(Source: Wikipedia)

But instead of shutting down, payday lenders in some of the same states that passed reforms continue making payday loans – and sometimes at higher rates than before the laws were enacted, according to public policy experts and consumer advocates who follow the payday industry.

As Iowa lawmakers consider going down a similar path — legislation that gives payday lenders the option of capping rates and fees at 36 percent or capping the number of loans per borrower at six — advocates say the fear of loopholes should not derail tougher payday regulation.

“This legislation would go far in cracking down on many of the predatory practices by these lenders, and should a loophole be found, not all will go to the effort to exploit it,” said Matthew Covington, an organizer for Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. “And then the legislature could see the true vicious nature of the worst of them, and act to close any loopholes that may exist.”

Skirting tougher regulation

Despite promises that tougher payday lending laws would kill the industry, most major payday lenders in states that did pass new laws are still are in business, using loopholes in existing small loan laws or circumventing new laws entirely to continue charging triple digit annual interest rates, in some cases as high as nearly 700 percent, advocates contend.  Lenders issue loans in the form of a check, then charge the borrower to cash it. They roll into the loan a $10 credit investigation fee – then never do a credit check. Or they simply change lending licenses and transform themselves into car title companies, or small installment loan firms, while still making payday loans.

“In Ohio, New Mexico, Illinois and Virginia, every major payday lender is violating the intent of the law,” said Uriah King, senior policy associate with the Center for Responsible Lending. “I’ve been involved in public policy issues for a long time, and I’ve never seen anything like this.”

“It is kind of astonishing. The more I look into it, the more brazen the practices are. Payday lenders, as a trade association, have consistently circumvented the intent of legislative efforts to address their practices.”

Payday lenders strongly refute that contention. Steven Schlein, a spokesman for the Community Financial Services Association of America, a payday lending trade group, said it’s simply untrue that payday lenders are circumventing the law in Ohio, or in any other state. “That argument is untenable,” he said. “It just shows you that our critics are really just anti-business.”

The dispute over Ohio’s payday lending practices began after voters upheld a 28 percent interest rate cap on payday loans in November of 2008, and many payday lenders began operating under several small loan laws already on the books.  The legislature approved the cap in the spring of 2008, and payday lenders fought back with the voter referendum, but failed.

The small loan laws, which have been in existence for decades, are intended to govern installment loans, not single-payment, two-week payday loans. Payday lending opponents say the lenders are exploiting those laws to avoid the 28 percent rate cap. Lenders contend they are legitimately licensed by the state to make the small loans.

Some 800 of the Ohio’s 1,600 payday lending stores have shut down since rates were capped – and the rest are “trying to make a go of it” by adhering to the small loan laws, said Ted Saunders, CEO of CheckSmart Financial Co., a national payday lender with more than 200 stores in 10 states. “We’re lending money for far less than we did when all this started,” he said. “This is not business as usual. The activists just want to put us out of business entirely.”

Those activists are pushing the Ohio legislature to move once again, to close the loopholes in the loan laws by placing them all under the 28 percent cap. More than 1,000 payday lenders already have gotten licenses to make short-term loans under the old small loan laws, which allow for high origination fees and other charges, according to a report by the Housing Research & Advocacy Center in Cleveland.

Under those laws, for a 14-day loan of $100, lenders can charge an origination fee of $15, interest charges of $1.10, and a  $10 credit investigation fee, for a total amount of $126.10, or a 680 percent annual interest rate.

Disregarding the spirit of the law

David Rothstein, a researcher with Policy Matters Ohio, an advocacy group that pushed for payday lending limits, said testers for his group found that lenders sometimes told borrowers certain loan amounts, such as $400, were not allowed. But they could borrow $505. Loans over $500, according to the small loan laws, allow lenders to double origination fees to $30. Lenders also often issued the check for the loan from an out of state bank, but said borrowers could cash it immediately if they did so at their store – for another fee, often 3 to 6 percent of the loan total. Testers contended employees at some of the stores laughed as they explained the procedures, saying they were only trying to get around the new law.

In other cases, lenders directed borrowers to go get payday loans online, where rates can be higher.

