InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Maryland extends restrictions on repossessions and residential foreclosures
On December 17, 2020, the governor of Maryland issued an executive order that further prohibits certain repossessions, suspends foreclosures of occupied residential property absent adherence to specific procedural protections, including those provided by the federal CARES Act. The foreclosure suspension is in effect until the “re-start date,” which is either (1) January 31, 2021, or (2) such later date as established by the commissioner of financial regulation, not to be more than 30 days after the state of emergency is terminated.
CFPB settles with auto loan company over deceptive sales practices
On November 20, the CFPB announced a settlement with a Florida-based nonbank and the nonbank’s founder (collectively, “defendants”), resolving allegations that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by making misleading statements in disclosures and advertisements for their auto loan payment accelerator program. According to the Bureau, the defendants’ program automatically deducts partial payments on a bi-weekly basis from consumers’ bank accounts and then forwards those payments every month to consumers’ lenders or servicers. As a result, enrolled consumers end up making the equivalent of 13 monthly payments each year instead of 12. While the program is marketed as an opportunity for consumers to save money, the Bureau claimed that the defendants misrepresented the amount consumers would save by not disclosing a $399 enrollment fee in the savings calculations presented to consumers. Due to the enrollment fee, the program’s costs “ordinarily exceed[ed] any savings,” the Bureau alleged, noting that the defendants had no basis for claiming that thousands of consumers saved money by enrolling in the program.
The consent order requires the defendants to pay a $1 civil money penalty and $9.3 million in consumer redress, which is suspended upon payment of $900,000 based on the defendants’ demonstrated inability to pay the full judgment. The Bureau noted in its press release that harmed consumers may be eligible to receive additional relief from the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund. The defendants are also prohibited from making any deceptive misrepresentations about the payment program or any other payment accelerator programs.
Texas Office of Consumer Credit updates guidance urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with borrowers
On November 16, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner updated its advisory bulletin urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with consumers during the Covid-19 crisis (previously covered here, here, here, here, here, and here). Among other measures, the regulator urges licensees to increase consumer communication regarding the effects of Covid-19 for licensees, work out modifications for payment difficulties, and review policies for fees, late charges, delinquency practices, and repossessions. The guidance also: (i) reminds licensees of legal requirements for using electronic signatures and (ii) continues to permit licensees to conduct activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through December 31, 2020, unless withdrawn or revised.
Texas Office of Consumer Credit updates guidance urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with borrowers
On October 27, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner updated its advisory bulletin urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with consumers during the Covid-19 crisis (previously covered here, here, here, here, and here ). Among other measures, the regulator urges licensees to increase consumer communication regarding the effects of Covid-19 for licensees, work out modifications for payment difficulties, and review policies for fees, late charges, delinquency practices, and repossessions. The guidance also: (i) reminds licensees of legal requirements for using electronic signatures and (ii) continues to permit licensees to conduct activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through November 30, 2020, unless withdrawn or revised.
Maryland issues new executive order regarding foreclosures and repossessions
On October 16, 2020, the Maryland governor issued Executive Order 20-10-16-01 to amend and restate an April 3 executive order regarding foreclosures and repossessions (previously covered here). The executive order, among other things: (i) suspends requirements regarding the repossession of any chattel home by self-help until the state of emergency is terminated; (ii) suspends the sale of certain properties unless certain notices are provided, (iii) suspends the operation of the commissioner’s Notice of Intent to Foreclose Electronic System, and discontinues acceptance of Notices of Intent to Foreclose until January 4, 2021, and (iv) suspends any judgment for possession or repossession, or warrant for restitution of possession or repossession of residential, commercial, or industrial real property, if the tenant can demonstrate that he/she suffered a substantial loss of income resulting from Covid-19 or related events. Maryland’s commissioner of financial regulation issued a Foreclosure Update and Repossession Update outlining the executive order.
CFPB settles with auto lender on unfair LDW practices
On September 21, the CFPB announced a settlement with a California-based auto-loan servicer to resolve allegations that the company engaged in unfair practices with respect to its Loss Damage Waiver (LDW) product, in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The CFPB alleged that the company engaged in unfair practices by charging certain borrowers for LDW coverage, but then failed to provide the coverage. Specifically, the LDW agreement allowed the company to suspend coverage if borrowers became 10-days delinquent on their auto loans. The company, however, continued to charge borrowers LDW premiums even though coverage was no longer being provided. The Bureau also alleged that the company assessed LDW claim-related fees that were not disclosed in the LDW contract, which the borrowers were not contractually obligated to pay.
Under the terms of the consent order, the company is required to pay more than $1.3 million in consumer redress to approximately 4,000 impacted consumers, as well as a $100,000 civil money penalty. The order also prohibits the company from “failing to provide consumers with LDW coverage, collateral protection insurance, or similar products or services for which [the company] has charged consumers” or from “charging consumers fees that are not authorized by its LDW contracts.”
