to provide sustainable mortgage modifications to keep people in their home. However, 73% of HAMP applications by OneWest borrowers were denied.[4]  (note: CIT Group acquired OneWest Bank in August 2015, which is why it is listed under CIT Group below).

denied-hamp-mods3. Office of Thrift Supervision Consent Order: While federal bank regulators have thus far refused calls to release their specific findings from visits to OneWest and other mortgage servicers, the OneWest consent order hints at the “unsafe or unsound practices” regulators found, including that OneWest failed to “devote to its foreclosure processes adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management, and training;”[5]

consent-order4. CFPB Complaints: Consumers have filed over 1,500 complaints against OWB, and now CIT, with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with over 1400 of those complaints related to mortgages and loan modifications.

5. The Atlantic recently cited over 800 legal cases against OneWest.[6] OneWest has been sued multiple times and settled for improper servicing and foreclosure practices throughout the US. For example, in 2013, a San Luis Obispo couple received a million dollar plus settlement from OWB for foreclosing on them while they believed they were negotiating for a loan modification.


6. Surveys of Housing Counselors on the Front Lines of the Mortgage Meltdown California housing counselors consistently rated OneWest Banks as one of the most difficult servicers to work with, which may explain why over 36,000 homeowners lost their homes to OneWest foreclosures.

  • 30 housing counselors cited OneWest as the worst offender for not offering affordable loan modifications in July 2010.[7]
  • Half of responding counselors rated OneWest as “terrible,” in June 2011, a higher percentage than for all other eleven servicers considered.[8]
  • 95% of responding counselors said OWB was “terrible” or “bad,” in a Feb. 2012 survey, the second worst rating of all servicers considered.[9]

Counselor comments on trying to work with OneWest Bank[10]

  • Indymac has the worst performance in terms of foreclosure prevention. Very difficult to obtain any assistance. We had a client that was a victim of dual tracking and had their home foreclosed on.”
  • OneWest Bank/Indymac. They continue to request updated documents forever.”
  • “Indymac. Terrible customer service. Get the run around.”
  • “IndyMac. The average processing time is 12 months. They continually request updated documents and state that they never received docs. It’s so frustrating. Even when you escalate the file the same results occur, having to update docs continually for months on end.”
  • “Chase and OneWest (Indymac) are in a tie. Both entities string along homeowners with hopes of obtaining a modification and ultimately denying the hardship request due to ‘excessive forbearance.’ It almost appears to be done intentionally rather than being a capacity issue.”
  • “We are having a difficult time with Chase’s and IndyMac’s customer service representatives. We get an entirely different request each time we call even when the documents are in their system and they can see them. They are not able to explain what else is needed.”
  • “IndyMac/OneWest hardly ever gives loan mods.”
  • “Indymac Bank/OneWest, they constantly lose documents.”
  • “Indymac. Customer service reps are incompetent, oppositional, and frequently fail to take notes. I have established gross income figures three times in one case only to have the rep on the phone fail to find record in their notes of my previous phone call. Difficult specific RMA forms, and just plain nasty customer service rep attitudes.”
  • “Indymac is one of the worst. Not willing to work with the homeowner at all.”
  • “Indymac: Their ability to receive documents (unless it is online) is atrocious. They seemingly are always missing docs that are already there. Their online portal is limited in data transfer capacity. Some of their loans are insured, giving them no motive to modify.”

7. Third Worst Mortgage Servicer in US in 2010: In 2010, OneWest Bank was rated as the 3rd worst mortgage servicer in the country. In fact, the only servicers which ranked worse were Ocwen, which entered into multiple settlements with state and federal regulators, and American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc, which at the time was owned by another Trump nominee, Wilbur Ross.


David Lo, director of financial services at J.D. Power and Associates commented: “Homeowners navigating the loan modification process may be fearful of losing their home, and that can add significant fear and anxiety to an already stressful experience. As a result, it’s especially important that servicers make every effort to deliver on key best practices and make the experience as painless for customers as possible.” (emphasis added)

8. Fourth Worst Mortgage Servicer in 2012: OneWest remained one of the worst servicers according to JD Power and Associates (it wasn’t included in the 2011 rankings).


