InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Massachusetts reaches settlement in unfair debt collection and mortgage servicing matter
On December 22, the Massachusetts attorney general announced a settlement with a South Carolina mortgage servicer to resolve claims that it allegedly failed to assist homeowners avoid foreclosure and engaged in unfair debt collection and mortgage servicing practices. According to an assurance of discontinuance filed in Suffolk Superior Court, the servicer allegedly violated the Massachusetts’ Act to Prevent Unlawful and Unnecessary Foreclosures, which requires servicers to make a good faith effort to help borrowers with certain unfair loan terms avoid foreclosure. Among other things, the servicer allegedly failed to (i) properly review borrowers’ income, debts, and obligations when assessing affordable loan modifications; (ii) provide borrowers with the results of these assessments; or (iii) provide borrowers with notice of their right to present a counteroffer after being offered a loan modification. The servicer also allegedly violated the state’s debt collection regulations by failing to timely issue compliant debt validation notices, and calling borrowers more than twice in a seven-day period. While denying the allegations, the servicer agreed to pay $975,000 to the state and will undertake significant business practice changes and provide ongoing reporting to the AG to ensure compliance.
FCC affirms three-call limit but permits oral consent
On December 21, the FCC issued an order on reconsideration and declaratory ruling under the TCPA, affirming a three-call limit and opt-out requirements for exempted residential calls. According to the FCC, the ruling is in response to requests from industry trade groups related to a 2020 order implementing portions of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act). The ruling upheld the three-call-limit for exempt calls made using automated telephone dialing systems to residential lines but revised the 2020 order’s requirement for “prior express written consent” to allow callers to obtain consent orally or in writing if they wish to make more calls than allowed. The FCC also granted a request to confirm that “prior express consent” for calls made by utility companies to wireless phones applies equally to residential landlines. The FCC noted that “limiting the number of calls that can be made to a particular residential line to three artificial or prerecorded voice calls within any consecutive thirty-day period strikes the appropriate balance between these callers reaching consumers with valuable information and reducing the number of unexpected and unwanted calls consumers currently receive.”
CFPB reports on consumers’ financial well-being
On December 21, the CFPB released a report discussing the results of its Making Ends Meet survey conducted from January through March 2022, which examined the financial health of U.S. households. Using the results from the survey as well as credit bureau data, the Bureau found that the average financial well-being of U.S. consumers returned to its pre-pandemic level, with increases in income variability and use of high-cost credit products, after a substantial drop in 2021, notwithstanding sharp decreases in average credit debt that generally remained through September 2022. The report also determined that approximately one-third of consumers experienced a “major” medical or dental expense in the preceding year, while similar numbers experienced a major vehicle repair or replacement, a major house or appliance repair, or a cell phone or computer repair or replacement. Additionally, a significant number of consumers experienced reductions in income most often due to unemployment or a drop in hours. The report cautioned that “should an increase in unemployment occur, many households are unprepared for even a relatively brief period of low income.”
Fannie, Freddie announce LIBOR transition plans
On December 22, GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced replacement indices based on the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) for their legacy LIBOR indexed loans and securities (see here and here). The announcement follows the Federal Reserve Board’s final rule setting forth recommended replacement rates for financial contracts based on LIBOR (covered by InfoBytes here). For single-family mortgage loans and related mortgage-backed securities, the GSEs selected the relevant tenor of CME Term SOFR plus the applicable tenor spread adjustment, as published and provided by Refinitiv Limited (also known as “USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks” for “Consumer” products). The transition to the replacement indices will occur the day after June 30, 2023, which is the last date on which the Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. Benchmark Administration Limited will publish a representative rate for all remaining tenors of U.S. dollar LIBOR. The GSEs also published replacement indices for multifamily mortgage loans and related mortgage-backed securities, single family and multifamily collateralized mortgage obligations and credit risk transfer securities, and derivatives.
Washington issues work from home regulations
Recently, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions adopted regulations implementing amendments to the Consumer Loan Act and the Mortgage Broker Practices Act. The amendments, among other things, allow licensed companies, subject to enumerated conditions, to permit licensed mortgage loan originators to work from their residence without licensing the residence as a branch. The amended regulations also clarify that a licensed loan originator may originate loans from any licensed location or their residence, whether located in Washington or not, so long as the mortgage loan originator’s sponsoring company is licensed to do business in Washington. The amendments are effective January 1, 2023.