“The General Assembly, in a bipartisan manner, passed a strong law on these loans and the governor signed it,” Rothstein said. “Then, the industry took it directly to the voters, who reaffirmed support for the law by some 60 percent despite the millions of dollars spent by the industry to overturn the law. This is a slap in the face. They are absolutely disregarding the spirit of the law that was passed.”

Saunders, however, said consumer advocacy groups promised that low-cost payday lending alternatives would pop up once the law was passed – but that hasn’t happened. Instead, there’s been an increasing demand for payday lending services by strapped consumers.

“Should we be further eliminating access to credit in a bad economy?” Saunders asked. “We exist because we’re still the least expensive option for a lot of people.”

People hit by high overdraft fees from banks or faced with late charges on multiple bills sometimes decide that taking out a payday loan can be a cheaper alternative, he said.

Based on those kinds of arguments, the debate in Ohio now has shifted from how to best enforce the new law to arguing again over the merits of payday lending. Payday lenders are contending that curbing payday lending in a recession hurts low-income borrowers, and results in job losses. Lawmakers have yet to move on the latest bill to end the loopholes. King, of the Center for Responsible Lending, said that while payday reform advocates have fought in the past to make sure new laws were followed, Ohio marks the first time where the payday lending debate seems to have started over entirely.

“I haven’t seen that elsewhere,” he said. “Ohio is something new. I think there is some degree of frustration as to why we are redeliberating every aspect of this issue. It’s made a tough issue even tougher.”

The industry fights back

Ohio isn’t alone in dealing with pushback from payday lenders, even after laws are passed.

In Virginia, payday lenders responded to laws passed last year to limit their fees by reinventing themselves as car title lenders, while still essentially making payday loans, said Jean Ann Fox, director of financial services for the Consumer Federation of America. Car title loans are high-rate loans usually secured by the borrower’s car.

State officials ordered payday lenders in December to stop making car title loans to borrowers who already had a car title loan outstanding, and to start filing liens on borrowers’ vehicles, as is the usual practice with car title loans.

In New Mexico, the state attorney general sued two small installment lenders, contending they used a legal loophole to continue charging extremely high rates on short term loans – in some cases, more than 1,000 percent. In both New Mexico and Illinois, the payday lending lobby supported reform laws, but then began using the small loan laws once the new limits took effect, CRL’s King said.

For other states, such as North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Oregon, state lawmakers or the attorney general had to go back and tighten laws or ramp up enforcement after initial payday reform legislation failed to rein in high fees. In Arkansas, an effort to end payday lending would up involving the state Supreme Court and an aggressive campaign by the attorney general.

In Ohio, Saunders said payday lenders will be gone entirely if lawmakers move to limit their use of the small loan laws. The additional fees allowed by those laws, he said, are “the cost of doing business,” and companies like his can’t realistically operate without them. His solution is to launch a state wide financial literacy campaign, in which CheckSmart will provide an expert to train nonprofit groups and churches and provide them with a variety of resources to help consumers with budgeting and saving issues. The campaign won’t involve marketing payday loans or pushing any products. Saunders said he took on the idea after several lawmakers during the 2008 debate told him his firm needed to have a higher community profile. Providing financial literacy help, he said, will highlight CheckSmart’s good corporate citizenship.

“In 2010, financial literacy is a big part of what we’ll do going forward,” he said. “It’s not a conflict of interest. We’re going to be giving good, sound financial advice for free. I have nothing to hide. Look, no amount of financial literacy would solve every person’s financial shortfalls. If consumers were being served by other sectors, we wouldn’t be here. This is a way of saying, “We’re the good guys.’”

While consumer advocates may not see it that way, attempts in Ohio to limit charges on short-term loans also have been hampered by confusion over who should take the lead — the governor, lawmakers, the attorney general, or state agencies, Rothstein said. As that fight goes on, the question of how much people in financial peril should have to pay for a short-term loan remains as unresolved as ever, in Ohio and in many other states.

Iowa CCI’s Covington said when legislation passed in 2007 toughening restrictions on car title loans, many of those businesses began doing payday loans instead.

“Here in Iowa, we’ll have to look at lenders maybe going to offer lines of open ended credit, but I don’t know how much of an issue that will be, given that they will no longer have a personal check to hang over one’s head,” he said.