9. Wealth Gap Exacerbated by OneWest Bank: The foreclosure crisis widened the wealth gap between whites and people of color, with the ACLU estimating in a 2015 report: “For a typical black family, median wealth in 2031 will be almost $98,000 lower than it would have been without the Great Recession.”[11]

With 2/3 of OneWest’s foreclosures occurring in majority-minority communities, it was a major contributor to the widening of the wealth gap.

OneWest and Financial Freedom foreclosures in Ventura, LA, Orange, Riverside Counties

10. Evidence of Redlining: The bank wasn’t helping to build assets in communities of color by extending home loans. In 2014-2015, the bank only originated two mortgages to African American borrowers in its assessment areas, according to a redlining complaint filed against the bank. During Steve Mnuchin’s tenure at OneWest/CIT, the bank was 9x as likely to foreclose on families in neighborhoods of color as it was to make home loans (see table below).


 11. Financial Freedom and Foreclosures on Seniors: Steve Mnuchin’s purchase of the failed IndyMac Bank included Financial Freedom, a reverse mortgage company.  Financial Freedom continued originating reverse mortgage loans under Steve Mnuchin.

As part of the merger process with CIT Group and OneWest, multiple impacted homeowners reached out to the California Reinvestment Coalition to share their stories about the challenges they faced. In fact, many of these homeowners subsequently testified at a hearing held by the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency about their experiences.

Based on the stories CRC was hearing from Financial Freedom borrowers and their families, CRC filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, seeking data about Financial Freedom’s track record.

HUD disclosed that it would take over 100 years to compile complaint data and other questions about Financial Freedom, due to its antiquated technology, which is concerning to hear, since  HUD is the federal regulator that oversees the reverse mortgage industry.

HUD also disclosed troubling data, revealing that OneWest Bank was responsible for 39% of all reverse mortgage foreclosures from April 2009 to April 2016, despite only servicing what CRC estimated to be about 17% of the market. In order words, it appears OneWest was foreclosing at twice the rate one would expect, based on the size of the market it was servicing.




[3] While some have charged that the bank did this to hit the “shared loss” thresholds faster and receive reimbursement from the FDIC for foreclosures, that is outside the scope of this fact sheet.

[4] Of the 388,147 HAMP requests that CIT Bank (formerly OneWest) had received, it denied 73% of the requests (284,306 denials).






[10] Please note: All of these comments are from surveys conducted after April 2009, so while they say “IndyMac,” they are in fact OneWest.


Steve Mnuchin Refused to Tell Senator Heller About the Number of Families He Foreclosed on in Nevada: But We Will


Last week at Steve Mnuchin’s confirmation hearing, Senator Dean Heller from Nevada had some tough questions for Steve Mnuchin about his bank’s track record of foreclosing on families in Nevada.

The day before, Heather McCreary, a resident of Sparks, Nevada, had shared her story about how she had jumped through all of OneWest’s hoops in order to apply for a loan modification- and had been approved.  However, OneWest later voided their modification because the McCrearys had sent in a personal check instead of certified funds. OneWest would subsequently deny their next two loan modification applications.

To translate into plain English: What should have been a simple fix with a phone call of a OneWest employee calling Heather to request a certified check instead of a personal check instead turned into a loan modification being denied and another Nevada family needlessly losing their home.

Senator Heller’s questions included:

  1. How many Nevada homes were in OneWest’s portfolio?    Mr. Mnuchin didn’t have an answer.
  2. How many Nevadans foreclose on while OneWest owned the bank? Mr. Mnuchin didn’t have an answer.
  3. How many Nevadans OneWest Bank provided assistance to through loan modifications?  Mr. Mnuchin didn’t have an answer.

Senator Heller demonstrated his frustration at having asked for this information seven different times from Mr. Mnuchin, and not getting an answer.

