Cnty. of Cook v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., 14 C 2031
| Decision Date | 30 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | 14 C 2031 |
| Citation | 314 F.Supp.3d 950 |
| Parties | COUNTY OF COOK, Plaintiff, v. HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC.; HSBC Finance Corporation; HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA); HSBC Mortgage Services Inc.; HSBC USA Inc.; HSBC Bank USA; National Association; Beneficial Company LLC ; Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC; HFC Company LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
F. Jennifer Sarah Czeisler, Pro Hac Vice, Sanford P. Dumain, Pro Hac Vice, J. Birt Reynolds, Pro Hac Vice, Peggy J. Wedgworth, Milberg LLP, Melissa Ryan Clark, Pro Hac Vice, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, New York, NY, John K. Kennedy, James D. Montgomery, Sr., Michelle M. Montgomery, James D. Montgomery & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, Darren Penn, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey Harris, Pro Hac Vice, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, David J. Worley, James M. Evangelista, Pro Hac Vice, Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Evangelista Worley, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.
Andrew L. Sandler, Ann D. Wiles, Mark E. Rooney, Valerie Lynn Hletko, Buckley Sandler LLP, Washington, DC, Scott Tadashi Sakiyama, BuckleySandler LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
Plaintiff County of Cook ("the County") has filed claims under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 – 19, against Defendant HSBC North America Holdings, Inc., and its various subsidiaries and affiliates (together, "HSBC"). The County claims that HSBC discriminatorily targeted minority homeowners in Cook County with high-priced predatory subprime mortgage loans and has serviced and foreclosed on those loans in a discriminatory manner. According to the County, these business practices harmed the County by imposing on it out-of-pocket costs for governmental eviction and foreclosure processes, as well as for various social services for evicted homeowners. The County also alleges it lost out on property tax income from foreclosed, abandoned, and vacant properties, as well as neighboring properties, and income from property recording taxes, intangible taxes, and transfer fees. The County also asserts that HSBC's practices injured the fabric of its communities and caused general urban blight.
HSBC moves to dismiss the County's Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint"). For the following reasons, HSBC's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Beginning in 2003, HSBC engaged in a rampant predatory-lending business program in the subprime mortgage market, which targeted African–American and Latino borrowers in Cook County, Illinois. See generally 2d Am. Compl.; id. ¶¶ 1–13, 50–58. This program—which the County describes as "equity stripping," because it effectively diluted or eliminated the equity that borrowers had in their homes—comprised numerous components.
First, HSBC intentionally targeted and marketed predatory loan offerings to borrowers in predominantly minority areas. See id. ¶¶ 53, 73, 77–79, 84–105. HSBC used sophisticated algorithmic modeling to target minority borrowers, as well as software programs to process credit bureau information, in an effort to identify consumers likely to respond to subprime mortgage marketing materials. See id. ¶¶ 84–94. HSBC perceived minority borrowers as being particularly susceptible to its predatory offerings, because such borrowers traditionally lacked access to low cost credit, and because borrowers whose first language was not English had more difficulty evaluating the terms, conditions, and risks of the loan agreements. Id. ¶¶ 85, 87–88.
In addition to originating these subprime loans, HSBC also purchased them from other subprime lenders. Id. ¶¶ 150–184, 198–99. Because the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act ("HMDA") did not require HSBC to report the ethnicity of borrowers for loans that it purchased from third parties, it reported race or ethnicity on only 141 of the 19,384 mortgage loans it purchased for properties in Cook County between 2004 and 2007, obscuring the racial impact of its practices. Id. Along similar lines, the County also alleges that HSBC used the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc., ("MERS") to hide its predatory practices.2
After HSBC successfully generated leads, it charged minority borrowers higher prices—even after controlling for variables such as credit risk—for mortgage loans, as compared to similarly situated nonminority borrowers. See id. ¶¶ 9, 14, 83, 104–22, 136–49. HSBC accomplished this by, among other things, incentivizing its employees to ignore or circumvent conventional underwriting criteria to "steer" minority borrowers to riskier and higher cost loan products, which often had higher default rates. Id. ¶¶ 129–49.
Data collected pursuant to the HMDA and analyzed by the Federal Reserve confirms these pricing disparities. See id. ¶¶ 56–66. The Federal Reserve analysis shows that, on average, African–American borrowers were 3.1 times more likely than nonminority borrowers to receive a higher-rate home loan; Latino borrowers were 1.9 times more likely. See id. ¶ 61. Other statistics show similar patterns: African–Americans were 37.5 percent more likely to receive a higher-priced conventional home-purchase loan and 28.3 percent more likely to receive a higher-priced refinance loan. See id. ¶¶ 62–63. A U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development study found that, in neighborhoods where at least 80% of the population was African–American, borrowers were 2.2 times more likely to refinance with a subprime lender. See id. ¶ 64. Additionally, HSBC's own publicly reported HMDA data evidences similar disparities. Id. ¶¶ 67, 142–49.
