InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit vacates summary judgment in bankruptcy, FDCPA action
On November 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action alleging the defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect a debt that was discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding and no longer owed. According to the opinion, after the plaintiff fell behind on dues that were owed to his homeownership association (HOA), a law firm acting as a debt collector on behalf of the HOA obtained a lien for the unpaid debt and initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiff filed and received approval for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. A separate collection agency that received the plaintiff’s HOA arrearage payments eventually informed the bankruptcy trustee that the HOA debt was “paid in full,” with a notice issued to that effect. An order of discharge was entered in the case by the bankruptcy court after the completion of payment was verified. Following the bankruptcy discharge order, the law firm—whose records still showed an unpaid balance—undertook collection efforts again. The plaintiff informed the law firm that the debt had been paid, and—after further review—the law firm acknowledged a communication from the collection agency that stated the debt had been paid in full. The plaintiff filed suit, but the defendants argued that the claims were precluded under Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. because the debt was discharged in bankruptcy. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff’s “FDCPA claims were precluded ‘because they are premised upon violations of the bankruptcy post-discharge injunction.’”
On appeal, the 9th Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s claims were not precluded by the Bankruptcy Code. The appellate court observed that while its 2002 decision in Walls generally indicates that the Bankruptcy Code precludes FDCPA claims premised on a violation of a bankruptcy discharge order, it did not apply in this case. Among other things, the panel determined that the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims were not premised on an issuance or violation of the discharge order in the bankruptcy proceeding. Rather, the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims were based on a debt that was fully satisfied through arrearage payments as part of a Chapter 13 plan before a discharge order was entered. As such, the appellate court determined that “just because [the plaintiff] made his arrearage payments through operation of a bankruptcy plan” it “does not render his FDCPA claims inextricably intertwined with bankruptcy issues.”
1st Circuit: Original creditor’s arbitration agreement applies to debt buyer
On November 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a grant of a motion to compel arbitration in a debt collection action, concluding that a debt buyer holds the same arbitration rights as the original creditor under a cardmember agreement entered into with the plaintiff. The debt buyer purchased a pool of defaulted credit card debts from the original creditor, including the plaintiff’s charged-off account. After a municipal judge ruled that the debt buyer could not prove it owned the unpaid debt, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the debt buyer and its law firm (collectively, “defendants”) violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect the debt after the statute of limitations had expired. The defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, and the district court approved the magistrate judge’s recommendation that an enforcement clause in the cardholder agreement between the plaintiff and the original creditor be enforced. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the defendants should not be able to compel arbitration because they were not the signatories of the original cardholder agreement.
On appeal, the 1st Circuit concluded that the plaintiff offered no support for deviating from the “long-standing given in contract law. . .that ‘an assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor,’” holding that the original creditor’s rights were assigned to the debt buyer and its agents, including the right to invoke the cardmember agreement’s arbitration provision.
9th Circuit affirms dismissal of bank’s quiet-title action against HOA
On November 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment, which had dismissed for failure to state a claim a national bank’s quiet-title action against the purchaser of real property at a foreclosure sale, a Nevada homeowners association (HOA), and the HOA’s agent (collectively, “defendants”). According to the opinion, borrowers financed the purchase of a home located within the HOA through the bank, but fell behind on their HOA dues. The HOA recorded a lien on the property for the delinquent assessments, foreclosed on the home to satisfy the lien, and ultimately sold the property at a public auction to a trust, which extinguished the bank’s deed of trust. The bank filed the quiet-title action against the defendants, alleging, among other things, that the foreclosure sale was invalid and that the bank’s “deed of trust continues as a valid encumbrance against the [p]roperty.” In addition, the bank claimed that applying Nevada Revised Statutes section 116.3116 “produces a harsh result” because it prioritizes an HOA lien over “all other liens, including the first deed of trust held by the mortgage lender,” and also violates the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The bank further argued that the foreclosure sale was not valid because it did not receive adequate notice of the sale. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling, among other things, that the HOA had the right to foreclose on the property and that the bank had received adequate notice of the property’s sale.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit concluded that the bank’s constitutional rights under the Takings Clause—which provides that private property cannot be taken for public use “without just compensation”—were not violated. “Because the enactment of section 116.3116 predated the creation of [the bank’s] lien on the property, [the bank cannot] establish that it suffered an uncompensated taking,” the appellate court wrote, additionally noting that “the foreclosure proceeding itself was not a ‘taking’ because the Takings Clause governs the conduct of the government, not private actors.” With respect to the alleged violation of the Due Process Clause, the appellate court agreed with the district court’s determination that the bank had received adequate, actual notice of the delinquent assessment and the foreclosure sale.
