InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB addresses servicers’ obligations to respond to borrower inquiries
On April 4, the CFPB filed an amicus brief in a case on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning a mortgage loan servicer allegedly failing to answer multiple inquiries from two separate consumers regarding their loans despite the requirement under Regulation X that servicers respond when a borrower submits a request for information that “states the information the borrower is requesting with respect to the borrower’s mortgage loan.” The plaintiffs filed suit after the defendant servicer declined to provide the information requested, stating that it would not respond “because the issues raised are the same or very closely related to the issues raised” in pending litigation surrounding the mortgages.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, noting that under RESPA, “a mortgage loan servicer only has an obligation to provide a written response to a [qualified written request] that seeks ‘information relating to the servicing of such loan,’” and that the plaintiffs’ inquiries regarding the ownership of their loans and requesting other miscellaneous information did not “trigger[] [the defendant’s] obligations to respond under Regulation X” because a servicer has a ‘duty to respond’ only if a request for information ‘relates to the servicing of the loan.’”
In urging the appellate court to overturn the decision, the Bureau argued that under Section 1024.36 of Regulation X “servicers generally must respond to ‘any written request for information from a borrower’ that seeks ‘information ... with respect to the borrower’s mortgage loan.’” According to the Bureau, although a servicing-related request would fall under this provision, it is just one type of request that seeks information ‘with respect to’ a loan and thereby triggers a servicer’s obligation to respond” under the rules. The Bureau stated that Regulation X broadly requires servicers to respond to requests that seek information “with respect to” a borrower’s mortgage loan, explaining that it “included explicit language to that effect in the 2013 Rule to make clear that the rule created a unified set of requirements such that servicers’ obligations to respond were the same for a qualified written request as for any other information request,” and that it “did not exclude information requests that do not relate to servicing from the scope of § 1024.36.” The Bureau agreed with the plaintiffs that there is “no litigation exception to a servicer's obligation to respond to information requests under Regulation X.” The Bureau further noted in a blog post that,“[a] pending lawsuit does not take away a borrower’s right to a response from their loan servicer under Regulation X.”
FHFA suspends foreclosure for borrowers applying for HAF funds
On April 6, FHFA announced that servicers with mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to suspend foreclosure activities for up to 60 days if the servicer is notified that a borrower has applied for mortgage assistance under the Treasury Department’s Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the HAF was created to provide direct assistance for mortgage payments, property insurance, utilities, and other housing-related costs to help prevent delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures after January 21, 2020.
OFAC prohibits new investment in Russia and blocks Russia’s largest bank, executive order foreshadows more Russian export bans
On April 6, OFAC announced that President Biden issued a new E.O., Prohibiting New Investment in and Certain Services to the Russian Federation in Response to Continued Russian Federation Aggression, which bans “all new investment in the Russian Federation by U.S. persons, wherever located, as well as the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the U.S., or by a U.S. person, wherever located, of any category of services as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to any person located in the Russian Federation.” According to OFAC, the prohibitions come after recently issued E.O. 14066 and 14068 that prohibit certain imports and exports involving Russia, and are consistent with commitments made by the G7 leaders to ensure that their citizens are not underwriting Putin’s war.
OFAC also announced full blocking sanctions, pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14025, on Sberbank, Russia’s largest state-owned bank and Alfa-Bank, Russia’s largest private bank, in addition to targeting family members of President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minster Sergey Lavrov, as well as Russian Security Council members who are complicit in the war against Ukraine.
Earlier this week, OFAC also announced sanctions, in collaboration with the DOJ, FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, and Homeland Security Investigations, against the world’s largest and most prominent darknet market. According to OFAC, the designation was enhanced by international collaboration with the German Federal Criminal Police, who seized the designated entity’s servers in Germany and $25 million worth of bitcoin. Additionally, OFAC identified more than 100 virtual currency addresses connected to the entity’s operations that have been used to conduct illicit transactions. OFAC also noted that Treasury will publish an updated National Strategy to Combat Illicit Finance, which will highlight planned Treasury efforts to continue to combat the virtual currency misuse. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned entities in the U.S. are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” OFAC noted that U.S. persons are prohibited from participating in transactions with the sanctioned persons, which includes “the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services from any such person.”
Additionally, OFAC issued several Russia-related general licenses: (i) General License 8B authorizes certain “transactions related to energy” through June 24; (ii) General License 9B authorizes “transactions related to dealings in certain debt or equity”; (iii) General License 10B authorizes “certain transactions related to derivative contract”; (iv) General License 21 authorizes “the wind down of Sberbank CIB USA, Inc”; (v) General License 22 authorizes “the wind down of transactions involving public joint stock company Sberbank of Russia”; and (vi) General License 23 authorizes the wind down of transactions involving joint stock company Alfa-Bank.”