The bill, which has 34 co-sponsors in the Iowa House, is currently in a Commerce subcommittee made up of Democratic state Reps. Andrew Wenthe of Hawkeye, , Bob Kressig of Cedar Falls and Michael Reasoner of Creston, and Republican state Reps. Thomas Sands of Wappello and Erik Helland of Grimes. A coalition of group’s is pushing for passage, including the Iowa Catholic Conference, the Child and Family Policy Center and the Attorney General’s office.

“From what I know and have seen, this is the most momentum this issue has had in many years and a great coalition pushing for its passage,” Covington said. ” I am optimistic, but know we’ve got to keep pushing”

President Barack Obama (WDCpix)

Last January started out with a foreclosure moratorium, allowing time for the Obama Administration to put the final touches on Making Home Affordable — its $75 billion signature program aimed at helping 3 to 4 million homeowners. After bailing out banks and the financial system, the administration turned its efforts to borrowers on the verge of losing their homes. The program rolled out with fanfare in the spring.

But as 2010 begins, it is already clear that Making Home Affordable has fallen far short of its goals, with only 31,382 permanent loan modifications completed by Nov. 30. Last year, lenders were doing far more loan modifications on their own, before the Obama plan was launched. And although foreclosures show no signs of slowing down — the total number of foreclosures is predicted to reach 13 million during the next five years — no one is expecting a dramatic turnaround in helping people keep their homes. The only way the administration will get significant numbers of loan modifications done will be to bring back failed bankruptcy cramdown legislation, or to put billions of dollars into a mass effort to rework loans — neither of which seems politically feasible.

That means 2010 will likely be another year in which only a small number of loans get modified each month, while administration and mortgage servicers continue pointing fingers at each other for the impasse, some industry experts say. The only bright spot ahead for the government’s foreclosure prevention may be that down the road, foreclosures eventually will slow of their own accord. To use the Vietnam analogy, that will allow the Treasury Department to declare victory and get out of the loan modification business for good.

“I don’t hold out a great deal of hope that the administration will do more” to complete more loan modifications, said Patricia McCoy, a University of Connecticut law professor who studies financial services regulation. “There’s just no political will for that.”

As the program falters, a move to blame borrowers for problems with the effort has grown.

When difficulties with Making Home Affordable became apparent early on, servicers began contending that borrowers were refusing to provide income verification and other paperwork to quality for permanent modifications. Under Making Home Affordable, eligible borrowers first receive a three-month trial modification. In order to convert it to a permanent modification, they need to provide servicers with pay stubs and other documentation, as well as making all their trial payments.

Before the program began, servicers voluntarily completed 120,000 permanent loan modifications per month during the first quarter of last year, according to Alan White, a Valparaiso University law professor who studies loan modifications. Once the Obama administration’s program rolled out, those totals dropped to about 70,000 per month, as servicers worked to switch borrowers into Making Home Affordable. According to Treasury Department figures, nearly 700,000 trial modifications under Making Home Affordable were underway by the end of November. But with fewer than 32,000 converted to permanent modifications, it means a net drop of permanent loan modifications since the Obama plan began.

The voluntary plans by servicers, however, were called “extend and pretend” plans by critics, who said servicers simply were setting up repayment plans with late fees and other charges rolled into them, without ever actually reducing a borrower’s debt. Re-default rates on those loan modifications have been high as a result. Making Home Affordable has been more aggressive about lowering a borrower’s monthly payment, and the government is pressing servicers to switch to using its program — one reason why Making Home Affordable permanent loan modifications are lagging behind. In addition, some borrowers simply can’t qualify for the government’s program because they are too far underwater on their mortgages.

But unless a surge of permanent loan modifications suddenly occurred in December, the New Year will begin with fewer loans permanently reworked than during the same period a year ago. Treasury officials said in November that 375,000 trial loan modifications were scheduled to expire by the end of December, but it was unclear how many would be converted into permanent plans. Then, on Dec. 23, the government announced it would order servicers to give borrowers more time to complete trial loan modifications before kicking them out of the program.

