InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Maine Passes Law to Notify Secretary of State About Abandoned Motor Vehicles
On June 21, LD 1251, “An Act Regarding Certain Abandoned Vehicles and Notice to the Secretary of State Regarding Those Vehicles” became law in Maine. The law applies to a vehicle left at a business after authorized repairs were made at the request of the vehicle owner, and to a vehicle left in storage when the vehicle owner has not paid the storage fee. The law requires the owner of a repair or storage facility or the owner’s agent to notify the Secretary of State within 14 days after the earliest date that the vehicle owner becomes responsible for unpaid repair or storage and towing fees. After notice is provided by the facility (or facility’s agent), the Secretary of State must notify the vehicle’s owner and lienholder that the vehicle is being claimed unless the charges against the vehicle are paid. If the Secretary of State is not notified within 14 days using the prescribed form, the owner of the auto repair business or storage facility cannot charge the vehicle owner more than 14 days of storage fees. The law will take effect 90 days following the adjournment of the legislative session.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Snapshot Focuses on State-Level Consumer Complaints
On June 27, the CFPB released its monthly complaint report, highlighting complaints from around the country. According to the Bureau, it has handled over 1.2 million complaints from 2011 through June 1 of this year. The report shows nationwide complaint statistics and statistics for service members and older consumers. In addition, the report breaks down statistics on the state level covering financial products and services, company responses to complaints, as well as number of complaints. The vast majority of consumers report high company response rates to complaints averaging in the high 90 percent range, although the volume of complaints is trending upward. The top five products receiving complaints across the country in descending order are: (i) debt collection; (ii) mortgages; (iii) credit reporting; (iv) credit cards; and (v) bank accounts or services.
Debt Collector Liable for Violating FDCPA and TCPA
On July 3, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed that a debt collector violated the Telephone Consumer Practices Act (TCPA) when it called a consumer’s cell phone without the consumer’s consent, resulting in a damages award of $34,500. Additionally, the appellate court reversed the district court’s decision regarding a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim for sending a collection letter to the consumer without taking proper precautions to ensure the consumer’s account number would remain private. The debt collector put forth the defense of bona fide error regarding its alleged violations of the FDCPA. The appellate court, citing Supreme Court precedent, rejected the defense, holding that bona fide error could be claimed only in the case of a clerical or factual error, but a “mistaken interpretation of the law is inexcusable under the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense.” The Third Circuit remanded the FDCPA claim to the district court to enter judgment for the consumer and calculate the damages the debt collector must pay.
Iowa Enacts Amendments to Consumer Credit Code
Two amendments to the Iowa Consumer Credit Code (ICCC) recently signed into law by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad will go into effect July 1. The ICCC applies to, among others, consumer credit transactions, retail installment sales, lending transactions, and motor vehicle financing.
Senate File 502, which relates to banks, credit unions, and specific consumer credit transactions, adds a new subsection 2A to the ICCC, which states a supervised loan made in violation of subsection 2 is void and “the consumer is not obligated to pay either the amount financed or the finance charge.” Additionally, “[i]f the consumer has paid any part of the amount financed or the finance charge, the consumer has the right to recover the payment from the [lender] . . . or from an assignee . . . who undertakes direct collection of payments or enforcement of rights arising from the debt.” Open-end loans have a statute of limitations of two years from the date of the violation, and closed-end loans have a statute of limitations of one year after the due date of the last scheduled payment. Other changes under Senate File 502 include a removal of the ban prohibiting returned check fees, an increase in the maximum late fee applied to transactions, and a clause that allows credit reporting charges to be excluded from finance charges.
Senate File 503, which concerns “the deferral of unpaid installments and deferral charges for certain interest-bearing consumer credit transactions,” contains the following changes, among others: (i) parties may agree in writing to the deferral of unpaid installments before or after default, and (ii) deferral charges are permitted on closed-end, interest-bearing transactions and limited to $30.
Maine Amends Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to Enact Debt Collection Requirements for Debt Buyers
On June 16, Maine Governor Paul LePage signed into law amendments (H.P. 836) to the state’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Maine FDCPA) to promote the fiscally responsible collection of purchased debts. Changes affect the definitions of charge-off, debt buyer and resolved debt, as well as licensing and documentation requirements, transferring debt ownership, collection actions, and civil penalties.
The law now considers a “debt buyer” to be a debt collector, and defines a debt buyer as a person “regularly engaged in the business of purchasing charged-off consumer debt for collection purposes, whether the person collects the debt or hires a [third] party, which many include an attorney-at-law, in order to collect the debt.” Notably, the definition excludes supervised financial organizations or a person that “acquires charged-off consumer debt incidental to the purchase of a portfolio predominantly consisting of consumer debt that has not been charged off.” Debt buyers must comply with existing licensing requirements and criminal background checks under the provisions of Maine FDCPA Section 11031.
The law will apply to a debt buyer with respect to debt sold to the debt buyer on or after January 1, 2018. Furthermore, it will not “affect the validity of any collection actions taken, civil actions or arbitration actions commenced or judgments entered into prior to January 1, 2018.”
Special Alert: Supreme Court Holds that a Person May Collect Defaulted Debts Purchased for Its Own Account Without Triggering the FDCPA
On June 12, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., affirming the Fourth Circuit’s holding that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s (“FDCPA” or the “Act”) definition of the term “debt collector” does not necessarily apply to a company collecting debts in default that it purchased for its own account.