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on the U.S. sanctions response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine here.
District Court dismisses bank from class action on out-of-network ATM fees
On April 4, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a defendant bank’s motion for summary judgment and denied class certification in an action concerning out-of-network fees charged on purportedly invalid balance inquiries performed at out-of-network (OON) ATM machines. The defendant is a member of two cardholder networks, which permit account holders to access and use OON ATMs. In 2019, plaintiff account holders filed a lawsuit alleging the defendant violated several California state consumer protection laws and breached its deposit account agreements by systematically charging excessive fees. Plaintiffs further alleged the defendant assessed multiple fees if a consumer made a balance inquiry at the same time as a cash withdrawal. The defendant argued in its motion for summary judgment that the deposit agreement was unambiguous and that its assessment of the OON fees for balance inquiries is permitted under the agreement’s express terms. In agreeing with the defendant that no ambiguity existed in the language in the agreement regarding such fees, the court, among other things, also held that language in the agreement providing the defendant and ATM operators discretion to charge or waive fees for use of OON ATMs did not imply that the defendant relied on that contract term in bad faith. The court found that nothing about the use of the word “may” in the phrase “[w]e may also charge you a fee,” necessitates “the conclusion that the bank ‘abuses its power and takes advantage of contractual uncertainty by charging OON Fees when it knows, or should know, of the [alleged] systematic deception occurring at [OON] ATMs resulting in invalid balance inquiries.’”
In its motion, the defendant bank also maintained that the claims against it fail because the plaintiffs failed to follow express reporting and pre-dispute notification procedures outlined in their agreements, which require account holders to review their statements and notify the bank within 60 days of any problems or unauthorized transactions. The court declined to find that the pre-dispute procedures provided an alternative basis for summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that it was not clear that plaintiffs’ obligation to provide defendant with notice of unauthorized transactions covered disputed OON ATM fees. The court explained that such fees may not be apparent on the plaintiffs’ billing statements and that “the notice provisions seem to relate to major issues such as fraud and unauthorized or stolen checks” rather than problematic fees.
3rd Circuit confirms adversary proceeding required to discharge student debt in bankruptcy
On March 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of an FDCPA and FCRA case against a student loan servicer and three credit reporting companies for attempting to collect a loan debt after it had been discharged in bankruptcy. After the discharge and completion of his bankruptcy case, the plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendants violated the FDCPA and the FCRA by attempting to collect student loan debt that had been discharged. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because under Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code, student loan debt is presumptively non-dischargeable and the plaintiff had not filed an adversary proceeding to determine otherwise.
On appeal, the plaintiff “argued that he was not required to file an adversary proceeding in Bankruptcy Court to determine the dischargeability of his student loan debt,” and that the Bankruptcy Court’s determination that the plaintiff was indigent rebuts “the presumption that his debt was nondischargeable by satisfying the exception in §523(a)(8) for undue hardship.” However, the appellate court held that “a finding of indigence is not the same as an undue hardship determination under §538(a)(8)” and that while the Bankruptcy Code does not require an adversary proceeding to discharge student loan debt, the procedures established in the Bankruptcy Rules do include such a requirement by providing that adversary proceedings include “a proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a debt” and are commenced by serving a summons and complaint on affected creditors. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed dismissal.
FDIC announces Puerto Rico disaster relief
On April 5, the FDIC issued FIL-15-2022 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and facilitate recovery in areas of Puerto Rico affected by severe storms, flooding and landslides. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions and their customers affected by the weather and suggested that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things, (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans, so long as these measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC noted that institutions “may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC will also consider regulatory relief from certain filing and publishing requirements.
Chopra says credit reporting on medical debt needs review
On April 6, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressed cautious optimism about medical debt credit reporting changes during remarks to the CFPB’s Consumer Advisory Board. The Bureau has studied the burden of medical debt on consumers since the agency’s inception and has issued reports examining the impact of including data related to unpaid medical bills on credit reports. Chopra noted that a report released by the Bureau last month (covered by InfoBytes here) found that $88 billion of outstanding medical bills in collections affect one in every five consumers, with medical debt accounting for 58 percent of all uncollected debt tradelines reported to credit reporting agencies (CRAs). Shortly after the Bureau released the report, the three major CRAs announced they planned to eliminate nearly 70 percent of medical collection debt tradelines from consumer credit reports. As previously covered by InfoBytes, beginning July 1, paid medical collection debt will no longer be included on consumer credit reports issued by those three companies, and unpaid medical bills will only be reported if they remain unpaid for at least 12 months. Additionally, starting in 2023, medical collection debt under $500 will no longer be included on credit reports issued by these CRAs.
