Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On January 25, the CFPB released FAQs to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID) compliance. Three of the four FAQs relate to corrected closing disclosures and the three business-day waiting period, while the fourth FAQ relates to the use of model forms. Highlights of the FAQs include:
- Under TRID, a creditor must ensure that a consumer received a corrected Closing Disclosure at least three business days before consummation of the transaction (i) for certain APR changes; (ii) if the loan product information changes; or (iii) if a prepayment penalty has been added to the loan. Any of these changes would trigger a new three business-day waiting period.
- A corrected Closing Disclosure is required under TRID if the APR changes, including if it decreases. If the change in the APR is within applicable tolerances under Regulation Z, the creditor may provide the new Closing Disclosure without triggering a new three business-day waiting period. If the change in the APR is outside applicable tolerances, the creditor must wait three business days before consummation.
- Section 109(a) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act did not change the timing for consummating transactions if a creditor is required to provide a corrected Closing Disclosure under TRID.
- A creditor is deemed in compliance with the disclosure requirements of TRID if it uses the appropriate model forms provided by the Bureau and properly completes them with accurate content.
On February 4, the CFPB released a request for public comment on a new information collection titled, “Debt Collection Quantitative Disclosure Testing.” The proposed collection—which seeks Office of Management and Budget approval to conduct a web survey as part of the Bureau's debt collection disclosure research—“will explore consumer comprehension and decision making in response to debt collection disclosure forms.” Comments must be received by March 6.
On January 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the defendant employer violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) standalone document requirement when it included extraneous state disclosure requirements within a disclosure to obtain a consumer report on the plaintiff, a prospective employee. The panel also concluded that the defendant’s form failed to satisfy both the FCRA and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act’s (ICRAA) “‘clear and conspicuous’ requirements because, although the disclosure was conspicuous, it was not clear.” According to the opinion, the plaintiff signed a “Disclosure Regarding Background Investigation,” and was employed for several months before voluntarily terminating her employment. Following her departure from the company, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant, alleging a failure to make proper disclosure under the FCRA and the ICRAA. The plaintiff claimed that the disclosure form included not only a disclosure as required by the FCRA stating that the defendant could obtain a consumer report on her, but also additional disclosure requirements for several other states.
The district court initially granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the FCRA and as to ICRAA’s clear and conspicuous requirement, holding that the disclosure form complied with both statutes. On appeal, the 9th Circuit first rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that the disclosure form violated the standalone document requirements because it included all the application materials she filled out during the employment process. The panel declined to extend this principle to the FCRA’s definition of a “document,” stating that the employment packet was distinct from the disclosure form. However, the 9th Circuit cited to its 2017 decision in Syed v. M-I, LLC, which held that “‘a prospective employer violates Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) when it procures a job applicant’s consumer report after including a liability waiver in the same document as the statutorily mandated disclosure.’” Noting the statute’s plain language, the 9th Circuit concluded in Syed that the FCRA meant what it said—“the required disclosure must be in a document that ‘consist[s] ‘solely’ of the disclosure.’” Moreover, the panel stated that Syed considered the standalone requirement with regard to any surplusage, and that the “FCRA should not be read to have implied exceptions, especially when the exception—in that case, a liability waiver—was contrary to FCRA’s purpose.”
The 9th Circuit also concluded that the district court erred in holding that the disclosure form was clear because the form (i) contained language a reasonable person would not understand, and (ii) the language combined federal and state disclosures, which would confuse a reasonable reader. However, the panel held that the disclosure form met the conspicuous requirement since the defendant capitalized, bolded, and underlined the headings for each section of the disclosure and labeled the form so an applicant could see what she was signing. Accordingly, the 9th Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
On January 22, the Florida Attorney General announced a settlement with a car rental automotive group resolving allegations the company did not adequately disclose add-on fees for cashless tolls and other related add-on charges. According to the settlement, the Attorney General launched an investigation after receiving consumer complaints alleging the company did not clearly disclose that consumers would be charged $15 per cashless toll, in addition to the actual toll fees. Additionally, consumers who opted into an add-on product that would allow them to go through cashless tolls without penalty alleged the company misled them regarding that product’s fees. The settlement requires the company to (i) clearly and conspicuously disclose all fees regarding cashless tolls or associated products within written agreements; (ii) provide clear disclosures regarding fees on their website, online reservation system, confirmation emails and at the rental counters; (iii) refund fees paid for tolls or the associated add-on product to consumers who were charged between January 1, 2011 and January 7, 2019, and who submit claim forms; and (iv) provide accurate disclosures on damage waivers. The settlement also prohibits the company from charging consumers for a higher car class when the car class reserved by a consumer is unavailable.
