InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
3rd Circuit: Now-invalid default judgment still in effect when debt collection attempts were made
On January 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants accused of violating the FDCPA when attempting to collect on a judgment that was later vacated. According to the opinion, the plaintiff was sued in state court for an unpaid debt. Contradictory orders were entered by the Superior Court, one which dismissed the action due to one of the defendant’s failure to attend trial, and another that entered default judgment against the plaintiff (which was confirmed two years later by the state court).
A few years later, an attempt was made to collect on the debt. The plaintiff disputed the debt and later sued, claiming the defendants “knew or should have known” that the debt was unenforceable. The plaintiff later filed a motion in state court to vacate the default judgment and declare it “void ab initio,” which was eventually granted by the state court after it determined that the judgment was erroneously entered by the clerk after the court had already dismissed the case due to the debt collector’s failure to appear for trial. The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the district court.
The district court, however, found that the defendants’ alleged efforts to collect the debt were not false or misleading because the now-invalid default judgment at issue was technically still valid and existed when the collection attempts were made. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the summary judgment violated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the district court “‘could not have reached the decision that it did without necessarily supplanting’ the Superior Court’s order vacating the judgment against her.” The plaintiff also argued that the district court erred when it found the Superior Court judgment against the plaintiff to be “in effect . . . until such time as it was vacated, . . . rather than ‘per se not valid’” when the defendants engaged in their efforts to collect the debt.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertions. According to the appellate court, the plaintiff satisfied none of the four requirements to trigger the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, adding that regardless of whether the state court declared the judgment “void ab initio,” it was in effect when the defendant attempted to collect on the debt. Moreover, the appellate court noted that the plaintiff “failed to present a triable issue that any communication from Defendants to [the plaintiff] regarding the collection of the default judgment was made unlawful retroactively upon the Superior Court vacating its default judgment order.”
OCC updates fair lending booklet of Comptroller’s Handbook
On January 12, the OCC released a revised version of the “Fair Lending” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. The revised booklet replaces the prior booklet issued in January 2010. The revised booklet also rescinds related OCC Bulletin 2010-4, “Compliance Policy: Fair Lending – Revised Booklet.” The revised booklet includes new and clarified details and risk factors for a variety of examination scenarios, and updates references to supervisory guidance, sound risk management practices, and applicable legal standards, including changes to laws and regulations since the prior booklet was published, as well as the OCC's current approach to fair lending examinations.
FHFA outlines MSR guidance for managing counterparty credit risk
On January 12, FHFA released an advisory bulletin communicating supervisory expectations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) related to the valuation of mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) for managing counterparty credit risk. FHFA emphasized that Fannie and Freddie’s “risk management policies and procedures should be commensurate with an Enterprise’s risk appetite[] and based on an assessment of seller/servicer financial strength and MSR risk exposure levels.” FHFA relayed that while sellers and servicers assign values to their MSRs, the Enterprises should implement their own processes to evaluate the reasonableness of seller/servicer MSR values. FHFA explained that Fannie and Freddie are “exposed to counterparty credit risk when seller/servicers provide representations and warranties that mortgage loans conform with its selling guide requirements,” and reiterated that “[f]ailure to meet such obligations and commitments may cause the Enterprise to incur credit losses and operational costs.”
The advisory bulletin lays out risk management expectations to ensure MSR values are reasonable, objective, and transparent, and provides guidance covering several areas, including (i) objective evaluation of MSR values; (ii) MSR valuations for mortgage loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie as well as stress testing; (iii) MSR valuations for mortgage loans not owned or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie; (iv) market data input; (v) use of third-party providers; (vi) frequency of evaluations; and (vii) discount to MSR values when servicing rights are terminated. The advisory bulletin is applicable only to MSRs for single-family mortgage loans and is effective April 1.
HUD discusses steps to address appraisal bias
On January 12, HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge announced at a Brookings Institute event that HUD is creating a process that people seeking FHA financing can use to request a review of their appraisal if they believe the results may have been affected by racial bias. According to the announcement, under the reconsideration of value (ROV) proposal, lenders will have clear guidance on how to review requests from borrowers for an ROV for the appraisal conducted in conjunction with their application for FHA-insured mortgage financing. The proposal also provides guidance for obtaining a second appraisal when material deficiencies are documented, and the appraiser is unwilling to resolve them. Fudge noted that the proposal “represents the first step to solidify the processes that lenders must follow when a borrower requests a [ROV] review if concerns arise around unlawful discrimination in residential property valuations.” Fudge also noted that the proposal supports the Biden-Harris administration’s PAVE Action Plan commitments and the continued work of the Interagency Task Force. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in March 2022, HUD delivered the Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE) Action Plan to President Biden. PAVE focuses primarily on actions to substantially reduce racial bias in home appraisals, as well as steps federal agencies can “take using their existing authorities to enhance oversight and accountability of the appraisal industry and empower homeowners and homebuyers to take action when they receive a valuation that is lower than expected.”
