InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court: Identity theft alone is not enough to remove allegedly fraudulent debt from credit report
On April 20, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a defendant debt collector’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that claiming to be a victim of identity theft alone is not enough to have a collection item removed from a credit report, or to give rise to an FDCPA violation. In 2014, the plaintiff purportedly obtained a payday loan from a lender who ultimately assigned the loan to the defendant for collection. In 2019, the plaintiff called the defendant to verbally dispute the debt as fraudulent after seeing the loan on her credit report. The defendant continued to report the loan to the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), but marked the account as disputed, and informed the plaintiff of measures she needed to take to have the item removed from her credit report, including instructions for filing an identity theft affidavit. After an attorney representing the plaintiff submitted a formal written dispute of the debt, the defendant responded with the required verification and continued reporting the debt until the account was recalled by the lender. At this point the loan record was deleted and the defendant stopped reporting the loan account to the CRAs. The plaintiff filed suit alleging the defendant violated FDCPA Sections 1692e and 1692f and various state laws by continuing to report the debt after it was notified of the potential fraud. The court disagreed, stating, “there was nothing about [the defendant’s] statements that would confuse or mislead even the least sophisticated debtor’s attempt to remove the fraudulent account from their credit report,” the court wrote, adding that none of the defendant’s communications were false, deceptive, or misleading, nor did they undermine the plaintiff’s “ability to intelligently choose her action concerning the loan account.”
11th Circuit: Outsourcing debt collection letters can violate FDCPA
On April 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that transmitting a consumer’s private data to a commercial mail vendor to generate debt collection letters violates Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA because it is considered transmitting a consumer’s private data “in connection with the collection of any debt.” According to the opinion, the plaintiff’s medical debt was assigned to the defendant debt collector, who, in turn, hired a mail vendor to produce a dunning letter in the course of collecting the outstanding debt. In order to produce the letter, information about the plaintiff was allegedly electronically transmitted from the defendant to the mail vendor, including his status as a debtor, the exact balance of the debt, its origin, and other personal information. The plaintiff filed suit, claiming the disclosure of the information to the mail vendor violated the FDCPA’s third-party disclosure provisions, which the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit reviewed whether a violation of § 1692c(b) gives rise to a concrete injury under Article III, and whether the defendant’s communication with the mail vendor was “in connection with the collection of any debt.” In reversing the district court’s ruling, the appellate court determined that communicating debt-related personal information with the third-party mail vendor is a concrete injury under Article III. Even though the plaintiff did not allege a tangible injury, the appellate court held, in a matter of first impression, that under the circumstances, the plaintiff alleged a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” within the meaning of § 1692c(b). In choosing this interpretation over the defendant’s “‘industry practice argument,’” in which the defendant referred to the widespread use of mail vendors and the relative lack of FDCPA suits brought against debt collectors who use these vendors, the 11th Circuit recognized that its interpretation of the statute may require debt collectors to in-source many of the services previously outsourced to third-parties at a potentially great cost. “We recognize, as well, that those costs may not purchase much in the way of ‘real’ consumer privacy, as we doubt that the [mail vendors] of the world routinely read, care about, or abuse the information that debt collectors transmit to them,” the appellate court wrote, adding, “Even so, our obligation is to interpret the law as written, whether or not we think the resulting consequences are particularly sensible or desirable.”
Massachusetts bankruptcy court: No recoupment absent proof of emotional distress
On April 12, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts entered judgment in favor of a national bank, determining that the plaintiff failed to, among other things, “carry his burden to prove that he incurred injury” concerning economic or emotional distress damages as a result of the original lender’s violations. During the plaintiff’s chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding, he initiated an adversary proceeding against the bank and a loan servicer for violations of Massachusetts law related to the origination, underwriting, and closing of his mortgage loan. According to the memorandum, the plaintiff contended he was approved for a loan modification after he struggled to stay current on his loan. While the loan modification did not forgive any of the plaintiff’s outstanding debt, the plaintiff agreed to the terms, entered into a modification agreement with the bank (who was the successor by assignment of the original lender), and eventually filed a chapter 13 petition. The bankruptcy court was ultimately called to review the plaintiff’s objection to the bank’s proof of claim filed in his chapter 13 case, in which the plaintiff invoked the doctrine of recoupment, bringing a claim against the bank for damages under Chapter 93A of Massachusetts’ consumer protection law.