On December 21, the CFPB announced final policy guidance covering the loan-level HMDA data the Bureau intends to make publicly available in 2019. The proposed policy was issued in September 2017 (covered by InfoBytes here) and, after reviewing public comments, the Bureau agreed to modify certain data disclosures to address concerns regarding consumers’ privacy. The final policy now excludes from public disclosure (i) the loan identifier; (ii) application and action taken dates; (iii) the property address; (iv) the applicants’ credit scores; (v) the mortgage originator’s NMLS identifier; and (vi) the results generated by the automated underwriting system. The Bureau will also exclude free-form text fields which report data such as the applicant’s race or ethnicity. The Bureau further announced that it will publish data for (i) the applicants’ ages; (ii) the loan amount; and (iii) the number of units in the dwelling as ranges rather than specific values.
The announcement states that the Bureau intends to initiate in a separate notice-and-comment rulemaking in 2019 to incorporate any modifications of HMDA data into the text of Regulation C and will use the rulemaking to consider what HMDA data will be disclosed in future years. Additionally, the CFPB reiterated its intention to engage in a rulemaking to reconsider aspects of the 2015 HMDA rule, which was originally announced in December 2017 (covered by InfoBytes here).
On December 19, the Illinois governor signed HB 5542, which amends the state’s Residential Mortgage License Act of 1987 (the Act) to make various changes to state licensing requirements. Among other things, the amended Act (i) clarifies the definition of a “bona fide nonprofit organization”; (ii) provides a list of prohibited acts and practices; (iii) stipulates that a licensee filing a Mortgage Call Report is not required to file an annual report with the Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation (Secretary) disclosing applicable annual activities; (iv) repeals a provision requiring the Secretary to obtain loan delinquency data from HUD as part of an examination of each licensee; (v) clarifies that the notice of change in loan terms disclosure requirements do not apply to any licensee providing notices of changes in loan terms pursuant to the CFPB’s Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure procedure under TILA and RESPA, while removing the provision that previously excluded licensees limited to soliciting residential mortgage loan applications as approved by the Secretary from the requirements to provide disclosure of changes in loan terms; (vi) removes certain criteria concerning the operability date for submitting licensing information to the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System; and (vii) makes other technical and conforming changes. The amendments are effective immediately.
On December 4, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) released an invitation for comments from interested stakeholders in the development of regulations to implement the state’s new law on commercial financing disclosures. As previously covered by InfoBytes, on September 30, the California governor signed SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. Most notably, the act requires financing entities subject to the law to disclose in each commercial financing transaction —defined as an “accounts receivable purchase transaction, including factoring, asset-based lending transaction, commercial loan, commercial open-end credit plan, or lease financing transaction intended by the recipient for use primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes”—the “total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate” in a form to be prescribed by the DBO.
The act requires the DBO to first develop regulations governing the new disclosure requirements, addressing, among other things, (i) definitions, contents, and methods of calculations for each disclosure; (ii) requirements concerning the time, manner, and format of each disclosure; and (iii) the method to express the annualized rate disclosure and types of fees and charges to be included in the calculation. While the DBO has formulated specific topics and questions in the invitation for comments covering these areas, the comments may address any potential area for rulemaking. Comments must be received by January 22, 2019.
On December 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a $1.3 billion judgment against defendants-appellants responsible for operating an allegedly deceptive payday lending scheme. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2016, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ordered a Kansas-based operation and its owner to pay nearly $1.3 billion for allegedly violating Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by making false and misleading representations about loan costs and payment. The owner appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the loan notes were “technically correct” because the fine print located under the TILA disclosure box contained all the legally required information. The appeals court disagreed. In affirming the district court’s judgment, the appeals court determined the loan note was still deceptive even though the fine print contained the relevant information about the loan’s automatic renewal terms, stating “[appellants’] argument wrongly assumes that non-deceptive business practices can somehow cure the deceptive nature of the Loan Note.” Moreover, the appeals court rejected the argument about technical correctness, citing the FTC Act’s “consumer-friendly standard” (which does not require technical accuracy) and noting that “consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances—here, by looking to the terms of the Loan Note to understand their obligations—likely could be deceived by the representations made there.” Among other things, the appeals court also rejected the appellant owner’s challenge to the $1.3 billion judgment (based on an argument that the lower court overestimated his “wrongful gain” and that the FTC Act only allows the court to issue injunctions), concluding that the owner failed to provide evidence contradicting the wrongful gain calculation and that a district court may grant any ancillary relief under the FTC Act, including restitution.