CFPB, FTC say furnishers’ investigative duties extend to legal disputes
On December 16, the CFPB and FTC filed an amicus brief in a case on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concerning two related FCRA cases in support of plaintiffs-appellants and reversal of their suits involving a defendant hotel chain’s summary judgments. Both cases involve the same defendant company. In one case, the plaintiff entered into a timeshare agreement with the defendant for a property and made monthly payments for approximately three years. When the plaintiff stopped making payments, the plaintiff mailed the defendant letters that disputed the validity of, and purported to rescind, the agreement, while permitting the defendant to retain all prior payments as liquidated damages. The plaintiff obtained a copy of his credit report from a credit reporting agency (CRA), which stated that he had an open account with the defendant with a past-due balance. In three letters to the CRA, the plaintiff disputed the credit reporting. The letters stated that the plaintiff had terminated his agreement with the defendant and that he did not owe a balance. After the CRA communicated each dispute to the defendant, the defendant certified that the information for the defendant’s account was accurate. The plaintiff sued alleging the defendant violated the FCRA when it verified the accuracy of his credit report without conducting reasonable investigations following receipt of his indirect disputes. The defendant moved for summary judgment, alleging, among other things, that the plaintiff’s claim that he was not contractually obligated to make the payments to the defendant that are reported on his credit report as being due “is inherently a legal dispute and is not actionable under the FCRA.” The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiff appealed.
In the other case, the plaintiff entered into a timeshare agreement with the defendant. She made a down payment and the first three installment payments, but did not make any additional payments. The plaintiff sent letters to the defendant disputing the validity of, and attempted to cancel, the agreement. The defendant reported the plaintiff’s delinquency to the CRA. In three letters to the CRA, the plaintiff disputed the credit reporting. After the CRA communicated the disputes to the defendant, the defendant determined there was no inaccuracy in the reporting. The plaintiff sued alleging the defendant violated the FCRA when it verified the accuracy of her credit report without conducting reasonable investigations following receipt of her indirect disputes about credit reporting inaccuracies. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiff appealed.
The CFPB and FTC argued in favor of the plaintiffs-appellants. According to the agencies, furnishers’ duty under the FCRA to reasonably investigate applies not only to factual disputes, but also to disputes that can be labeled as legal in nature. The agencies made three arguments to support their contention. First, a reasonable investigation is required under the FCRA to comport with its goal to “protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them.” The agencies argued that reasonableness is case specific, but it can “be evaluated by how thoroughly the furnisher investigated the dispute (e.g., how well its conclusion is supported by the information it considered or reasonably could have considered).”
Second, the agencies argued that Congress did not intend to exclude disputes that involve legal questions. The FCRA describes the types of indirect disputes that furnishers need to investigate, which are “those that dispute ‘the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file.’” The agencies said nothing suggests that Congress intended to exclude information that is inaccurate on account of legal issues. Furthermore, the agencies noted that a lot of “inaccuracies in consumer reports could be characterized as legal, which would create an exception that would swallow the rule.” Consumer reports generally include information regarding an individual’s debt obligations, which are generally creatures of contract. Therefore, “many inaccurate representations pertaining to an individual’s debt obligations arguably could be characterized as legal inaccuracies, given that determining the truth or falsity of the representation could require the reading of a contract.”
Lastly, the agencies argued that an “atextual exception for legal inaccuracies would create a loophole that could swallow the reasonable investigation rule.” The agencies urged that “[g]iven the difficulty in distinguishing ‘legal’ from ‘factual’ disputes,” the court “should hold that there is no exemption in the FCRA’s reasonable investigation requirement for legal questions” because it would “curtail the reach of the FCRA’s investigation requirement in a way that runs counter to the purpose of the provision to require meaningful investigation to ensure accuracy on credit reports.”