Senator Heller, here’s some answers for you, based on data that we obtained from PropertyRadar, analyzed by Urban Strategies Council.  And, for what it’s worth, we’ve also had a very hard time getting information from Mr. Mnuchin’s team.  When we asked about the shared loss agreement at a community meeting (where they had encouraged questions), Mr. Mnuchin refused to answer our question, which is why we had to use a Freedom of Information Act request to get it. The answer: As of December 2014, the FDIC had already paid out over $1 billion in shared loss payments to OneWest Bank, and estimated it would pay out an additional $1.4 billion before 2019. You can read more on our fact sheet: OneWest Shared Loss Agreements 

Total Foreclosures in Nevada:  3,686 (source: PropertyRadar data, analyzed by Urban Strategies Council)

Total loan modifications provided in Nevada:  In addition to Heather McCreary’s experience, there is a host of data suggesting that far fewer families got help from OneWest than they should have.


According to HAMP data, OneWest bank declined 73% of people who asked for a HAMP loan modification (HAMP was the federal government’s main response to helping homeowners avoid foreclosure- and yet, it wasn’t very helpful for families unlucky enough to have OneWest servicing their loans).

And while Mr. Mnuchin’s PR machine has proudly touted “extending” over 100,000 loan modifications, that’s only the first step.  In other words, “extending” a loan modification offer means nothing if the bank then loses the homeowner’s paperwork when they send it back to the bank, or if the bank denies the modification because the homeowner didn’t send certified funds.

In fact, according to a Reuters analysis: 

According to data from the Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification program, OneWest extended over 101,000 offers to modify loans to help reduce monthly payments. About 28,700 of these offers were converted to “permanent” modifications under the Obama administration program from 2009 to 2013.

So, in sum, Nevada homeowners with OneWest mortgages, like homeowners in other states, faced largely bank-created obstacles to saving their homes.

If this is Mr. Mnuchin’s track record overseeing a regional bank, we can see why Senator Heller has some serious reservations about putting him in charge at Treasury Secretary


Mr. Mnuchin’s Mortgage Marauders

How bad is Financial Freedom? Take a look at this analysis


By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor

“Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.”

-Ambrose Bierce, “The Unabridged Devil’s Dictionary”

I have frequently criticized media coverage of legal issues. For example, news reports often attribute significance to orders on routine procedural motions that is wholly unwarranted. And even reporters with legal backgrounds are not clear and understandable in their explanation of court rulings to laypersons. So when I came across reports that Treasury Secretary-designate Steven Mnuchin’s bank had filed a mortgage foreclosure action against a 90 year old Florida widow over 27 cents, I was skeptical.

But the story interested me because the subject of the suit resides in Polk County, only an hour’s drive from where I live. In addition, with the advent of electronic filing in court proceedings, I knew that I could access the court files online and review the actual record in the case. I…

View original post 1,117 more words

Memo Shows Evidence of Illegal Foreclosure Practices At OneWest Bank While Steven Mnuchin was CEO

Memo Shows Evidence of Illegal Foreclosure Practices At OneWest Bank While Steven Mnuchin was CEO

CA ATTORNEY GENERAL STAFF CITED EVIDENCE SUGGESTING “WIDESPREAD MISCONDUCT” –COMMUNITY GROUPS CALL FOR SENATE INVESTIGATION PRIOR TO CONFIRMATION HEARINGWashington DC, January 3, 2017— A 2013 memo written by attorneys in the Consumer Law Section from the California Attorney General’s office is raising new concerns about the track record of OneWest Bank, and the ethics of its former CEO, Steve Mnuchin, who has been nominated to be Treasury Secretary by President Elect Donald Trump. David Dayen first reported on the memo earlier today in an article in the Intercept. 

The memo is based on a preliminary investigation by staff at the Attorney General’s office and was triggered by an earlier settlement by the bank with its banking regulator, “together with consumer complaints and the large volume of foreclosures conducted by OneWest.”

The memo focused on a number of fraudulent practices that OneWest was alleged to have engaged in, including:

1) Backdated foreclosure notices of default and other documents and had them notarized in order to “paper over misrepresentations, including cases the attorneys identified where bank staff had backdated documents to dates prior to OneWest’s existence. In the case of the notices of default, the Attorney General staff asserts that if OneWest had corrected these errors, this would have delayed the foreclosure process. In addition, OneWest filed these foreclosure notices with country recorders throughout the State which could subject OneWest to a felony charge under state law.