2nd Circuit: Payment demand in debt collection letter overshadows validation notice
On November 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an FDCPA action, concluding that warnings in a defendant’s debt collection letter “could have created the misimpression that immediate payment is the consumer’s only means of avoiding a parade of collateral consequences, thereby overshadowing the consumer’s validation rights.” The defendant sent a debt collection letter to the consumer warning that it was instructed to commence litigation in order to collect a debt. The plaintiff was told he could avoid consequences such as paying attorneys’ fees if he made a payment or made suitable payment arrangements. The letter also contained a validation notice, which apprised the plaintiff of his right to dispute the debt within 30 days. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the letter violated the FDCPA because it included language that overshadowed the required disclosure of his right to demand that the debt be validated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege an FDCPA violation based on either (i) “the interaction between the letter’s payment demands and its validation notice,” or (ii) the letter’s statement that the plaintiff may be liable for attorneys’ fees in the event of litigation.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit disagreed with the district court’s conclusions, holding that the complaint stated an FDCPA violation because, among other things, the letter’s payment demand overshadowed its validation notice. The appellate court found that the complaint also adequately stated an FDCPA violation based on the letter’s statements that the plaintiff “may be liable for attorneys’ fees where no such fees could be recovered.” Furthermore, the appellate court determined that the defendant’s introduction of an unsigned form contract supporting its claim to attorneys’ fees “at most raises a factual dispute about whether [the plaintiff] ever signed a contract providing for attorneys’ fees,” and concluded that this factual dispute should not have been resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.
Maryland appeals court reverses dismissal of property inspection fee case
On October 1, the Court of Special Appeals for Maryland reversed in part and affirmed in part a dismissal of an action alleging that a mortgage servicer and Fannie Mae (collectively, “defendants”) violated Maryland state law by charging improper property inspection fees. According to the opinion, after defaulting on her mortgage, a consumer was charged $180 for twelve property inspections ordered by her mortgage servicer. After accepting a loan modification, the property inspection fees were rolled into the balance of the consumer’s loan. The consumer subsequently filed a complaint against the defendants alleging violations of, among other things, (i) Section 12-121 of the Maryland Commercial Law Article, “which prohibits a ‘lender’ from imposing a property inspection fee ‘in connection with a loan secured by residential property’”; (ii) the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Practices Act (MCDCA), with a derivative claim under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA); and (iii) the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act (MMFPA). The defendants moved to dismiss the action, alleging that they were not “lenders” as defined in Section 12-121. The district court dismissed the action.
On appeal, the appellate court disagreed with the defendants’ narrow interpretation of “lender” under Section 12-121, finding that such interpretation is “inconsistent with the structure and purpose of the legislation enacting it.” Specifically, the appellate court held that the lower court erred in finding the defendants not liable as a lender under Section 12-121, as it would be “inconsistent with the purpose of Subtitle 12 to allow an assignee of a note or its agents to charge fees that the originating lender cannot.” The appellate court further held that the lower court erred in determining the property inspection fees were waived through the course of the modification and therefore erred in dismissing the MMFPA claim. However the appellate court upheld dismissal of the MDCPA claim and its derivative MCPA claim, rejecting, among other arguments, the consumer’s argument that the filing of a deed of trust qualified as a communication that “purports to be ‘authorized, issued, or approved by a government, governmental agency, or lawyer’” under state law. Lastly, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the MMFPA claim, concluding the consumer failed to connect elements of the theory, such as intent to defraud, with any alleged facts in the complaint.