Upon review, the court determined, among other things, that the plaintiff’s loan was “presumptively unfair and also unfair in the specific circumstances in which it was made” and that “[n]o reasonably diligent lender would have approved the loan to [the plaintiff] without taking steps to independently verify critical financial information.” Moreover, the court determined that the original lender’s conduct was “unfair and deceptive” under Chapter 93A. The court further noted that Massachusetts law states that while “an assignee ordinarily cannot be held liable for damages based upon the acts of its assignor,” under “the common law principle that an assignee stands in the assignor’s shoes, ‘assignees may be liable under [Chapter] 93A for equitable remedies such as cancellation of a debt or rescission of a contract’”—a context under which the plaintiff sought to have the bank’s claim “reduced by recoupment in the amount of his damages caused by [the original lender’s] unfair and deceptive acts.” However, the court noted that because the borrower failed to “carry his burden to prove that he incurred injury as a result of [the original lender’s] violation,” he “failed to prove an amount for recoupment in reduction” of the proof of claim the bank asserted against him.
Court denies lender’s bid to arbitrate DACA suit
On April 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a matter alleging a lender denied plaintiffs’ applications based on their immigration status. The plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the defendants, alleging the lender denied their loan applications based on one of the plaintiff’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status and the other plaintiff’s status as a conditional permanent resident. The plaintiffs claimed that these practices constituted unlawful discrimination and “alienage discrimination” in violation of federal law and California state law. The plaintiffs also alleged that the lender violated the FCRA by accessing one of their credit reports without a permissible purpose. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the claims.
With respect to the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, the lender claimed that the DACA plaintiff “expressly consented to arbitration” when he was required to check a box labeled “I agree” in order to proceed with his online student loan refinancing application back in 2016. However, the DACA plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement “lacked adequate consideration” because he was ineligible for a loan as a DACA applicant, and that even if it were a valid agreement, it only applied to his 2016 application and not to his subsequent attempts to refinance his student loans. In denying the lender’s motion to compel arbitration, the court concluded that the DACA plaintiff did not claim that he was seeking to reopen or have the lender reconsider his 2016 application, but rather he asserted that these were “standalone attempted transactions,” and as such, did not fall within the scope of the 2016 arbitration agreement.
In reviewing whether the lender’s policies constitute alienage discrimination, the court determined, among other things, that while the lender “asserts that it does not discriminate against non-citizens because some non-citizens—namely [lawful permanent residents] and some visa-holders—are still eligible to contract for credit with [the lender],” the distinction “is not supported by the language of the statute,” noting that under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, protections “extend to ‘all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Additionally, the court ruled that the second class of conditional permanent residents whose credit reports were pulled by the lender and allegedly experienced a decrease in their credit scores—despite plaintiffs claiming the lender’s policy states that permanent residents are ineligible for loans if their green cards are valid for two years or less—may proceed with their FCRA claims.
3rd Circuit says collector itemizing zero-balance interest and fees did not mislead
On April 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FDCPA action, concluding that itemized breakdowns in collection letters that include zero balances for interest and other fees would not confuse or mislead the reasonable “unsophisticated consumer” to believe that future interest or other charges would be incurred if the debt is not settled. The defendant management company sent a letter to the plaintiff claiming he owed amount $1,088.34 and offered to “resolve this debt in full” with a payment of $761.84. The plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant alleging that by itemizing interest and collection fees for his “static debt,” and by assigning “$0.00” interest, the letter falsely implied—in violation of § 1692e and § 1692f of the FDCPA—that “interest and fees could accrue and thereby increase the amount of his debt over time.” The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, declining “to require assurances by debt collectors that itemized amounts ‘will not change in the future,’ reasoning that doing so would lead to ‘complex and verbose debt collection letters’ that would confuse consumers.”
