InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court grants $12 million final judgment but denies prejudgment interest in RICO class action
On June 18, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final judgment against a large for-profit educational institution that has since gone bankrupt. According to the 2020 complaint, plaintiffs were left with debt for what they claimed to be a worthless education. After the school’s bankruptcy in 2016, plaintiffs alleged that they continue to be victimized by defendants’ student loan operation. Plaintiffs filed the motion following a jury trial where defendants were found liable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The jury awarded plaintiffs $4 million in compensatory damages, which was trebled to $12 million under the RICO statute.
In addition to the judgment, plaintiffs applied for an additional $4 million in prejudgment interest. In denying the application for prejudgment interest, the court declined to award the discretionary interest based on allegations that defendants “repeatedly attempted to pick off the class representatives for the very purpose of eliminating this action, or at the very least, delaying it.” The court recognized that defendants’ tactics may have delayed the litigation but did not find them to be unreasonable or unfair to a degree that would warrant prejudgment interest, noting that the plaintiffs’ own post-trial motions contributed to the delay in judgment.
The court entered final judgment against the defendants in the amount of $12 million, with attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined later.
CFPB bans two companies for reverse mortgage servicing violations
On June 18, the CFPB issued an order against two reverse mortgage servicing companies (along with certain affiliates and subsidiaries), after determining that the companies misrepresented loan defaults and failed to respond appropriately to borrower communications to effectively service their reverse mortgages, leading to unnecessary costs and foreclosure fears for borrowers. Specifically, the CFPB alleged the companies failed to respond to borrower communications – including requests for information and payoff statements – in violation of RESPA. The companies also sent false repayment letters to older adult homeowners stating that their reverse mortgage loans were due and must be paid within 30 days due to a default, when no such trigger event had occurred. Further, the companies allegedly had inadequate resources and staffing to handle as many as 150,000 borrowers, leading to systematic regulatory failures.
Both companies were ordered to permanently cease reverse mortgage servicing activities and pay a civil money penalty (although for one company, the civil money penalty was $1 due to an inability to pay). The other company was ordered to pay over $11 million in consumer redress and $5 million in civil money penalties.
California enacts new consumer protections on disclosures and marketing
On June 14, the Governor of California approved SB 1096 (the “Act”) to amend the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and regulate mailed solicitations about consumer financial products. Subject to certain exceptions, the amendment will require covered persons to include a disclosure statement in enlarged, bold type on the front of any envelope containing a solicitation for a consumer financial product or service that would be sent by physical mail. The bolded disclosure must state clearly that the content would be an advertisement and that the recipient will “not [be] required to make any payment or take any other action in response to this offer.”
The Act also specified unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including, among other things, misrepresenting the terms of a transaction, inserting unconscionable provisions in contracts, and advertising prices for goods or services that do not include all mandatory fees or charges, subject to certain exceptions. It also will prohibit deceptive representations using geographic origin designations or making false claims about a product’s sponsorship or benefits. The legislation will extend to mortgage brokers and lenders and prohibit them from using a home improvement contractor to negotiate the terms of a loan secured by the home that would be used to finance a home improvement contract or any portion of such a contract. Additionally, the bill will address issues related to advertising and promoting events concerning veterans’ benefits. If it were to be the case, the Act will mandate that any such promotion disclose that the event was not sponsored by or affiliated with the VA, the California Department of Veterans Affairs, or any other congressionally-chartered or recognized organization for veterans, or any of their auxiliaries. The Act will go into effect on January 1, 2025.
CFPB reports negative equity findings from the Auto Finance Data Pilot
On June 17, the CFPB published the first report in a series that will analyze detailed information from nine major auto lenders – including banks, finance companies, and captive lenders – following the launch of its Auto Finance Data Pilot. The initiative aimed to monitor the market to better understand loan attributes that may result in increased consumer distress.