While HSBC often sold the mortgage notes to third parties, it retained the right to service and foreclose on the subprime loans it originated and purchased. Id. ¶ 283. For loans that it serviced but did not own, HSBC had an incentive to foreclose, rather than offer loss mitigation options (such as loan modifications), because HSBC earned fees for doing so without having to bear the investment risk. Id. ¶¶ 283–88.3
HSBC foreclosed on minority homeowners at a higher rate than similarly situated nonminority homeowners. Id. ¶¶ 262–305. For example, based on publicly available data, during a period of twelve years prior to the County's filing of the Complaint, HSBC was 2.3 times more likely to foreclose on a home in a neighborhood with 31–50% minority homeowners, as compared to a neighborhood with 30% or fewer minority homeowners. Id. ¶ 275. As the concentration of minority homeowners increased to 50–70%, HSBC was 3.8 times more likely to foreclose. Id. The rate of foreclosures rose as the rate of minority home ownership in a neighborhood rose. Id.
HSBC engaged in several business practices that contributed to these results. For example, HSBC failed to adequately provide loss mitigation options to minority homeowners, as compared to similarly situated nonminority homeowners. Id. ¶ 292. HSBC also filed foreclosure lawsuits against minority borrowers, without ensuring that the necessary mortgage loan documents were properly endorsed or assigned and in the possession of the appropriate party. Id.
Although HSBC stopped originating and purchasing subprime loans in 2007, the County claims that HSBC has continued to impose discriminatory pricing terms and has serviced and foreclosed on the predatory loans in a discriminatory manner. See id. ¶¶ 282–305. The County believes that this is borne out by publicly available data regarding HSBC's foreclosures in Cook County between March 2012 and March 2014 and, again, between June 2015 and April 2017, which shows that HSBC initiated foreclosure proceedings at a higher rate for minority borrowers. Id. ¶¶ 277–81.
As a result of HSBC's conduct, the County claims that it has been harmed by having to incur additional costs related to conducting judicial and non-judicial foreclosure-related processes; serving eviction and foreclosure notices; registering and monitoring foreclosed properties; inspecting, securing, maintaining, and/or demolishing foreclosed properties; and providing various types of social services to evicted or foreclosed homeowners. Id. ¶¶ 5, 33, 321, 348.
Additionally, the County seeks as damages the loss of tax and other income related to foreclosed, abandoned, and vacant properties (as well as neighboring properties that declined in value) and the resources that it had to provide to communities that suffered from the resulting urban blight. Id. The County believes that it will be able to prove these damages at trial with statistical evidence and expert testimony. Id. ¶ 349.
Finally, the County seeks damages for the recording fees, transfer fees, and intangible tax income it lost when HSBC used MERS to allegedly obscure its transactions from public recording systems in an effort to hide its race-based activities. Id. ¶¶ 5, 33, 321.
In Count I, the County claims that HSBC's predatory program has disparately impacted minority borrowers in violation of the FHA. Id. ¶¶ 350–73. In Count II, the County alleges that the foreclosure component of HSBC's program, standing alone, has disparately impacted minorities in violation of the FHA. Id. ¶¶ 374–87. In Count III, the County contends in the alternative that HSBC's practices have constituted disparate treatment of minority borrowers. Id. ¶¶ 388–96.
HSBC has moved to dismiss all three counts. It argues that the County has failed to adequately plead that HSBC's conduct was the proximate cause of the County's injuries; state disparate-treatment and disparate impact claims; file its claims in a timely fashion; and adequately plead that various HSBC subsidiaries and affiliates named as Defendants were involved in the alleged conduct.
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must "state a claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Miami v. Wells Fargo & Co.
...Cook v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 14 C 2280, 2018 WL 1561725 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2018) ; see also County of Cook, Ill. v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings, 314 F.Supp.3d 950, 956 (N.D. Ill. 2018) ; County of Cook, Ill. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 314 F.Supp.3d 975, 982 (N.D. Ill. 2018). Those out-of-pocke......
-
Montgomery Cnty. v. Bank of Am. Corp.
...Realty Corp. v. Coleman , 455 U.S. 363, 380–81, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982) ; see County of Cook v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc. ("Cook (HSBC) II "), 314 F. Supp. 3d 950, 969 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (quoting Havens ); Nat'l Fair Hous. Alliance v. HHHunt Corp. , 919 F. Supp. 2d 712, 715 n.1 ......
-
Nat'l Fair Hous. All. v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr.
...of Miami, where the City relied solely on the defendant bank's initial loan origination practices. See Cty. of Cook v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., 314 F. Supp. 3d 950, 961 (N.D. Ill. 2018). That left open the possibility that "the foreclosures in Miami could have been caused by a wide array ......
-
Cnty. of Cook v. Bank of Am. Corp.
...03/30/2018 Mem. Op., ECF 204 at 8 (citing Pl.’s 09/14/2017 Resp., ECF 184 at 7). See also Cty. of Cook v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc. , 314 F. Supp. 3d 950, 961 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (allegations of a "comprehensive equity-stripping program" distinguished the County's claims from those resting exc......
-
Reflections on "Moving Toward Integration" and Modern Exclusionary-Zoning Cases Under the Fair Housing Act.
...Hous. All. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Assoc., 294 F. Supp. 3d 940, 947-48 (N.D. Cal. 2018); County of Cook v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., 314 F. Supp. 3d 950, 967 (N.D. Ill. 2018); see also Winfield v. City of New York, No. C 15-5236, 2016 WL 6208564, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2016) (noting that ......
-
The Pieces of Housing Integration.
...v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. CV 17-2203, 2018 WL 424451, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2018); Cook County, v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., 314 F. Supp. 3d 950 (N.D. Ill. 2018); City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 15-CV-04321-EMC, 2018 WL 3008538, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 15, (137.) Miami,......