The Henson Case
The FDCPA defines the term “debt collector” as those who regularly seek to collect debts “owed…another.” Like the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court reasoned that the FDCPA’s definition focuses attention on “third party collection agents working for a debt owner — not on a debt owner seeking to collect debts for itself” and thus, in the context of the facts presented, the purchaser of the debts at issue did not qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, visit our Debt Collection & Buying practice page for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Cordray Speaks at Consumer Advisory Board Meeting; Extends Comment Period for RFI on Small Business Lending Market
On June 8, CFPB Director Richard Cordray delivered prepared remarks at the Consumer Advisory Board Meeting in Washington, DC announcing, among other things, that the Bureau has extended the comment period of the “Request for Information Regarding the Small Business Lending Market” an additional 60-days. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the RFI—which was issued May 10—will provide feedback on various aspects of the small business lending market. Cordray noted the CFPB is “mindful of the potential complexity and cost of small business data collection and reporting” and that it plans to “explore ways to fulfill this duty in a balanced manner, seeking to provide timely data with the highest potential to meet the statutory objectives, while minimizing the burdens for both industry and the Bureau.” Allowing for more time to receive “quality responses from the public,” Cordray extended the comment period.
Additionally, Cordray discussed three other topics: (i) the Bureau’s emphasis on encouraging credit card market transparency to reduce consumer risk; (ii) updates to the Bureau’s continued “credit invisibility” research; and (iii) the need to formulate new rules governing the debt collection market.
Colorado Extends Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Through 2028
On June 1, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper enacted legislation (SB 17-216) executing recommendations from the Department of Regulatory Agencies’ 2016 Sunset Report, and extending the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Act) an additional 11 years through September 1, 2028. The Act was originally set to be repealed on July 1, 2017. Specifically, the legislation will implement the following points:
- defines a “debt buyer” as an individual who “engages in the business of purchasing delinquent or defaulted debt for collection purposes,” regardless of whether the debt is collected by the debt buyer, a third-party, or through litigation. The Act applies to debt buyers who purchase consumer debts sold or resold on or after January 1, 2018;
- states that debt collectors or collection agencies that bring legal actions on debts must follow outlined requirements;
- defines collection agency expectations for the purchase, sale or attempted collection of a purchased debt;
- sets the statute of limitations for public actions brought by the administrator of the Act to two years and sets the limit to one year for private actions;
- requires the administrator to prepare a biannual report to address enforcement actions, complaint processing statistics, and significant legal filings, among other things, in addition to hosting biannual meetings to disseminate the findings.
SB 17-216 went into effect June 1, 2017 with the exception of certain provisions governing debt buyers, documentation for legal actions, and Uniform Consumer Credit Code Administrator reporting requirements that take effect January 1, 2018.
Department of Education Student Debt Collection Contracting Injunction Extended
On May 31, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Chief Judge Susan G. Braden extended her preliminary injunction in a legal dispute involving the awarding of Department of Education (Department) debt collection contracts. She stated the order would stay in place “to preserve the status quo until the viability of the debt collection contracts at issue is resolved.”
Judge Baden’s order provides several reasons for her decision, all pulled from news reports, including: (i) a CFPB report stating that private collection agencies chosen by the Department offer uncertain value despite great cost; (ii) a New York Times article suggesting that oversight for the Department’s student debt would be transferred to the Treasury Department; and (iii) press reports announcing James Runcie’s resignation. Runcie served as the chief operating officer of the Office of Federal Student Aid.
The order has prevented the government from collecting on defaulted student loans—a halt which began on March 29 when Judge Braden issued a temporary restraining order in the matter.
Supreme Court Rules that FDCPA Law Not Applied to Time-Barred Debt Bankruptcy Claim
In a ruling handed down on May 15, the United States Supreme Court held that a debt collector’s filing of a proof of claim on time-barred debt in a consumer bankruptcy proceeding is not a “false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable” debt collection practice within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). See Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, Case No. 16-348, 581 U.S. ___ (2017). Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined in Justice Breyer’s decision. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
The Midland case arises out of a 2014 Chapter 13 petition, in response to which the defendant debt-collector filed a proof of claim for the payment of decades-old unpaid credit card debt the company had acquired. After the bankruptcy court dismissed the time-barred claim, the debtor filed a separate civil action in District Court alleging that the debt collector had violated the FDCPA. Finding that application of the FDCPA was precluded by the Bankruptcy Code, the District Court dismissed the suit. However, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding “no irreconcilable conflict between the FDCPA and the [Bankruptcy] Code.” See Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC, 823 F.3d 1334, 1336 (11th Cir. 2016).
The Supreme Court reversed. Writing for a 5-3 majority, Justice Breyer explained why the Court disagreed with the Eleventh Circuit panel’s conclusion that Midland was potentially liable for damages under the FDCPA for attempting to collect in bankruptcy on decade-old credit card debt. The Court held that the filing of a time-barred claim in a bankruptcy proceeding is not “false, deceptive, or misleading” because, among other reasons, “[t]he law has long treated unenforceability of a claim (due to the expiration of the limitations period) as an affirmative defense” and therefore “we see nothing misleading or deceptive in the filing of a proof of claim that, in effect, follows the Code’s similar system.” The ruling also noted several differences between bankruptcy proceedings and a civil action to collect a debt—including that the “audience in [consumer] bankruptcy cases includes a trustee . . . likely to understand” the nature of a proof of claim and the necessity of objecting where appropriate.
Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion—joined by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan—arguing that attempting to collect time-barred debt is both “unfair” and “unconscionable” because, among other reasons, the business model adopted by “professional debt collectors” depends on the hope “that no one notices that the debt is too old to be enforced by the courts.” Justice Sotomayor’s dissent also took issue with the majority’s claim that “structural features of the bankruptcy process reduce the risk that state debt will go unnoticed and thus be allowed,” agreeing with the Government’s amicus brief that trustees “cannot realistically be expected to identify every time-barred . . . claim filed in every bankruptcy.”