This report analyzed financing of negative equity, “where the trade-in value offered for a consumer’s vehicle is less than the outstanding loan balance and the unpaid balance is rolled into the new loan.” According to the CFPB’s report, between 2018 and 2022, 11.6 percent of all vehicle loans in the dataset collected by the CFPB from industry participants included negative equity, ranging from about 8 percent of such loans in 2022, to about 17 percent in 2020. Among other findings, the report also highlighted that when compared to consumers who had a positive trade-in balance, consumers who financed negative equity: (i) financed larger loans; (ii) had lower credit scores and household income; (iii) had longer loan terms; and (iv) were more than twice as likely to have their account assigned to repossession within two years. The Bureau concluded that a higher proportion of consumers buying less expensive vehicles tended to finance negative equity into their auto loans compared with those purchasing more expensive vehicles. The CFPB said data from the pilot suggested that financing negative equity can result in unfavorable outcomes for consumers, with both the occurrence and the amount of negative equity financed increasing through 2023.
Nebraska notifies entities of background check and notification requirement changes
On June 17, the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance issued a letter identifying two updates to Nebraska’s consumer financial services licensing laws that apply to entities with either the Nebraska Delayed Deposit Services License, the Nebraska Installment Loan License, the Nebraska Installment Sales License, the Nebraska Money Transmitter License, or the Nebraska Mortgage Banker License. The first change will require consumer financial licensees to utilize NMLS-based background checks to ensure greater uniformity for all consumer financial services licensees. Second, the state will now require a licensed company to notify the state’s Department within three business days of becoming aware that a data breach involving Nebraska residents had occurred. As previously covered by InfoBytes, these changes were included in Nebraska LB 1074 – a 2024 bill that established new consumer data privacy laws. The changes described in the letter will become effective on July 19.
California appellate court upholds ruling on debt collection practices
Recently, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District upheld a ruling against a defendant and its related entities. Plaintiff had filed a class action lawsuit against the defendants, alleging that they had violated the FDCPA and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in their debt collection practices related to homeowners’ associate (HOA) assessments.
The case was removed from federal to state court after the parties agreed on the move. Plaintiff was permitted to amend her complaint to include allegations against the law firm representing the debt collector and its associates, asserting they were “alter egos” of the debt collector. The state court agreed to bifurcate the claims and first addressed the UCL claim. The court found in favor of plaintiff, ruling that defendant had violated the FDCPA (a prerequisite to finding liability under the UCL) and that the law firm was jointly and severally liable for restitution and attorney fees for class counsel.
On appeal, defendants contended first that the trial court incorrectly upheld the federal court's decision that a waiver of California Civil Code section 5655(a), which required the application of payments be first applied to assessments owed, was invalid. This waiver was included as part of the payment plan that plaintiff agreed to, but the federal court determined it was void as a matter of public policy. Second, the defendants argued that the court was incorrect that defendants breached the FDCPA by issuing pre-lien notices and letters before issuing a notice of default. Finally, the defendants challenged the trial court's decision to approve plaintiff’s request to split the trial and prioritize a non-jury trial on her claim under the UCL.
In denying defendants’ claims, the appellate court agreed that the section 5655(a) waiver was invalid because it contradicted public policy intended to protect homeowners. Additionally, the court doubted whether the collection agency’s pre-lien letter could reasonably be characterized as threatening foreclosure and agreed with the trial court that “the least sophisticated debtor would reasonably understand this language in [defendant’s] pre-[notice of default] letter as threatening foreclosure in violation of section 5720.” Finally, regarding the decision to bifurcate plaintiff’s claims, the court decided that defendant did not sufficiently demonstrate that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate.
Colorado tightens regulations related to debt settlement and collection practices
On June 6, the Governor of Colorado signed into law HB 1380 (the “Act”) which revised the state’s consumer protection laws related to debt collection, credit services organizations, and debt management service providers. Key provisions of the law included:
- Debt collectors must now include their name and the original creditor’s name in legal actions against consumers and possess full authority to settle the debt.
- Credit services organizations will be required to provide the state administrator with essential business information (including name and address) and pay an annual notification fee.
- The state administrator can issue cease-and-desist orders and impose penalties of up to $1,500 per violation of the Code.
- Debt-management service providers cannot provide their services to consumers unless they have prepared a debt management plan for the individual that, among other things, lists all the creditors that the service provider expects to participate, and not to participate, in the plan, as well as those that it expects to participate but will not grant concessions to the consumer.
- Providing the state administrator the ability to adopt rules regarding debt settlement service fees by March 1, 2025, provided the rules do not “unduly limit consumer access to debt management services programs based on available state and national data.”
The Act’s amendments will go into effect 91 days following final adjournment of the General Assembly, subject to approval by Colorado voters if a referendum would be filed.
