Commitments and Contingencies |
12 Months Ended |
|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2021 | |
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | |
| Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments to Extend Credit
The Company enters into IRLCs with customers who have applied for residential mortgage loans and meet certain credit and underwriting criteria. These commitments expose the Company to market risk if interest rates change and the loan is not economically hedged or committed to an investor. The Company is also exposed to credit loss if the loan is originated and not sold to an investor and the customer does not perform. The collateral upon extension of credit typically consists of a first deed of trust in the mortgagor’s residential property. Commitments to originate loans do not necessarily reflect future cash requirements as some commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon. Total commitments to originate loans at December 31, 2021 and 2020 were approximately $2.4 billion and $5.2 billion, respectively.
The Company manages the interest rate price risk associated with its outstanding interest rate lock commitments and loans held for sale by entering into derivative loan instruments such as forward loan sales commitments, mandatory delivery commitments, options and futures contracts. Total commitments related to these derivatives at December 31, 2021 and 2020 were approximately $3.2 billion and $5.5 billion, respectively.
Legal
The Company is involved in various lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business. While the ultimate results of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty, management does not expect that these matters will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company.
U.S. ex rel. Dougherty v. Guild Mortgage Company, No. 16-cv-2909 (S.D. Cal.)
On May 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), on behalf of HUD (together, the “government”), filed a Complaint-in-Intervention (“Intervention Complaint”) in a pending qui tam action against the Company under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733. The Intervention Complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges FCA violations in connection with the underwriting and origination of certain residential mortgage loans that the Company endorsed for FHA insurance. The Intervention Complaint alleges violations of Sections 3729 (a)(l)(A) and (B) of the FCA, breach of common law fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. The government’s claims arise from the Company’s origination of residential mortgage loans, which the Company subsequently endorsed for FHA insurance between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2011.
On August 10, 2016, the Company filed motions to dismiss the government’s Intervention Complaint and the Relator’s Third Amended Complaint. In March 2018, the Court stayed the case pending the Ninth Circuit’s determination of the appeal in Rose v Stephens Institute (No. 17-15111). On August 24, 2018, the ruling in the Rose case was issued and the Court lifted its self-imposed stay. On March 4, 2019, the government filed an amended complaint which Guild responded to on March 22, 2019 reasserting that the claims were without merit. Guild’s motion to dismiss was denied by the court in September 2019. Discovery began in December 2019.
On October 20, 2020, a settlement agreement with respect to this lawsuit was executed and, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company made a cash payment in the aggregate amount of $24.9 million to the government. In March 2021, we received $1.9 million from our insurance provider related to this settlement agreement.
|