Servicers have responded to the lack of progress so far by suggesting that borrowers are refusing to turn in income and other documentation because they probably lied about their incomes to qualify for their current mortgages. Liar Loans, or loans that required no documentation of income or assets, have been cited as a major culprit in the financial collapse, as some borrowers began defaulting on them just a few payments into their mortgages beginning in 2006.

Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, which covers the lending industry, said the mortgage firms and servicers were skeptical from the start that any loan modification plan would work. “No one ever thought seriously that this would put a dent in the problem,” he said.

Now the industry is likely to fight back against any criticism not by doing more loan modifications, but by blaming borrowers, as well as the Obama administration, for a faulty program. All this may add to a backlash and moral hazard charges of helping out homeowners who may have lied to buy bigger homes than they could afford, while other homeowners who may have lost their jobs struggle to meet their mortgage payments, he said.

“I hear people saying all the time, that all the administration is doing is offering help to the people who deserve it the least,” Cecala said.

Housing counselors and attorneys find that argument infuriating. Already struggling to get servicers on board with Making Home Affordable, they now also face dealing with a shift in a public perception toward blaming the borrower.

Diane Thompson, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, said the situation has gotten so ridiculous that servicers are simply looking for excuses to deny loan modifications.

“I met with a woman who oversees a counseling program in St. Louis, and she told me that the most common reason for denials now is that the borrower’s hardship isn’t permanent — surely at some point in time the borrower will get a new job,” she said. “And of course servicers continue to lose documents at an astounding rate.  Any counselor I talk to is almost seething with frustration.  I’ve had counselor after counselor in recent weeks tell me, “They’re just stalling.”

“I think there’s a bit of a face-off developing between the administration and servicers.  My impression is that servicers find the program burdensome and so would like to see it fail, but would prefer not to be held accountable for that failure.  And the administration, of course, would prefer to see the program succeed.  Whether this results in a scrapping of the program or a major reworking of it, I have no idea.”

White, of Valparaiso, thinks the situation is even more dire.

“I would give it another month or two to see if they can do any better, but if not, it is definitely time to try something else,” he said of Making Home Afforable loan modifications. “As far as blaming the homeowners, that is really sad.  From all reports I hear from housing counselors and legal aid lawyers, the servicers are losing the documentation.  It is hard to believe that 75 percent of borrowers on temporary mods are making their payments but that they can’t come up with two pay stubs and a hardship statement.  I think we are dealing with a massive failure and breach of contracts by the servicers.”

The administration will handle this by continuing its current tactic of singling out for public condemnation servicers who aren’t doing enough loan modifications. But that approach hasn’t worked so far, and it’s not likely to be any more successful this year, said Kathleen Engel, a Suffolk University law professor and expert on mortgage securitization.

“A shame list may work when country club members don’t pay their dues, but I don’t think it works with servicers and lenders,” Engel said. “If it did, they wouldn’t have been making and financing abusive loans all these years.”

What might work would be a massive, multi-billion dollar effort to get loans modified on a large scale, said Cecala, of Inside Mortgage Finance. But there would be little political support for spending that kind of money on troubled homeowners. Since the Obama administration sat back last year and declined to throw its weight behind mortgage cramdown legislation that ultimately failed, the White House is not expected to suddenly turn around and once again push for legislation to let bankruptcy judges modify mortgages to keep borrowers in their homes.

And not everyone agrees on the right approach to jumpstart the program. McCoy, for example, said she considers loan modifications a “one size fits one” option that can’t be done a mass scale.

As a result, Cecala sees an entirely new direction in 2010 — lenders will enlist debt collection agencies to aggressively go after homeowners who walk away from their underwater mortgages. Or lenders will move to ensure a borrower’s credit remains impaired for a decade or more, should they walk away. In the meantime, the Obama administration will likely talk a good game, and keep criticizing servicers, while only small numbers of homeowners end up with lower payments.

In the end, Cecala said, the only thing that will become clear is that “there’s plenty of blame to go around” for a program that began this time last year with lofty expectations, and then fell painfully short.

Mary Kane covers the economy for The Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site.