CFPB denies petition to set aside CID; cites authority to seek “reasonably relevant” information
On August 27, the CFPB denied a petition by an auto financing company to set aside a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by the Bureau in June. The CID requested information from the company to determine, among other things, “whether auto lenders or associated persons, in connection with originating auto loans (including marketing and selling products ancillary to such loans), servicing loans, collecting debts (including through repossessing vehicles), or consumer reporting” may have violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s UDAAP provisions, as well as the FCRA and TILA. The company petitioned the Bureau to set aside the CID. Among other things, the company argued that because certain aspects of the CID do not fall within a “reasonable construction of the CID’s notification of purpose,” and thus failed to provide fair notice as to what the Bureau is investigating, the CID should be “modified to strike each of these requests or clearly confine them to the enumerated topics.”
The Bureau rejected the company’s request to set aside or modify the CID, countering that (i) the particular requests that the company objects to are “all reasonably relevant to the Bureau’s inquiry as described in the notification of purpose,” and that the company cannot rewrite the CID’s notification of purpose to describe only four specific topics and then argue that the Bureau is asking for irrelevant information; and (ii) the Bureau has broad authority to seek information that may be “reasonably relevant” to an investigation, and that the Bureau’s “own appraisal of relevancy must be accepted so long as it is not obviously wrong.” According to the Bureau, the company failed to overcome this “high hurdle established in the judicial precedent.” However, the Bureau granted the company’s request for confidential treatment of its petition and attached exhibits by agreeing to redact certain proprietary business information and confidential supervisory information.
California DBO investigates auto title lender over out-of-state bank partnership
On September 3, the California Department of Business Oversight (CDBO) announced a formal investigation into a California auto title lender to determine whether the lender is evading state interest rate caps through a recent partnership with a Utah-based bank. The California Fair Access to Credit Act—enacted in 2019—caps annual simple interest rates on loans between $2,500 and $10,000 made by state-licensed lenders at around 36 percent (covered by InfoBytes here). The CDBO asserts that prior to the new interest rate caps taking effect, the auto title lender frequently made loans carrying interest rates in excess of 100 percent. Rather than reducing its interest rates to comply with the new law, the lender “stopped making state-licensed auto title loans in California,” and instead used “its existing lending operations and personnel” to market and service auto title loans purportedly made by the Utah-based bank. These loans, the CDBO claims, still carry interest rates greater than 90 percent, but because the Utah-based bank is not regulated or supervised by the CDBO it is not subject to the interest rate caps when lending in California. According to the CDBO, its investigation is intended to find out whether the auto title lender’s “role in the arrangement is so extensive as to require compliance with California’s lending laws” and if the arrangement is a “direct effort to evade the Fair Access to Credit Act,” which CDBO contends would be illegal.
FTC settles with auto dealers for falsifying consumer financial documents
On September 4, the FTC announced a settlement with group of auto dealers (defendants) with locations in Arizona and New Mexico near the Navajo Nation’s border, resolving allegations that the defendants advertised misleading discounts and incentives and falsely inflated consumers’ income and down payment information on certain financing applications. As previously covered by InfoBytes in August 2018, the FTC filed an action against the defendants alleging violations of the FTC Act, TILA, and the Consumer Leasing Act for submitting falsified consumer financing applications to make consumers appear more creditworthy, resulting in consumers—many of whom are members of the Navajo Nation—defaulting “at a higher rate than properly qualified buyers.”
The court-approved settlement requires the defendants to cease all business operations and includes a monetary judgment of over $7 million. Because the defendants are currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings, the settlement will make the FTC an unsecured claimant in the bankruptcy proceedings. The settlement also prohibits the bankruptcy trustee from using or selling the consumer information obtained from the defendants’ business activities as part of the bankruptcy liquidation.
Court allows certain auto loan claims to proceed
On September 1, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California determined that certain claims could proceed in a suit alleging a national bank failed to properly refund payments made pursuant to guaranteed asset protection (GAP) waiver agreements entered into in connection with auto loans. According to the plaintiffs’ suit, the bank knowingly collected unearned fees for GAP Waivers and “concealed its obligation to issue a refund on the GAP Waiver fees for the portion of the GAP Waiver’s initial coverage that was cut short by early payoff, and denied any obligation to return the unearned GAP fees.” The bank sought dismissal of the suit, arguing, among other things, that—with the exception of one consumer’s claims—all of the plaintiffs’ contracts include “a condition precedent under which the [p]laintiffs must first submit a written refund request for unearned GAP fees before being entitled to a refund,” which condition was not fulfilled.
The court dismissed breach of contract claims brought by eight of the 11 plaintiffs, noting that seven of these plaintiffs were not excused from complying with the condition precedent in their contracts with the bank, and had not pled sufficient facts to allege compliance; the court held that the eighth plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The court allowed the breach of contract claims filed by two plaintiffs whose contracts did not contain condition precedent language to proceed, and allowed the final plaintiff’s breach of contract claim to proceed because the bank did not move to dismiss such. The court kept the declaratory judgment requests intact for the three plaintiffs whose contract claims were allowed to proceed, but determined such plaintiffs could not assert standing under laws of states where they do not reside and did not receive an injury. Further, the court granted the bank’s request to dismiss TILA claims—noting that the statute does not apply to indirect auto lenders like the bank—and tossed claims brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The bank also asked the court to strike the six class action claims included in the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. However, the court denied the bank’s request to strike the plaintiffs’ nationwide class allegations calling it premature. “Deciding whether the alleged classes can be maintained is properly done on a motion for class certification because at that point ‘the parties have had an opportunity to conduct class discovery and develop a record,’” the court noted.