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the district court. Specifically, the appellate court concluded that the “complaint fails to state a claim, whether our court’s ‘least sophisticated debtor’ standard is functionally the same as the ‘unsophisticated debtor’ standard applied by other Circuits or is instead an independent and less demanding framework.” Moreover, the appellate court noted even the least sophisticated debtor understands that “collection letters—as reflected by their fonts, formatting, content, and fields—often derive from templates and may contain information not relevant to his or her particular situation.” According to the 3rd Circuit, “FDCPA case law does not support attributing to the least sophisticated debtor simultaneous naïveté and heightened discernment. Were we for some reason constrained to consider only the law of Circuits that employ the word “least” in their FDCPA standards, we would still affirm.”
2nd Circuit: Credit report showing “satisfied” judgment was not misleading
On April 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a credit reporting agency’s (CRA) report that a judgment was “satisfied” was accurate and not misleading under the FCRA. According to the opinion, a debt collection action was brought and default judgment entered against the plaintiff. The parties ultimately filed a joint stipulation to resolve the action and discontinue all claims with prejudice. Afterwards, the CRA’s report showed the default judgment, but was later amended to read “judgment satisfied”—a statement that the plaintiff allegedly repeatedly disputed. The plaintiff ultimately filed a lawsuit against the CRA, alleging the agency “willfully and/or negligently violated various FCRA provisions by persisting in publishing [the] report and failing to follow certain of the FCRA’s procedural notice requirements.” Among other things, the plaintiff claimed that the CRA also violated the FCRA’s source-disclosure and reinvestigation provisions and should have disclosed that the information about the judgment came from a contractor-intermediary working for the CRA. The district court dismissed one of the FCRA claims and granted summary judgment to the CRA on the remaining FCRA claims.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit agreed with the district court, concluding first that there was no FCRA reporting violation because the description of the judgment as “satisfied” was accurate. Moreover, the appellate court wrote, even if the CRA should have disclosed that the contractor was the source, the plaintiff “failed to present any evidentiary basis for concluding that he suffered actual damages” resulting from the CRA’s failure to not disclose or treat the contractor as a source or furnisher of the information about the judgment. The 2nd Circuit further rejected the plaintiff’s claims against the CRA for willful violations of sections 1681g and 1681i, concluding that the sections “can be reasonably interpreted not to require such a disclosure and no more need be shown.”
Massachusetts Appeals Court: Plaintiffs’ counterclaim under PHLPA filed after foreclosure sale is untimely
On April 7, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that plaintiffs could not assert a violation of the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act (PHLPA) in connection with a foreclosure proceeding. In 2005, the plaintiffs obtained a loan to purchase a home but later defaulted on their mortgage. In 2016, the defendant loan servicer began foreclosure proceedings, and sent plaintiffs a right to cure letter followed by an acceleration notice more than 90 days later. Approximately a year later, the servicer sent the plaintiffs a notice of the foreclosure sale, purchased the property, and ultimately filed a summary process eviction action and motion for summary judgment, which the state housing court granted. The plaintiffs then filed a counterclaim alleging the servicer violated PHLPA § 15(b)(2). The servicer maintained, however, that it is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law because more than five years had passed between the time the [plaintiffs] closed on the loan and the time they brought their counterclaim for violation of the PHLPA,” and that, as such, “the five-year statute of limitations in § 15(b)(1) bars their counterclaim.”
On appeal, the Appeals Court majority determined that while the five-year statute of limitations under § 15(b)(1) did not apply to the borrowers’ counterclaim, § 15(b)(2)—under which the plaintiffs brought their counterclaim—“provides that a borrower may employ a defense, claim, or counterclaim ‘during the term of a high-cost home mortgage loan.’” However, because a foreclosure sale following acceleration of a note and mortgage “concludes the term of a mortgage loan,” the Appeals Court deemed the plaintiffs’ counterclaim was untimely.