In response to the announcement from the CRAs, Chopra cautioned that “[i]mportant decisions about credit reporting should not be left up to three firms that arbitrarily decide how reporting will impact consumers’ access to credit.” While he acknowledged the importance of providing more time for providers and insurance companies to process claims before debts are reported, he stated that the announcement failed to “fundamentally address the concern that the credit reporting system can be used as a tool to coerce patients into paying bills they may not even owe.” Chopra presented three questions to the Consumer Advisory Board for consideration: (i) should unpaid medical bills be treated as a typical “debt”? (ii) if medical bills are not a good factor in predicting repayment on future loan obligations, should they be included in credit reports? and (iii) how should the inclusion of allegedly unpaid medical bills in credit reports be reviewed as part of the broader question of how data is used in consumer finance markets?
CFPB proposal would limit negative credit reporting on human trafficking victims
On April 7, the CFPB released a proposed rule and solicited comments on regulations implementing amendments to the FCRA intended to assist victims of trafficking. The proposed rule would establish a method for a trafficking victim to submit documentation to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) establishing that they are a survivor of trafficking, and would require CRAs to block adverse information in consumer reports after receiving such documentation. The proposed rules would amend Regulation V to implement changes to FCRA enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, also referred to as the “Debt Bondage Repair Act,” which was signed into law in December 2021. (Covered by InfoBytes here). Under the law, CRAs are prohibited “from providing consumer reports that contain any negative item of information about a survivor of trafficking from any period the survivor was being trafficked.” In announcing the proposal, the CFPB noted that “Congress required the CFPB to utilize its rulemaking authorities to implement the Debt Bondage Repair Act through rule changes to Regulation V, which ensures consumers’ credit information is fairly reported by CRAs.” According to the CFPB, the proposal “would protect survivors of human trafficking by preventing CRAs from including negative information resulting from abuse.” Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
President Biden extends moratorium on student loan payments
On April 6, President Biden extended the moratorium on collecting student loans until August 31, explaining that the extension “will assist borrowers in achieving greater financial security and support the Department of Education’s efforts to continue improving student loan programs.” The Department of Education released a statement noting that it will continue to assess the financial impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on student loan borrowers and assist them, which includes “allowing all borrowers with paused loans to receive a ‘fresh start’ on repayment by eliminating the impact of delinquency and default and allowing them to reenter repayment in good standing.” In response to the extension, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona stated that the Department of Education will continue "to ensure that all borrowers have access to repayment plans that meet their financial situations and needs.”
CFPB reports on extended payment plans for payday loans
On April 6, the CFPB released a report on consumer use of state payday loan extended payment plans, which is believed to be the first study to compare state extended payment plans and usage rates. The report examines state payday loan extended payment plans, an intervention which permits payday borrowers to repay their loan in no-cost installments. The report analyzed laws in states that authorize payday loans and determined that 16 of the 26 payday-authorizing jurisdictions address extended payment plans. According to the Bureau, the savings of a no-cost extended payment plan can be substantial when compared to the total charges associated with repeated rollover fees. A Bureau press release regarding the report highlighted findings from prior research that most payday loans were made to borrowers who use the rollover option so many times that the accrued fees were greater than the original principal.
Key findings of the report include, among other things:
- State payday loan extended payment plan laws typically address certain key provisions. Key provisions include, among other things, number of installments, plan length, allowable fees, frequency of use, consumer eligibility, and disclosures. While specific requirements vary by state, typical features include: disclosure of the right to elect an extended payment plan at the time consumers enter into a payday loan agreement, the requirement that an extended payment plan be repaid in several installments, and that there be no additional fees charged for an extended payment plan.
- Eligibility requirements for extended payment plans vary by state and likely impact usage rates. For example, in Washington, which has possibly the most borrower-friendly extended payment plan, the usage rate is 13.4 percent, whereas states with more restrictive requirements, such as Florida, which requires credit counseling to be eligible, may have usage rates under 1 percent.
- Despite the prevalence of state laws providing for no-cost extended payment plans, rollover and default rates consistently exceed extended payment plan usage rates. According to the report, monetary incentives encourage lenders to promote higher-cost rollovers, and collect the fees associated with such rollovers, at the expense of extended payment plans.