In some cases, OneWest is alleged to have backdated documents to before the bank even existed.

2) OneWest made and directed unlawful credit bids at foreclosure sales. According to the Attorney General staff, unlawful credit bids may “freeze out other potential bidders (which could include a borrower or his family).”

3) Due to the unlawful credit bidding OneWest claimed an exemption from the applicable city and county transfer taxes and no tax was paid.

4) Performed other acts in the foreclosure process without valid legal authority; and

5) OneWest Trustees, acting on behalf of OneWest, failed to provide due process to families by speeding up the foreclosure process and timeline.

Impact on Homeowners: The memos of the author explain what the bank’s alleged practices meant for homeowners facing foreclosure:

“As reflected in the examples cited above and appended hereto, in many instances, OneWest’s false filings and unauthorized conduct in the course of the foreclosure process harmed homeowners by denying them timely and important information about their foreclosures and potentially shortening the amount of time they had available to find a way to become current on their mortgage obligations.”

Consumer advocates expressed outrage and urged a full investigation prior to any votes on Mr. Mnuchin’s nomination later this month.

“Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire, and the American people deserve a full explanation of these serious charges of fraud. Mr. Mnuchin and OneWest Bank need to turn over all of the evidence they previously obstructed so that their banking regulators can conduct a thorough investigation into these serious charges prior to any hearings about Mr. Mnuchin serving as our next Treasury Secretary. If Mr. Mnuchin’s bank wasn’t engaged in illegal behavior, why did they try and obstruct the Attorney General’s staff?” asks Paulina Gonzalez, executive director of the California Reinvestment Coalition.

The authors of the memo recommended that the Attorney General authorize a civil enforcement action against the bank, which did not happen. In citing challenges with filing the case, the authors of the memo cite concerns about federal bank regulators pre-empting their authority. OneWest and Wells Fargo have both raised pre-emption as defenses in legal cases related to the banks not complying with California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights law. The attorney general had previously filed amicus briefs arguing against OneWest’s position that it was not subject to the Homeowner Bill of Rights.

Additional Context: Senators are missing key information about Mr. Mnuchin, OneWest Bank, and Financial Freedom:

As part of its earlier merger with CIT Group, consumer advocates had asked for more information about OneWest’s track record which the bank refused to provide, including information about:

1) Total number of national foreclosures conducted by OneWest Bank and Financial Freedom (reverse mortgages) after Mr. Mnuchin and his group of investors bought the failed IndyMac, First Federal, and La Jolla Banks.

2) HUD OIG Investigation: CIT Group, which acquired OneWest Bank in 2015, disclosed to investors that it had received subpoenas from the Office of the Inspector General at HUD related to Financial Freedom’s servicing of reverse mortgage loans. The investigation appears to be ongoing, and likely covers a timespan when Mr. Mnuchin was at the helm of OneWest.

3) Modification and foreclosure data: While a spokesperson for Mr. Mnuchin suggested to the Washington Post that OneWest had made “over 101,000 modification offers,” advocates question how many of those modifications provided substantial enough payment relief that a homeowner could retain the home, and how many modified loans subsequently went into default, especially if the original modification didn’t provide a sustainable solution for the homeowner. Because 2/3 of OneWest foreclosures in California occurred in majority minority communities, advocates also suggest the bank should provide data about the extent to which homeowners of color received sustainable modifications, data which the bank likely already provided to the Treasury Dept.

4) Settlements and Court Cases: During the past six years, OneWest Bank and its subsidiary, Financial Freedom, have lost multiple lawsuits and/or agreed to settlements with homeowners for illegal lending, servicing, and foreclosure practices. However, the bank has never provided a comprehensive picture of these lawsuits and settlements which could help senators better understand Mr. Mnuchin’s leadership at the bank.
Example OneWest Settlement: OneWest Bank agreed to pay Greg and Irene Rigali, from San Luis Obispo, California a seven figure settlement after the bank foreclosed on the homeowners at the same time the homeowners were attempting to obtain a modification, a practice known as “dual tracking.” For more, see: CalCoastNews: “OneWest Bank pays 7 figures in mortgage fraud case.”