On October 1, the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation adopted amendments to its regulations relating to mortgage foreclosure disclosure notices and mediation conference obligations. The amendments—which are effective as of September 28—require entities and individuals regulated by the Rhode Island Division of Banking and non-exempt mortgagees to comply with the outlined foreclosure provisions. The provisions, among other items, (i) require use of the notice of pending foreclosure form; (ii) require provision of notice of mediation conferences to all mortgagors prior to initiating a foreclosure, in the specified manner; and (iii) outline qualifications for the mediation coordinator responsible for issuing certificates of compliance.
On October 31, Freddie Mac released Guide Bulletin 2018-19, which announces selling updates, including updates to the Settlement/Closing Disclosure Statement that sellers are required to use for mortgages with note dates on or after September 25, 2017. Effective immediately, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have jointly agreed that sellers “must create or obtain . . . the [c]losing [d]isclosure form for each [m]ortgage, regardless of whether another form might also be required by a [s]tate or local law.” Bulletin 2018-19 additionally states that, with the exception of certain servicing transactions, the Settlement/Closing Disclosure Statement means the closing disclosure required under TILA for mortgages subject to TRID rules, “whether or not the TRID rules apply to the transaction.”
Among other things, Bulletin 2018-19 also (i) updates certain rental income and documentation requirements; (ii) removes the special loan-to-value (LTV)/total LTV (TLTV)/Home Equity Line of Credit TLTV ratio requirements for a “no cash-out” refinance of a mortgage owned or securitized by Freddie Mac with settlement dates on or after February 1, 2019; and (iii) removes the mandatory expiration date on Guide Form 960 (the Concurrent Transfer of Servicing Agreement), eliminating the need for sellers to submit a new guide form each year.
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Dynamic customer due diligence and beneficial ownership from KYC to ongoing CDD and the new rule implementation" at the Puerto Rican Symposium of Anti-Money Laundering
- Michelle L. Rogers to discuss "Preparing for servicing exams in the current regulatory environment" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- Jon David D. Langlois to discuss "Regulatory risks of convenience fees" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- APPROVED Webcast: NMLS Annual Conference & Ombudsman Meeting: Review and recap
- Brandy A. Hood to discuss "Keeping your head above water in flood insurance compliance" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- Melissa Klimkiewicz to discuss "Servicing super session" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- Jessica L. Pollet to discuss "Law & compliance speedsmarts" at the American Financial Services Association Law & Compliance Symposium
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Lessons learned from recent high profile enforcement actions" at the Florida International Bankers Association AML Compliance Conference
- Moorari K. Shah to provide "Regulatory update – California and beyond" at the National Equipment Finance Association Summit
- Sasha Leonhardt and John B. Williams to discuss "Privacy" at the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions Spring Regulatory Compliance School
- Aaron C. Mahler to discuss "Regulation B/fair lending" at the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions Spring Regulatory Compliance School
- Heidi M. Bauer to discuss "'So you want to form a joint venture' — Licensing strategies for successful JVs" at RESPRO26
- Jonice Gray Tucker to to discuss "DC policy: Everything but the kitchen sink" at CBA Live
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "Small business & regulation: How fair lending has evolved & where are we heading?" at CBA Live
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Lessons learned from ABLV and other major cases involving inadequate compliance oversight" at the ACAMS International AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "A year in the life of the CDD final rule: A first anniversary assessment" at the ACAMS International AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Moorari K. Shah to discuss "State regulatory and disclosures" at the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association Legal Forum
- Hank Asbill to discuss "Creative character evidence in criminal and civil trials" at the Litigation Counsel of America Spring Conference & Celebration of Fellows
- Hank Asbill to discuss "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: Addressing prosecutions driven by hidden actors" at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers West Coast White Collar Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Keep off the grass: Mitigating the risks of banking marijuana-related businesses" at the ACAMS AML Risk Management Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Mid-year policy update" at the ACAMS AML Risk Management Conference
- Benjamin W. Hutten to discuss "Requirements for banking inherently high-risk relationships" at the Georgia Bankers Association BSA Experience Program