Photo by BasicGov, Flickr Creative Commons

Angulo, then 55 years old, had nowhere to go. His wife and two children already had returned to El Salvador. He had refused during the summer to accept a cash-for-keys transaction, in which he could turn the house over to the lender in exchange for a cash payment. Instead, he remained, alone, in the three bedroom townhouse, in a modest working-class neighborhood called Georgetown South, until a Prince William County Sheriff’s Deputy knocked on the door on Dec. 1, 2008 for the foreclosure eviction.

A house painter, Angulo couldn’t afford the market rents of $1,500 a month for apartments elsewhere in the neighborhood. Most of Prince William County’s shelters also were full that day.

A year later, Angulo is gone. A legal resident of the United States, he joined his family in his native El Salvador, to let a knee injury heal, and to recover from his lost dream of owning a home. With nowhere to go immediately after the eviction, he luckily ran into a neighbor that night who offered to rent him a room for two weeks. He went to a public health clinic, to see a doctor about the arthritis in his injured knee. Then he left for El Salvador.

The house he paid $280,000 for in July of 2005 sold for $69,900 on March 16, 2009, according to local real estate agent Keith Elliott Jr. Real estate investors bought it.

And a year later, the hopes of those who thought the government could come up with a plan to stop foreclosures and help keep people like Angulo in their houses seem in tatters as well.  The Obama administration’s signature effort remains its $75 billion Making Home Affordable program, which was set up to aid as many as 4 million homeowners. But Making Home Affordable has in most ways been a crushing disappointment, housing advocates say.

At the beginning of this year lenders on their own were doing far more more permanent loan modifications than the government has been able to accomplish since rolling out its program in April, noted Diane Thompson, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. Private lenders were completing 120,000 permanent loan modifications per month during the first quarter of this year. Under the Obama administration’s initiative, some 650,000 homeowners have entered into trial loan modifications, but only about 10,000 permanent loan modifications had been completed by the end of October, a Congressional oversight panel reported on Wednesday. Treasury Department figures released Thursday showed that only 31,382 permanent loan modifications had been completed under the government program as of Nov. 30.

Making Home Affordable’s loan modification effort is known as HAMP, or the Home Affordable Modification Program. The small number of permanent loan modifications so far is due in part to a new program getting established, and to the fact that borrowers in the government program have to complete three-month temporary trial loan modifications first, in order to qualify for permanent ones. Getting the permanent trial modification isn’t automatic — trial program borrowers must submit paperwork documenting their incomes to convert to permanent loan modifications, and they must make three months of payments under their trial agreements.

Treasury expects some 375,000 trial modifications to be finished by the end of this year, but it’s not clear how many will become permanent. Updated numbers are expected this week. But none of this fully explains the glaring lack of progress so far, Thompson said.

“We’re more than nine months into the program, and trial modifications account for only about 11 percent of all the seriously delinquent loans, and permanent modifications aren’t even on the radar screen,” Thompson said. “The HAMP servicer participation agreements do not provide for any penalties, other than termination from the program, for the failure to make modifications.  Until those agreements are revised, the administration has little recourse other than public shame to compel servicers to make loan modifications. Meanwhile, the number of homes seriously delinquent and in foreclosure continues to rise every quarter.”

This is hardly what Thompson expected, just a year ago.

“It’s been very distressing,” she said.

In testimony submitted to the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, officials from JP Morgan Chase reported that of every 100 homeowners who sought to have their loans reworked under the government’s program, just 15 have or will end up with, a permanent loan modification.

Thompson and others who follow loan modifications said they were aware from the beginning that the government program couldn’t prevent all foreclosures, especially as job losses mounted and even prime borrowers fell behind on their payments. Experts also knew there would be some slowdown under the administration’s new program, as servicers worked to convert temporary loan modifications into permanent ones.

Servicers and borrowers are pointing the finger at each other over the lack of more permanent loan modifications. Servicers contend borrowers aren’t coming up with the necessary paperwork, such as documenting their incomes, that is required for permanent loan modifications. But housing counselors say just the opposite — that borrowers supply servicers with pay stubs and other paperwork, only to have their servicers lose them, or sit on them so long they aren’t current.

Thompson said there are even bigger problems with the program that leave her feeling very differently about the effort today, compared to her optimism when it was first announced.