California Reinvestment Coalition Responds to Steve Mnuchin’s Likely Nomination for Treasury Secretary

Upon hearing the news that president elect Donald Trump will likely nominate Steven Mnuchin, former chair of OneWest Bank and board member of CIT Group for Treasury Secretary, Paulina Gonzalez, executive director at the California Reinvestment Coalition released this statement today:

“If Mr. Mnuchin is nominated to the position of Secretary of the Treasury by President Elect Trump it will continue an alarming trend of a series of appointments by Mr. Trump that signals a coming attack on civil rights, working families, and consumer protections by the administration.

We expect that the Senate will dig into Mr. Mnuchin’s track record, and we imagine the many families who lost their homes at the hands of OneWest will be watching closely and will also want to share their experiences as part of any confirmation hearings.

Wall Street has long argued for a loosening of regulations for the banking industry, protections put in place by the Wall Street Reform Act, otherwise known as, Dodd-Frank, and the Fair Housing Act and Fair Lending Laws enforced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Mnunich’s nomination and his track record, detailed in a redlining complaint filed with HUD earlier this month, make it clear, the fox has been nominated to guard the henhouse.

Earlier this month, our nonprofit submitted a redlining complaint to HUD, highlighting a number of concerns about OneWest Bank and its track record in Los Angeles communities, as well as its maintenance (or lack thereof) of homes it had foreclosed on in Northern California.

Steven Mnuchin was chair of OneWest bank when most of these activities are alleged to have occurred and is now a board member of CIT Group, the owner of OneWest Bank. CIT Group is no stranger to controversy or bankruptcy, as it received over $2 billion in TARP money that it never repaid to taxpayers.

Our goal in submitting a redlining complaint to HUD is to prevent ongoing harm against borrowers and communities of color by OneWest Bank.

The complaint is based on analysis of publicly available mortgage lending data, and of OneWest branching data. In addition, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California conducted a separate investigation into OneWest bank-owned homes and uncovered differences in how the bank maintained homes in predominantly white communities vs. neighborhoods of color.

Our analysis of the bank’s lending data revealed that OneWest’s home lending to borrowers and communities of color has been low in absolute terms, low compared to peer banks, and low when compared to what one would expect, given the size of the Asian American, African American, and Latino populations in Los Angeles.

As an example, in analyzing 2015 lending data, we determined that white borrowers were the only group where OneWest Bank had higher lending levels than its industry peers, and dramatically higher lending levels than one would expect, given the size of the white population in OneWest’s assessment areas. In comparison, its lending to Asian, African American, and Latino borrowers, has been well below the industry average and well below what one would expect, given the size of these populations.

We urge HUD to investigate these potential violations of the Fair Housing Act and to share the agency’s findings with the public as soon as possible. In the mean time, we strongly oppose having Wall Street Insiders, like Steve Mnuchin, guarding Wall Street.

We also think it is important and relevant for the public to know that this bank has foreclosed on over 36,000 families in California (and an unknown number throughout the US) and that 2/3 of these foreclosures occurred in majority minority communities.

We’re also interested to learn the results of a separate investigation by HUD’s Office of Inspector General, focused on problems with OneWest’s reverse mortgage loan servicing.

Our own investigation into OneWest reverse mortgage foreclosures revealed that the bank was responsible for 39% of all foreclosures on federally insured reverse mortgages- despite only servicing about 17% of this market.”

Additional background about OneWest Bank’s track record and its merger with CIT Group is available at

Redlining Complaint Filed Against OneWest Bank

CIT Group Accused of Redlining and Violating Fair Housing Act


San Francisco, CA, Nov. 17,, 2016—Yesterday, two nonprofit organizations formally filed a complaint requesting that the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) investigate whether CIT Group violated and continues to violate the Fair Housing Act through its subsidiary, OneWest Bank. In 2014, CIT Group applied to acquire OneWest Bank, and after receiving regulatory approvals, the merger was completed in August, 2015.

The complaint alleges that OneWest Bank has violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) through redlining practices such as failing to locate branches in communities of color and extending very few or no mortgage loans to borrowers of color. It also alleges OneWest maintained and marketed REO homes in predominantly white neighborhoods better than in neighborhoods of color.