CFPB reports on servicemember identity theft
On January 12, the CFPB released an Issue Spotlight discussing identity theft affecting servicemembers. According to the report, servicemembers, veterans, and military family members are more likely to report identity theft than civilians, with military consumers reporting almost 50,000 cases of identity theft to the FTC in 2021. The Bureau also noted that a steady income could make servicemembers a target for identity thieves looking to create fraudulent credit accounts or tap into bank accounts, and warned that frequent relocation may also increase servicemembers’ risk of identity theft.
Many servicemembers and all officers are required to pass a national security clearance check that includes a review of their credit history and ability to meet their financial obligations. The report found that security clearances are “continuously evaluated” with credit checks being part of the process. If a review reveals a history of failing to meet financial obligations, being in excessive debt, or having a high debt-to-income ratio, a servicemember’s security clearance may be revoked. Bad credit can also lead to rejected or higher-cost rental or mortgage applications, limiting housing options the Bureau said.
The report also found that unrecognized debt is often the first sign of identity theft. Between 2014 and 2022, military consumer complaints to the CFPB about debts that resulted from identity theft increased nearly fivefold, from more than 200 annually in 2014, to more than 1,000 in 2022. The Bureau noted that addressing credit report inaccuracies related to identity theft can be “a particularly complicated process.” The report also provided recommendations for servicemembers on how to protect their credit, such as reviewing credit reports regularly and disputing inaccurate information and taking advantage of free credit monitoring services.
CFPB says EFTA applies to pandemic assistance prepaid cards
On January 10, the CFPB filed an amicus brief in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concerning the scope of accounts covered under EFTA and Regulation E. (See also CFPB blog post here.) As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a putative class action alleging violations of EFTA and state privacy and consumer protection laws brought against the national bank on behalf of consumers who were issued prepaid debit cards providing pandemic unemployment benefits. The named plaintiff alleged that he lost nearly $15,000 when an unauthorized user fraudulently used a prepaid debit card containing Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) funds that were intended for him. However, the district court dismissed the class claims with respect to EFTA and Regulation E, finding that the PUA payments were “qualified disaster relief payments” and, as such, they were excluded from Regulation E’s definition of a “prepaid account.”
The Bureau disagreed. In its amicus brief, it argued that a prepaid debit card loaded with PUA funds is a “government benefit account” subject to EFTA and Regulation E and their error resolution requirements, which apply to alleged unauthorized transfers such as the one at issue in the case. Writing that the district court erred by applying “a regulatory exclusion to hold that prepaid accounts loaded with pandemic unemployment benefits were excluded from coverage,” the Bureau claimed that the holding is not supported by statutory and regulatory text and “undermines the primary purpose of EFTA to provide individual rights to consumers.” According to the Bureau, a “prepaid account” under Regulation E includes specific categories of accounts, including a “government benefit account,” which is not subject to the prepaid account exclusions.
NYDFS describes plan to include medical debt in Consumer Credit Fairness Act
On January 10, NYDFS announced that the New York governor revealed several healthcare-related proposals in the State of the State address, including a plan to include medical debt in the state’s Consumer Credit Fairness Act. NYDFS noted that the governor “will create a comprehensive plan to address excessive medical debt” by amending “the Consumer Credit Fairness Act to cover medical debt, launching an industry and consumer education campaign that addresses medical debt and affordability, and reforming hospital financial assistance applications to require hospitals to use a uniform application form.” According to NYDFS, the best way to combat “medical debt is a commitment to an affordable and equitable healthcare system with transparency that empowers consumers, regardless of their socioeconomic status.”
Fed’s Bowman discusses the economy and bank supervision
On January 10, Federal Reserve Governor Michelle W. Bowman spoke before the Florida Bankers Association Leadership Luncheon regarding the economy and bank supervision. In her remarks, Bowman said that inflation is “much too high” and that her focus is on “bringing it down toward our 2 percent goal.” Bowman stated it is a “hopeful sign” that unemployment has remained low. However, she acknowledged that it is likely that as a part of the process, “labor markets will soften somewhat before we bring inflation back to our 2 percent goal.”
Regarding crypto, Bowman said that crypto activities may “pose significant risks to consumers, businesses, and potentially the larger financial system.” She also said that there is “dysfunction” in cryptomarkets, “with some crypto firms misrepresenting that they have deposit insurance.” She also mentioned “the collapse of certain stablecoins, and, most recently, the bankruptcy of [a cryptocurrency exchange platform].”
Bowman additionally discussed the Fed’s push for a real-time payments system. Since 2019, the Fed has been working to launch FedNow, a new faster payments system that will be available in the first half of 2023. According to Bowman, “FedNow will help transform the way payments are made through new direct services that enable consumers and businesses to make payments conveniently, in real time, on any day, and with immediate availability of funds for receivers.” As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in June, the Fed issued a final rule on its FedNow instant-payments platform that offers more clarity on how the new service will work while essentially adopting the proposed rule. She also noted that FedNow will enable depository institutions of every size to provide “safe and efficient” instant payment services.