“I don’t yet see any of the work on HAMP by the administration addressing the core problems in the program–a lack of accountability and transparency–so I am not optimistic, although I do believe that some of the incremental changes to the program are helpful and may help tens of thousands of people,” she said. “The problem is that we need to help millions, not tens of thousands.”

Alan White, a Valparaiso University law professor who studies loan modifications, was even more blunt:

“If we don’t see more permanent mods soon,” he said, “it will look like the HAMP program is a failure. We’ve seen a net reduction in permanent loan modifications. That’s not good.”

The failure to get more permanent loan modifications done “should be considered a breach of contract” by servicers and lenders that have accepted taxpayer bailout money and are eligible for financial incentives from the government for reworking loans, White said.

He and others never expected things to end up like this. In November 2008, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced a foreclosure moratorium for the holidays, beginning in Thanksgiving, to allow the government to work out the details of streamlined loan modification efforts. Hopes were high that many borrowers would stay in their homes.

In Angulo’s case, the help was too late. He was evicted regardless, because the policy applied only to new foreclosures, not those already in the pipeline.

Fannie Mae announced last month a new policy to allow qualified owners facing foreclosure to rent back their homes for as long as a year. But Angulo most likely would not have qualified for that help, either, had it been available a year ago, since he couldn’t afford market rents in the area, a requirement of the program.

Angulo had covered his mortgage by renting out some of the bedrooms. In the spring of 2008, his renters left and the monthly payment on his adjustable rate mortgage also jumped from $1,400 to $2,600. As a house painter, he earned $500 a week.

Angulo said at the time that he tried to contact his lender, Aurora Loan Services, a subsidiary of Lehman Bros. that specialized in Alt-A and interest-only loans. But the servicer wouldn’t help him, he said.

Since his eviction, his old neighborhood isn’t the only location were housing values have fallen. In November, Zillow, an online real estate service, reported that year over year housing values nationwide had declined for the 11th consecutive quarter.

In Georgetown South, since last December, the highest priced home that has been sold went for $120,000, and it most likely resulted from an investor flip, Elliott said. In Prince William County overall, the first-time homebuyer tax credit helped boost sales of bank-owned foreclosed properties – but that doesn’t mean the local housing market has recovered, he said.

“Banks are probably planning on trickling out these additional foreclosures slowly while the market continues to improve,” he said. “How big is the shadow market? Honestly, I think it’s anybody’s guess. The banks could be sitting on a whole bunch just waiting to trickle them out a few at a time.”

As neighborhoods like Georgetown South continue to absorb the effects of a collapsed housing market, NCLC’s Thompson noted that growing foreclosures are spreading damage throughout the economy, hurting neighborhood property values, and cutting into state and local tax revenues.

That’s why Julio Angulo’s story is much more than just the eviction of another former homeowner on a cold December day, a year ago.

“This isn’t just about homeowners who need help,” Thompson said. “Unless officials take forceful action on foreclosures, things will only get worse. I never thought, at this point, that foreclosures still would not be effectively addressed by the administration. If we don’t get foreclosures under control, and soon, they’re going to drag down the whole economy.”

Angulo, for his part, promised to call if he ever could make his way back to Virginia, to try again to find work, and to buy another home.

He hasn’t been heard from since he left.

Mary Kane covers the economy for The Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site.

Things have changed quite a bit since then, as the spotlight has shifted to lenders and their behavior during the boom. States and cities continue to aggressively pursue subprime lending discrimination suits, and judges across the country are signaling a willingness to move forward with some cases. As the lawsuits wind their way through the court system, more details and allegations about the inner workings of the subprime world are emerging. And as startling as some of the charges already have been — a former loan officer for Wells Fargo testified in one affidavit that employees regularly referred to minority borrowers as “mud people” and called subprime mortgages “ghetto loans,” — there’s even more ahead, said David Berenbaum, executive vice president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

“The ‘smoking guns’ are coming out,” Berenbaum said, referring to possible evidence that lenders targeted minority communities and borrowers for higher priced loans. “And I expect more and more of these smoking guns to become apparent.”