The complaint can be downloaded here, and a supplemental narrative is available here.

Kevin Stein, deputy director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, explains: “Our analysis of OneWest suggests the bank has no significant branch presence in communities of color, and not surprisingly, its home loans to borrowers and communities of color are low in absolute terms, low compared to its peer banks, and low when compared to what one would expect, given the size of the Asian American, African American, and Latino populations in California. During 2014 and 2015, OneWest originated exactly two mortgage loans to African American borrowers in its assessment area. OneWest was far more likely to foreclose in communities of color than to make loans available to people in these communities. We call on HUD to fully investigate CIT’s redlining practices and to hold the bank accountable for its actions and the harm it has caused to communities.”

“Our investigation revealed troubling differences in how OneWest homes maintained their bank-owned homes (REOs) in predominantly white neighborhoods vs. neighborhoods of color,” comments Caroline Peattie, executive director of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (formerly Fair Housing of Marin). “The majority of OneWest REO homes in communities of color looked abandoned, had trash strewn about the yard and boarded up doors and windows, and weren’t clearly marketed as ‘for sale.’  In contrast, almost all of OneWest’s REO homes in white communities were well-maintained, had manicured lawns, and were clearly marketed as ‘for sale.’”


Sharon Kinlaw, executive director of the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, adds: “The evidence included in this complaint suggests that OneWest Bank has steered clear of people of color in its assessment areas for a number of years. We want to know how many people were harmed and we look forward to learning what HUD finds out.”

Hyepin Im, founder and president of Korean Churches for Community Development, adds: “It was really disappointing for me to review the data and to see that even in 2016, it appears our communities are being redlined. We hope HUD will investigate this complaint and take decisive action to ensure people aren’t being excluded because of the color of their skin.”

Chancela Al Mansour, executive director of the Housing Rights Center, adds: “This complaint raises serious concerns about the extent to which people of color have been cut off from branches, mortgages, and other banking services that OneWest should be providing in the communities where it does business.”

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status, as well as on the race or national origin of residents of a neighborhood.

The complaint focuses on 3 primary ways OneWest is alleged to violate the Fair Housing Act:

1) OneWest Bank Branches appear to avoid communities of color:

OneWest’s sparse branch presence in communities of color effectively makes banking services and credit products (including mortgages) less available to people based on their race, color, and national origin, according to the complaint.



(Branch data and mapping courtesy of National Community Reinvestment Coalition)

2) OneWest Makes Very Few Mortgage Loans to Asian American, African-American, and Latino Borrowers in its six-county assessment area.

According to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, OneWest Bank made very few mortgage loans to borrowers and communities of color. Its home loans to borrowers and communities of color are low in absolute terms, low compared to its peer banks, and low when compared to what one would expect, given the size of the Asian, African American, and Latino populations in California.

OneWest Mortgage Lending in 2015


3) OneWest REO Homes Better Maintained in White Neighborhoods: 

Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California investigated how well OneWest Bank maintains and markets homes after foreclosing on the underlying mortgage- otherwise known as Real Estate Owned (REO) homes. FHANC looked at OneWest REOs in Contra Costa and Solano Counties from April 2014 to May 2016, and found that properties in White communities were generally well maintained and well marketed with manicured lawns, securely locked doors and windows, and attractive, professional, “for sale” signs posted out front. This was not the case for the majority of REOs in communities of color where REO properties were more likely to have trash strewn about the premises, overgrown grass, shrubbery, and weeds, and boarded or broken doors and windows. OneWest REOs in communities of color appear abandoned, blighted, and unappealing to potential homeowners, even though they are located in stable neighborhoods with surrounding homes that are well-maintained.

FHANC found the following patterns based upon its investigation of sixteen REO properties owned by OneWest in Solano and Contra Costa Counties:

  • 100.0% of the REO properties in communities of color had 5 or more maintenance or marketing deficiencies, while only 33.3% of the REO properties in predominantly White communities had 5 or more deficiencies.
  • 53.8% of the REO properties in communities of color had 10 or more maintenance or marketing deficiencies, while none of the REO properties in predominantly White communities had 10 or more deficiencies.