Court signals approval of tribal lending settlement
On April 7, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia preliminarily approved a revised class action settlement concerning allegations that an operation used tribal sovereign immunity to evade state usury laws when charging unlawful interest on loans. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the operation alleging, among other things, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, EFTA, and TILA. The preliminarily-approved revised settlement would cancel approximately 71,000 class member loans, including a group of loans sold by the operation to another investor. It would also require the operation to pay $86 million, including an additional $21 million payment from the individual defendant, and cap attorneys’ fees for class counsel at $15 million. The operation would also be required to comply with several non-monetary provisions, including (i) requesting that negative credit reporting information concerning the loans be deleted; and (ii) ensuring that key loan terms, including interest rates and payment schedules to borrowers, are disclosed in loan agreements in compliance with federal law.
2nd Circuit: Banking a known terrorist organization does not, by itself, establish Antiterrorism Act liability
On April 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgments (see here and here) dismissing amended complaints filed in two actions seeking to hold a U.K. bank and a French bank, respectively, liable under the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (ATA) for allegedly “providing banking services to a charitable organization with alleged ties to Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) alleged to have committed a series of terrorist attacks in Israel in 2001-2004.” The complaints alleged that the U.K. bank and the French bank knowingly provided banking services, including sending millions of dollars in wire transfers, to organizations previously designated by the U.S. as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. The district court referred to the 2nd Circuit’s decision in Linde v. Arab Bank PLC, in which the appellate court held that “a bank’s provision of material support to a known terrorist organization is not, by itself, sufficient to establish the bank’s liability under the ATA,” and that “in order to satisfy the ATA’s requirements for civil liability as a principal,” the bank’s act must “also involve violence or endanger human life.” Moreover, the Linde opinion held, among other things, that a bank’s act must be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population or influence or affect a government, and that the bank “ must have been ‘generally aware of [its] role as part of an overall illegal or tortious activity at the time’” the assistance was provided.
The plaintiffs argued in a consolidated appeal that the district court misapplied the Linde holding and erred in concluding that the evidence presented was “insufficient to permit an inference that the bank was generally aware that it was playing a role in terrorism.” The banks countered that if the appellate court reversed the judgments, the claims should be thrown out for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the 2nd Circuit agreed with the district court’s dismissal of claims “on the ground that plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence that the bank itself committed an act of international terrorism within the meaning of §§ 2333(a) and 2331(1)” of the ATA. The opinion noted, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ experts said the charities to which the banks transferred funds as instructed by one of the organizations actually performed charitable work and that there was no indication that they funded terrorist attacks. As such, the banks’ conditional cross-appeal was dismissed as moot.
11th Circuit: Class members must arbitrate overdraft suits
On April 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a district court’s ruling compelling individual arbitration in five separate putative class action suits concerning allegations that a national bank’s overdraft practices violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The opinion does not address plaintiffs’ claims concerning the bank’s alleged overdraft practices, but rather reviews the enforceability of arbitration clauses contained in account agreements between plaintiffs and the bank (or its predecessor), which require individual, non-class arbitration of consumer account-related disputes. The plaintiffs appealed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that the account agreements “delegate[] to the arbitrator all questions of arbitrability, including Plaintiffs’ challenge to the enforceability of the arbitration clause,” and that it is up to the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether the parties are required to arbitrate. According to the plaintiffs, the arbitration clause is illusory and/or unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. They challenged, among other things, that “the incorporation of the [American Arbitration Association] (AAA) rules cannot overcome the plain language of the delegation clause,” which the plaintiffs argued limited delegation of gateway issues to those related to a disagreement about the meaning of the arbitration agreement or whether a disagreement is a “dispute” subject to binding arbitration.”
The appellate court disagreed, concluding that nothing in the account agreement with the bank “explicitly excludes or contradicts” anything included in the AAA rules, and that it has repeatedly held that an agreement that incorporates “AAA rules with language providing that ‘the arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction,’” shows “a clear and unmistakable intent that the arbitrator should decide all questions of arbitrability.” Moreover, the 11th Circuit found no inconsistency in the account agreement’s language, holding that when “[r]ead together, we view the incorporation and delegation clause as ‘mutually reinforcing methods of delegation.’” With respect to the predecessor bank’s agreement, which does not contain a delegation provision, the appellate court ultimately determined that the arbitration clause was neither illusory and/or unconscionable.