Bank to pay $2 million in collection call suit
On December 14, a Superior Court of California granted a stipulated final judgment resolving claims that a national bank (defendant) violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RDCPA) and the FDCPA by making “harassing and annoying” debt collection calls to its customers. According to the stipulated final judgment, since at least March 2015, the defendant allegedly violated California and federal law by making phone calls with “unreasonably excessive frequency,” while also persisting in calling wrong numbers in attempts to collect on unpaid debts. The defendant, which did not admit any liability or wrongdoing, agreed to, among other things: (i) adopt or maintain policies and procedures to avoid such harassing calls; (ii) limit the number of calls it will make as part of its future debt collection efforts; and (iii) cease calling those who ask orally or in writing that they not be contacted. Under the terms of the stipulated final judgment, the defendant must pay $1.45 million in civil penalties, $300,000 in investigative costs, and $250,000 in restitution.
District Court vacates DOE order on student loan servicer’s $22 million repayment
On December 16, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Virginia vacated and remanded the Department of Education’s (DOE) decision that a student loan servicer (plaintiff) had improperly collected $22 million in student loan-related subsidies from 2002 to 2005. According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged that the DOE acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act when it determined that the plaintiff erroneously claimed over $22 million in student loan-related subsidies. The plaintiff contended that in claiming those subsidies, it reasonably relied on two 1993 “Dear Colleague Letters” (DCL) from the DOE authorizing it to collect subsidies for student loans funded in whole or in part by tax-exempt obligations. According to the plaintiff, the DOE issued a new DCL in 2007 which disavowed the guidance in the DOE’s two 1993 DCLs, but nonetheless stated that the DOE would not collect past erroneous subsidies if the plaintiff prospectively followed the DOE’s revised interpretation set forth in the 2007 DCL. Nevertheless, the DOE initiated administrative proceedings seeking over $22 million in past subsidies collected by the plaintiff pursuant to the 1993 DCLs. The DOE’s acting secretary ruled in January 2021 that the plaintiff erred when it claimed those subsidies and must pay it back.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the DOE’s decision in 2021 failed to consider its reliance on the previous policy statements in the 1993 and 2007 letters. However, the DOE argued it was “unreasonable” for the plaintiff to rely on the DCLs, saying that the loan company should have known that the 1993 letters contradicted the Higher Education Act. Siding with the plaintiff, the court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, which found that when an agency alters existing policy, it must assess “whether there were reliance interests, determine whether they were significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns.” The court further held that it is DOE's job to “weigh the strength of those reliance interests,” and it failed to do so.
NCUA proposal looks to promote CU-fintech partnerships
On December 15, the NCUA issued a proposed rule seeking input on amendments to the agency’s regulations on the purchase of loan participations and the purchase, sale, and pledge of eligible obligations and other loans, including notes of liquidating credit unions. Among other things, the proposed rule would remove certain prescriptive limitations and other qualifying requirements to provide federal credit unions with additional flexibility to purchase eligible obligations of their members and engage with advanced technologies and other opportunities presented by fintechs. Improved flexibility and individual autonomy will allow federal credit unions “to establish their own risk tolerance limits and governance policies for these activities, while codifying due diligence, risk assessment, compliance and other management processes that are consistent with the Board’s long-standing expectations for safe, sound, fair and affordable lending practices,” the NCUA said. Comments on the proposed rule are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
“As I have emphasized before, credit unions should recognize and harness the potential opportunities fintechs may offer them,” NCUA Chairman Todd Harper said. “However, we must also acknowledge the potential risks they pose to credit unions, their members, and the system and develop appropriate guardrails. This proposed rule strikes that balance. It provides flexibility, safety, and tailored relief to credit unions while fostering greater innovation.”
CFPB says remittance provider violated EFTA
On December 22, the CFPB announced a consent order against an international remittance company for multiple alleged violations of the requirements governing electronic money transfers. According to the Bureau, the company allegedly failed to comply with many requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, including failing to provide refunds to customers after the company made money transfer errors. The Bureau also alleged that the company violated the Remittance Rule by failing to develop and maintain required written policies and procedures for error resolution, and claimed the company violated Regulation E by failing to retain evidence demonstrating compliance with the Remittance Rule’s error-resolution requirements. Under the terms of the consent order, the company is required to provide consumer redress of approximately $30,000 to harmed customers and pay a $700,000 civil money penalty to the Bureau. The company is also required to update disclosure and key transfer information that is provided to customers, as well as its error-resolution policies and procedures.