Regarding climate change, Bowman noted that the Fed views its role on climate “as a narrow focus on supervisory responsibilities and limited to our role in promoting a safe, sound and stable financial system.” She also noted that the Fed’s recent climate guidance only applies to banks with more than $100 billion in assets. Bowman also disclosed while “climate supervision effort is a new area of focus, it has been a longstanding supervisory requirement that banks manage their risks related to extreme weather events and other natural disasters that could disrupt operations or impact business lines.”
Additionally, Bowman provided a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) update. She said that the CRA, which requires the Fed and other banking agencies to encourage banks to help meet the credit needs of their communities, “was last updated 25 years ago.” As previously covered by InfoBtytes, in May, the Fed, FDIC, and OCC issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking on new regulations implementing the CRA to update how CRA activities qualify for consideration, where CRA activities are considered, and how CRA activities are evaluated. The CRA proposal, which she is fully supportive of, “reflects these industry changes, including recognizing internet and mobile banking services, it also attempts to provide clarity and consistency, and it could enhance access to credit for these low- and moderate-income communities
CFPB proposes T&C registry for nonbanks
On January 11, the CFPB announced a proposed rule to create a public registry of terms and conditions used in non-negotiable, “take it or leave it” nonbank form contracts that “claim to waive or limit consumer rights and protections.” Under the proposal, supervised nonbank companies would be required to report annually to the Bureau on their use of standard-form contract terms that “seek to waive consumer rights or other legal protections or limit the ability of consumers to enforce or exercise their rights.” The terms and conditions—which would be made publicly available—would include those that address waivers of consumer claims, liability limits, legal action limits, class action bans, arbitration agreements, liquidated damages clauses, as well as other waivers of consumer rights.
The Bureau explained that its proposal is intended to “facilitate public awareness and oversight” about what nonbanks are putting in form contracts. “Some companies slip terms and conditions into their form contracts that try to take away consumer protections, try to limit how consumers exercise their rights, or try to quiet consumer complaints or criticism,” the Bureau stated in its announcement. “[M]ore broadly, the terms and conditions potentially undermine consumer financial protection law.”
The Bureau provided several examples of such terms and conditions, including: (i) unlawful mandatory arbitration agreements that are included in servicemember loan contracts; (ii) credit monitoring service agreements that “undermine credit reporting rights” by prohibiting consumers from pursuing legal action, including class action lawsuits, for FCRA violations; (iii) occurrences where lenders use clauses that waive liability for bank fees that borrowers incur due to repeated payment collection attempts; (iii) mortgage contracts that make “deceptive” use of waivers and limitations that are inconsistent with TILA restrictions; and (v) terms and conditions that try to quiet consumer complaints or criticism.
All supervised nonbanks, including those operating in payday lending, private student loan origination, mortgage lending and servicing, student loan servicing, automobile financing, consumer reporting, consumer debt collection, and international remittances would be subject to the rule. However, the Bureau is proposing certain exemptions for nonbanks with lower levels of receipts. Comments on the proposal are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
“[T]the registry would help regulators and law enforcement more easily detect when companies are offering products and services using prohibited, void, and restricted contract terms described above. This would be especially useful to state and tribal regulators with limited resources to alert or take action against companies violating the law,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in an accompanying statement, adding that the Bureau plans to “use data from the registry to identify supervised nonbanks and the risks their terms and conditions pose, prioritize which firms to examine, and plan the scope of those exams.”
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-NC) slammed the proposal, saying the “proposed registry of terms and conditions will facilitate the naming and shaming of firms to empower progressive activists. Requiring nonbank financial firms to register publicly with the Bureau is unprecedented—no other industry is required to make public such detailed contract information. The days of Congress giving Director Chopra a free pass for his reckless actions have come to an end.”
The proposed registry follows a proposal announced in December by the Bureau that would create a database of enforcement actions taken against certain nonbank covered entities, which would include all final public written orders and judgments (including any consent and stipulated orders and judgments) obtained or issued by any federal, state, or local government agency for violation of certain consumer protection laws related to unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
District Court gives preliminary approval to $11.5 million FCRA settlement
On January 6, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted preliminary approval of a $11.5 million settlement in a class action FCRA suit, resolving allegations that a credit reporting agency (CRA) reported inaccurate or incomplete criminal and civil records. According to the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and memorandum in support, the defendant violated the FCRA by attributing criminal records to consumers that did not belong to them. The plaintiffs further alleged that “misattribution resulted from [the defendant’s] unreasonable procedures related to its using or failure to use certain identifying information in its matching algorithm.” In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant failed to report favorable dispositions in landlord-tenant records. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant “did not obtain complete and up-to-date public records from the source, instead relying on old or incomplete data obtained from its vendor(s) or retrieved through automated processes.” If final approval of the settlement is granted, attorney fees will account for about a third of the $11.5 million settlement amount. The estimated number of people who could benefit from the settlement is approximately 90,000, with awards for this group ranging from $40 to $800. The defendant will also be obliged under the settlement to provide data needed to identify members of the class. Further, class members whose names were misreported as tied to felonies or sex offenses, or who disputed their criminal records, will be paid higher payments than those linked to misdemeanors, lower-level offenses, or eviction records.