District Court denies class certification in lending discrimination suit
On May 30, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered an opinion denying class certification in a suit accusing a credit union (defendant) of lending discrimination. Each plaintiff applied to defendant for at least one home loan product, including first-lien mortgages, VA-backed loans, and refinancings. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that defendant’s mortgage underwriting policies violated the Fair Housing Act (the FHA) and the ECOA because they have had a “disparate impact on minority loan applicants” and defendant’s “refusal to correct those discrepancies constitutes intentional discrimination.” Plaintiffs based their claims on three independent reports analyzing publicly-available HMDA data from 2019-2022.
The court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a disparate treatment claim under the FHA, the ECOA, section 1981, and state law. Among other things, the court found that plaintiffs failed to address defendant’s argument that the data relied on in the reports lacked important metrics relating to credit scores and debt-to-income ratios. The court reasoned that plaintiffs’ sole reliance on reports analyzing defendant’s HMDA data – absent other allegations of evidence of discriminatory intent – did not make out a plausible claim of intentional discrimination. Moreover, the court found defendant’s argument persuasive that some of the plaintiffs attained loans elsewhere at higher interest rates than the loans originally sought from defendant, which suggested that plaintiffs were unqualified for the lower-interest rate loans for which they originally applied.
The court did, however, find that the complaint sufficiently pled a claim for disparate impact under the FHA and the ECOA at the motion to dismiss stage because the statistical analyses cited in the complaint revealed a disparate impact among non-white loan applicants and the underwriting algorithm and process was alleged to have caused the disparity. However, the court cautioned that if plaintiffs later failed to link during discovery the described “secret” underwriting process to the precise disparities and adverse consequences experienced by plaintiffs, the court may revisit whether the claim can survive at summary judgment.
Finally, the court struck the class allegation because the circumstances of plaintiffs’ loan application processes are too varied. Even though the proposed class was denied, plaintiffs may proceed on their FHA and ECOA disparate impact claims.
VA announces its targeted foreclosure moratorium on VA loans
On May 29, the VA announced a targeted foreclosure moratorium on VA-guaranteed loans, which will give servicers time to implement the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) program. Servicers can implement the VASP program beginning May 31, and the VA expects servicers to fully implement VASP no later than October 1.
According to the circular, which went into effect immediately, the VA is urging servicers to put in place a targeted foreclosure moratorium for VA-guaranteed loans through December 31. During this period, servicers should refrain from initiating, advancing or completing the foreclosure process unless an exception applies. Exceptions include when a property is vacant or abandoned, a borrower has clearly expressed no interest in maintaining homeownership or preventing foreclosure, no mortgage payment has been received for at least 210 days and the borrower is nonresponsive, or after determining no possible home retention option, including VASP, is feasible for the borrower. Additionally, during the targeted moratorium, servicers will be expected to continue loss mitigation efforts for delinquent loans and offer workable solutions to borrowers, as detailed in the VA Servicer Handbook. Servicers are also encouraged to avoid negative credit reporting on affected loans. For borrowers affected by Covid-19, servicers should offer loan deferments, disaster extend modifications, and Covid-19 refund modifications until they implement VASP or through September 30, whichever is sooner.
CFPB says SCRA-related complaints are increasing
On May 23, the CFPB published a blog post reporting that complaints from servicemembers, veterans, and their families significantly increased, with the total number of complaints surpassing 400,000 since the CFPB began cataloging complaints. The Bureau noted a 27 percent rise in complaints from 2022 and a 98 percent increase compared to 2021, with servicemember complaints mostly alleging credit reporting errors, mortgage problems, and financial fraud and scams.
The CFPB’s blog post specifically focused on the application of interest rate protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), which among other protections permitted servicemembers to request a decrease to 6 percent in interest rates on loans they took out before active duty. However, after a review of the complaints, the Bureau found servicemembers who claimed to face challenges in obtaining interest rate reductions. The CFPB noted a significant number of otherwise eligible servicemembers did not receive SCRA benefits. The CFPB suggested possible solutions like automated interest rate reductions, which it argued have been successful for federal student loans. The CFPB also noted instances where the CFPB cannot directly resolve an issue, it would refer complaints to appropriate agencies, such as the DOJ, for potential SCRA violations. The CFPB has also coordinated with other agencies to address military community complaints, including identity theft and financial fraud.