REO properties in communities of color were far more likely to have certain types of deficiencies or problems than REO properties in predominantly White communities.  Complainant FHANC found significant racial disparities in the majority of the objective factors it measured, including the following:

  • 61.5% of the REO properties in communities of color had substantial amounts of trash on the premises, while none of the REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem.
  • 61.5% of the REO properties in communities of color had unsecured or broken doors, while none of the REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem.
  • 61.5% of the REO properties in communities of color had a damaged fence, while none of the REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem.
  • 61.5% of the REO properties in communities of color had no professional “for sale” sign marketing the home, while none of the REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem.
  • 53.8% of the REO properties in communities of color had damaged siding, while none of the REO properties in predominantly White communities had the same problem.


The complaint can be downloaded here, and a supplemental narrative is available here.

Pictures are available at these links

Picture of Graph comparing OneWest lending record in communities of color vs. foreclosures. (Fact sheet explaining methodology for graph)

Map of OneWest branches in 2015, in MSA with minority percent greater than MSA average.

Map of OneWest lending in 2014 in Majority Asian American, African American, and Latino communities.

Map of OneWest REOs in the Bay Area.

Map of OneWest foreclosures in Los Angeles area as compared to majority minority zip codes. Note: 68% of OneWest’s foreclosures from April 2009 to April 2015 occurred in zip codes where non-white residents represented a majority of the population in the 2010 Census.

Additional foreclosures maps are available here.

CIT Group’s Delayed 10-Q Contains Important Information

Earlier today, CIT Group filed its delayed 10-Q form.  CRC is still reviewing it, but in a quick scan, here’s 6 important points:

1) Investigation ongoing: The HUD Office of Inspector General investigation into Financial Freedom and reverse mortgage servicing appears to be ongoing.

2) How many foreclosures? CIT reports over $790 million of loans in foreclosure as of June 30, 2016 (though doesn’t note how many homes are represented in that figure- CRC purchased data to determine that OneWest had foreclosed on more than 36,000 California households).

3) Reserves: As CIT Group disclosed earlier, it was reserving an additional $250 million for the Financial Freedom problems.  In the 10-Q, CIT reports:  “The Company continues to cooperate with the investigation and has begun discussions with the HUD OIG regarding the potential resolution of the matter….”

4) Material Weaknesses: The material weakness issue is also discussed in more detail here:

In connection with the preparation of the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company identified errors in the estimation process of the HECM Interest Curtailment Reserve that resulted in a measurement period adjustment.
Following the identification of the errors, management determined that a material weakness existed in the acquired business’s internal control over financial reporting related to the HECM Interest Curtailment Reserve. Specifically, controls were not adequately designed and maintained to ensure the key judgments and assumptions developed from loan file reviews or other historical experience are accurately determined, valid and authorized, the data used in the estimation process is complete and accurate, and the assumptions, judgments, and methodology continue to be appropriate. This control deficiency could result in misstatements of the HECM Interest Curtailment Reserve that could result in a material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements that would not be prevented or detected.
5) When will material weakness be fixed?   A good question.  Not as of September 30, 2016, according to CIT:
Though the Company began to implement its remediation plan and improvements have been made in the processes in 2016, management does not expect that this material weakness will be fully remediated as of September 30, 2016. Management believes that the new or enhanced controls, when fully implemented and when tested for a sufficient period of time, will remediate the material weakness However, the Company cannot provide any assurance that these remediation efforts will be successful.

6) Federal Reserve Qualified Objection: CIT Group receiving a “qualified objection” from the Federal Reserve is also cited in the 10-Q:

CIT submitted its first CCAR capital plan to the Federal Reserve in April 2016. As this filing was a private submission, the FRB did not publish its findings but informed CIT that we received a qualitative objection to the plan. While we have not yet received the detailed feedback, we have begun our remediation efforts. In providing us with feedback the Federal Reserve did approve the continuation of our dividend and share repurchases of approximately $140 million, consistent with 2015

You can access CIT Group’s 10-Q form here.