A row of framed houses under construction in a file photo. The Consumer Finance Protection Board and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement with a Wisconsin-based mortage company over allegations of redlining in Birmingham. The company said that it feels that “justice did not prevail” in the situation. (Getty Images)
A mortgage company has agreed to pay civil penalties of almost $9 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleging that the company had discriminated against people living in the predominantly Black neighborhoods in Birmingham.
The two agencies alleged that Fairway Independent Mortgage Insurance Corporation, based in Madison, Wisconsin, had engaged in redlining by failing to provide credit services, especially with respect to housing, for individuals living in communities of color.
“The CFPB and DOJ are holding Fairway accountable for redlining Black neighborhoods,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra in a statement. “Fairway’s unlawful redlining discouraged families from seeking loans for homes in Birmingham’s Black neighborhoods.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Fairway said in a statement on its website that the lawsuit mischaracterized the matter.
“For one, the complaint characterizes Fairway’s actions as willful and reckless, a claim that was mutually rejected by the parties prior to settlement,” according to the statement. “In addition, the complaint characterizes Fairway’s actions as willful and intentional, despite the government agencies’ failure to identify any evidence to support such a claim.”
The company also stated that it has made more loans in majority-Black census tracts than any other non-bank lender with a physical presence in Birmingham, and said it moved to a settlement “to resolve the matter and curb the further expenditure of resources.”
“Fairway is disappointed in this outcome,” the company said in its statement. “We are a company that serves people and have always strived to help everyone achieve the dream of homeownership. Our numbers, our reputation, and our client testimonials prove such. We are equally disappointed in the regulatory and judicial systems over these actions. We feel justice did not prevail in this situation.”
Under the proposed settlement, which requires approval from a federal judge, Fairway would pay a $1.9 million civil penalty to the CFPB’s victims relief fund and provide $7 million to a loan subsidy program that offers people the chance to purchase, refinance and improve their homes in majority Black-neighborhoods.
The lawsuit alleged that Fairway placed all its physical Birmingham retail locations and loan officers in majority white areas without doing the same for places that were majority Black or in communities of color.
“Fairway predominantly directed its marketing and advertising to majority-white areas from 2018 through 2022, while failing to conduct effective marketing and advertising to majority-Black areas in the Birmingham MSA until at least late 2022,” the complaint from the CFPB states.
Through that practice, Fairway had discouraged minorities from obtaining loans, and that the data showed that the company generated a disproportionately low number of loan applications from majority Black areas within the Birmingham metropolitan service area as compared to other, similarly situated lenders.
The complaint states that from 2018 to 2022, the company generated slightly more than 10,000 applications from the Birmingham area, but that only about 4% of the loan applications were from properties in majority-Black areas. Similarly situated companies, it alleged, had more than 12% of their loan applications from the same majority-Black areas.
“Fairway’s peer lenders generated applications for properties in majority-Black areas at over three times the rate of Fairway,” the complaint states.
Fair housing advocates praised the actions of both the DOJ and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
“As a general matter, an argument that says that we can make an individual judgment about any borrower based on where they actually live, or based on their race, or based on anything that is not related to that person’s individual ability to repay and evaluate their collateral, is irrational and banks should not be doing it,” Nestor M. Davidson, faculty Director at the Urban Law Center with Fordham Law School.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.