Commitments, Contingencies, and Guarantees |
12 Months Ended | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dec. 31, 2021 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitments, Contingencies, and Guarantees | Commitments, Contingencies, and Guarantees Interest Rate Lock Commitments IRLCs are agreements to lend to a client as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. The Company evaluates each client’s creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. The number of days from the date of the IRLC to expiration of fixed and variable rate lock commitments outstanding at December 31, 2021 and 2020 was approximately 43 days on average. The UPB of IRLCs was as follows:
Commitments to Sell Mortgage Loans In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into contracts to sell existing mortgage loans held for sale into the secondary market at specified future dates. The amount of commitments to sell existing loans at December 31, 2021 and 2020 was $2,243,381 and $3,139,816, respectively. Commitments to Sell Loans with Servicing Released In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into contracts to sell the MSRs of certain newly originated loans on a servicing released basis. In the event that a forward commitment is not filled and there has been an unfavorable market shift from the date of commitment to the date of settlement, the Company is contractually obligated to pay a pair-off fee on the undelivered balance. There were $333,594 and $280,502 of loans committed to be sold servicing released at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Investor Reserves The following presents the activity in the investor reserves:
The maximum exposure under the Company’s representations and warranties would be the outstanding principal balance and any premium received on all loans ever sold by the Company, less (i) loans that have already been paid in full by the mortgagee, (ii) loans that have defaulted without a breach of representations and warranties, (iii) loans that have been indemnified via settlement or make-whole, or (iv) loans that have been repurchased. Additionally, the Company may receive relief of certain representation and warranty obligations on loans sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac on or after January 1, 2013 if Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac satisfactorily concludes a quality control loan file review or if the borrower meets certain acceptable payment history requirements within 12 or 36 months after the loan is sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Property Taxes, Insurance, and Principal and Interest Payable As a service to its clients, the Company administers escrow deposits representing undisbursed amounts received for payment of property taxes, insurance and principal, and interest on mortgage loans held for sale. Cash held by the Company for property taxes and insurance was $3,682,366 and $3,551,400, and for principal and interest was $8,370,326 and $13,065,549 at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. These amounts are not considered assets of the Company and, therefore, are excluded from the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company remains contingently liable for the disposition of these deposits. Guarantees As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company guaranteed the debt of a related party totaling $5,216 and $15,000, consisting of three separate guarantees. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the Company did not record a liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for these guarantees because it was not probable that the Company would be required to make payments under these guarantees. Trademark License The Company has a perpetual trademark license agreement with a third-party entity. This agreement requires annual payments by the Company based upon the income from the sale of loans generated under the Quicken Loans brand. Total licensing fees incurred and paid were $625, $7,500, and $7,500 for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019 respectively, which is the maximum amount allowable under the contract for the periods indicated and is classified in other expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income and Comprehensive Income. The Company has entered into an agreement with Intuit that, among other things, gives the Company full ownership of the "Quicken Loans" brand in 2022 in exchange for certain agreements, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions. We have fulfilled our payment obligations pertaining to the licensing agreement with Intuit in 2021 and no further expenses are expected. Tax Receivable Agreement As indicated in Note 11, Income Taxes, the Company is party to a Tax Receivable Agreement. Legal Rocket Companies, through its subsidiaries, engages in, among other things, mortgage lending, title and settlement services, and other financial technology services. Rocket Companies and its subsidiaries operate in highly regulated industries and are routinely subject to various legal and administrative proceedings concerning matters that arise in the normal and ordinary course of business, including inquiries, complaints, subpoenas, audits, examinations, investigations and potential enforcement actions from regulatory agencies and state attorney generals; state and federal lawsuits and putative class actions; and other litigation. Periodically, we assess our potential liabilities and contingencies in connection with outstanding legal and administrative proceedings utilizing the latest information available. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of any of these matters, based on our assessment of the facts and circumstances, we do not believe any of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, actual outcomes may differ from those expected and could have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows in a future period. Rocket Companies and its subsidiaries accrue for losses when they are probable to occur and such losses are reasonably estimable. Legal costs are expensed as they are incurred. In 2018 an initial judgment was entered against Rocket Mortgage, formerly known as Quicken Loans Inc., and Amrock, formerly known as Title Source, Inc., for a certified class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of West Virginia. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated West Virginia state law by unconscionably inducing the plaintiffs (and a class of other West Virginians who received loans through Rocket Mortgage and appraisals through Amrock) into loans by including the borrower’s own estimated home values on appraisal order forms. The district court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and, in a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to grant (i) class certification and (ii) summary judgment on the statutory damages claim. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment ruling on a separate breach-of-contract claim and remanded that claim for further proceedings. Rocket Mortgage and Amrock filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States and, on January 10, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the court of appeals’ judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration. Rocket Mortgage and Amrock believe the resolution of this matter is not material to the consolidated financial statements. Amrock is currently involved in civil litigation related to a business dispute between Amrock and HouseCanary, Inc. (“HouseCanary”). The lawsuit was filed on April 12, 2016, by Amrock—Title Source, Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc., No. 2016-CI-06300 (37th Civil District Court, San Antonio, Texas)—and included claims against HouseCanary for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement stemming from a contract between Amrock and HouseCanary whereby HouseCanary was obligated to provide Amrock with appraisal and valuation software and services. HouseCanary filed counterclaims against Amrock for, among other things, breach of contract, fraud, and misappropriation of trade secrets. On March 14, 2018, following trial of the claims in the lawsuit, a Bexar County, Texas, jury awarded $706,200 in favor of HouseCanary and rejected Amrock's claims against HouseCanary. The district court entered judgment in favor of HouseCanary and against Amrock for an aggregate of $739,600 (consisting of $235,400 in actual damages; $470,800 in punitive damages; $28,900 in prejudgment interest; and $4,500 in attorney fees). On appeal (No. 04-19-00044-CV, Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas), the court of appeals affirmed judgment of no-cause on Amrock’s claim for breach of contract, but reversed judgment on HouseCanary’s misappropriation of trade secrets and fraud claims and remanded the case for a new trial on HouseCanary’s claims. In November 2020, HouseCanary filed a petition requesting the Supreme Court of Texas review the court of appeals’ decision. Briefing on that appeal is ongoing. The outcome of this matter remains uncertain, and the ultimate resolution of the litigation may be several years in the future. If the case is tried again, Amrock intends to present new evidence, including evidence revealed by whistleblowers who came forward with evidence that undermined HouseCanary’s claims after the conclusion of the original trial, and to vigorously defend against this case and any subsequent actions. Quicken Loans and Rocket Homes are defending themselves against a tagalong lawsuit filed by HouseCanary that also includes claims for misappropriation of trade secrets. That case is in its early stages and is stayed pending a resolution of Quicken Loans’ and Rocket Homes’ dispositive motion. On June 29, 2021 and July 13, 2021, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan asserting claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Rocket Companies, and certain executive officers and directors. Both lawsuits challenge particular positive statements about Rocket Companies’ operations and prospects, purport to bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Rocket Companies Class A common stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, and do not claim a specific amount of damages. On August 19, 2021, an alleged shareholder filed a shareholder derivative action asserting claims purportedly on behalf of Rocket Companies for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against certain executive officers, the members of Rocket Companies’ Board, Rock Holdings, and, nominally, Rocket Companies in the Michigan State Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Wayne County. On November 8, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to stay the lawsuit pending resolution of the parallel putative securities class actions. On November 23, 2021 and February 2, 2022, two alleged shareholders filed shareholder derivative actions asserting claims purportedly on behalf of Rocket Companies for breach of fiduciary duty against Rock Holdings, Daniel Gilbert, and, nominally, Rocket Companies in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The derivative lawsuits allege Rock Holdings sold Rocket Companies Class A common stock on the basis of nonpublic information and, in the Michigan lawsuit, that certain positive statements about Rocket Companies’ business operations and prospects were false. None of the derivative lawsuits claim a specific amount of damages. Due to the early stage of these proceedings and the lack of specific damages requests, Rocket Companies is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for any of these matters. In addition to the matters described above, Rocket Companies and its subsidiaries are subject to other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. The ultimate outcome of these or other actions or proceedings, including any monetary awards against the companies, is uncertain and there can be no assurance as to the amount of any such potential awards. As of December 31, 2021, we recorded reserves related to potential damages in connection with the above legal proceedings of $15,000. The ultimate outcome of these or other actions or proceedings, including any monetary awards against Rocket Companies or one or more of Rocket Companies' subsidiaries, is uncertain and there can be no assurance as to the amount of any such potential awards. Rocket Companies and its subsidiaries will incur defense costs and other expenses in connection with the lawsuits. Plus, if a judgment for money that exceeds specified thresholds is rendered against a subsidiary of Rocket Companies or against Rocket Companies and it or they fail to timely pay, discharge, bond or obtain a stay of execution of such judgment, it is possible that one or more of the companies could be deemed in default of loan funding facilities and other agreements governing indebtedness. If the final resolution of any such litigation is unfavorable in one or more of these actions, it could have a material adverse effect on the business, liquidity, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations of Rocket Companies or a subsidiary of Rocket Companies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||