In the latest development, a Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles recently certified a 2005 lending discrimination lawsuit against Wells Fargo as a class action case. The suit contends that area managers at the bank refused access in some minority neighborhoods to a software program that allowed for discounted prices on mortgage loans. Barry Cappello, a partner with Cappello & Noel in Santa Barbara, which represents some 10,000 to 20,000 borrowers in the suit, said he believes it is the first subprime lending discrimination suit in California to be classified as a class action.

According to Cappello, Wells Fargo introduced a program in 2002 called “Loan Economics,” which gave loan officers the authority to offer discounts to loan applicants. The savings on lower fees and interest rates could be significant, ranging from $500 to as much as $10,000 per loan. The suit claims that the Los Angeles area Wells Fargo manager refused to allow loan officers operating in certain minority neighborhoods to offer the program. Borrowers in predominantly white neighborhoods were given access to the software.

Cappello said the suit stemmed from complaints by black and Hispanic loan officers for Wells Fargo, who said they asked to use the software in their branches but upper management refused.

Wells Fargo is fighting the suit and has denied all the charges. In a statement, the bank said, “We are disappointed in this ruling and intend to vigorously defend this matter as the case proceeds. The decision does not indicate the court believes the underlying allegations have any merit. We feel the allegations represent a complete mischaracterization of our long-standing commitment to responsible lending and the pricing practices and tools we use. The policies, systems and controls we have in place ensure race is not a factor in the pricing or products we offer.”

The case could go to trial in about a year, Cappello said.

More lawsuits are expected in the near future over the treatment of Hispanic borrowers in Arizona and Texas, who were offered high-cost loans they didn’t understand at misleadingly low teaser rates, then refinanced into even more expensive loans than their initial mortgages, Cappello said.

Wells Fargo, the nation’s largest home lender, also has been a target of lawsuits elsewhere. Last month, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan sued the lender, alleging that blacks and Hispanics were sold high-cost subprime loans more frequently than white borrowers with similar incomes. The suit contended loan officers were offered incentives by the bank to steer borrowers into the more expensive loans, and that white borrowers generally received the lower-cost prime mortgages.

Some borrowers thought they were getting prime loans from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, the suit also charged. But their loans actually came from Wells Fargo Financial, the bank’s subprime unit.

In Iowa, two watchdog groups charged this week that minority homeowners in Des Moines were three times more likely to receive high cost subprime loans from Wells Fargo than white homeowners.

In June, the New York Times reported on affidavits from a 2008 lawsuit by the city of Baltimore against Wells Fargo over subprime lending, which charged that the bank targeted blacks in Baltimore and suburban Maryland for high-interest subprime loans. Former loan officers testified in affidavits about using terms like “mud people” and “ghetto loans.” The bank also had an emerging markets unit that pinpointed black churches as fertile ground for selling subprime loans, according to the former officers. And in March, the NAACP filed suits in federal court in California against Wells Fargo and HSBC, alleging minority borrowers were more likely to be issued higher rate subprime loans than white borrowers with similar credit scores and qualifications. Both banks have strongly denied the charges. The NAACP also has pending litigation against nearly a dozen other banks and lenders over subprime lending discrimination.

Should the charges in the lawsuits be proven, it would amount to massive violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and other fair housing and lending laws, Berenbaum noted. Enforcing fair lending laws has been “an issue the government has failed to address over the past decade,” he said. Lenders could face criminal penalties from the government for violating fair housing laws, and they could be subject to punitive damages and fines from government lawsuits.

Big lenders like Wells Fargo and HSBC are obvious targets for suits because of their size and the amount of lending they did. In addition, many other lenders and originators of subprime loans have gone out of business, complicating efforts to address allegations of lending discrimination through lawsuits.

That leaves a major question regarding all the lending still unanswered, Berenbaum said: Where has the U.S. government been? The Federal Reserve reported in 2005 that an analysis of federal mortgage data found that blacks and Hispanics were more likely to receive higher interest rates on mortgage loans – and that it intended to examine the practices of 200 lenders as a result.

But nothing’s happened since that announcement, Berenbaum noted. Instead, as the years go on, and the government takes no action, allegations about price differences in mortgage loans based on the race of borrowers and their neighborhoods continue to grow.

Mary Kane covers the economy for the Washington Independent, a Center for Independent Media site.