North Carolina Appeals Court: Original creditors’ intent required for assignment of arbitration rights
On November 3, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina issued a pair of orders (see here and here) affirming lower courts’ decisions denying a debt collector’s (defendant) motion to compel arbitration. According to the orders, the defendant purchased charged-off accounts belonging to the plaintiffs and filed individual lawsuits in several state courts seeking to collect on the debt. Default judgments were obtained against the plaintiffs in each of the actions. The plaintiffs filed suit, alleging the defendant violated certain sections of North Carolina’s Consumer Economic Protection Act by “not comply[ing] with certain statutorily enumerated prerequisites to obtain default judgments.” The defendant eventually moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an underlying agreement between the plaintiffs and the original creditor. The lower court denied the motion, ruling that the defendant—“as a nonsignatory to the credit card agreements”—had not shown it was assigned the right to arbitrate claims when it purchased the charged-off accounts. The defendant appealed the decision.
The Appeals Court considered whether there was a valid arbitration agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant and agreed with the trial court, holding that “without any showing of the additional intent by the original creditors to assign to [the defendant], at the very least, ‘all of the rights and obligations’ of the original agreements, the right to arbitrate was not assigned in the sale and assignment of the Plaintiffs’ Accounts and Receivables as set forth in the Bills of Sale.” Moreover, the Appeals Court determined that the “trial court correctly concluded [the defendant] has not met its burden of showing a valid arbitration agreement between each Plaintiff and [the defendant] and did not err” by denying the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
2nd Circuit vacates dismissal of CFPB action following Seila
On October 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit summarily vacated a 2018 district court order that had dismissed CFPB and New York attorney general claims against a New Jersey-based finance company accused of misleading first responders to the World Trade Center attack and NFL retirees about high-cost loans mischaracterized as assignments of future payment rights (covered by InfoBytes here). The district court found that the Bureau’s single-director structure was unconstitutional, and that, as such, the agency lacked authority to bring deceptive and abusive claims under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). The district court also rejected an attempt by then-acting Director Mulvaney to salvage the Bureau’s claims, concluding that the “ratification of the CFPB’s enforcement action against defendants failed to cure the constitutional deficiencies in the CFPB’s structure or otherwise render defendants’ arguments moot.”
The 2nd Circuit remanded the case to the district court, determining that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Seila Law LLC v CFPB (covered by a Buckley Special Alert, holding that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the Bureau) superseded the 2018 ruling. Following Seila, Director Kathy Kraninger also ratified several prior regulatory actions (covered by InfoBytes here), including the enforcement action brought against the defendants. “In light of these developments, we affirm the district court's holding that the for-cause removal provision is unconstitutional, we reverse the district court's holding that the for-cause removal provision is not severable from the remainder of the CFPA, and we remand for the district court to consider in the first instance the validity of Director Kraninger’s ratification of this enforcement action,” the appellate court wrote.
Divided FCC says net neutrality reversal won't hurt public safety
On October 27, the FCC voted 3-2 to adopt an Order on Remand in response to a 2019 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (covered by InfoBytes here). The D.C. Circuit’s decision mostly ratified the Commission’s 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order that reversed the net neutrality rules barring internet service providers from slowing down or speeding up web traffic based on business relationships, however it remanded three “discrete issues” for the FCC’s further consideration, including how the reversal of the net neutrality rules could affect public safety issues. A Fact Sheet accompanying the Order on Remand stated that the FCC found “no basis to alter” its conclusions in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, noting that, among other things, “[n]either the Commission’s decision to return broadband Internet access service to its longstanding classification as an information service, nor its decision to eliminate the Internet conduct rules, is likely to adversely impact public safety.”
Split en banc 11th Circuit vacates $6.3 million FACTA settlement
On October 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in a 7-3 en banc decision, vacated a $6.3 million Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) class action settlement, concluding the plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege any concrete harm. According to the opinion, the named plaintiff filed a FACTA class action against a chocolate retailer, alleging that the retailer printed too many credit card digits on receipts over several years. The complaint only pursued statutory damages and explicitly stated it did “not intend[] to request any recovery for personal injury.” The parties agreed to settle the litigation for $6.3 million prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (holding that a plaintiff must allege a concrete injury, not just a statutory violation, to establish standing). After Spokeo, the district court approved the class action, and class objectors appealed, with one objector arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to approve the settlement because the named plaintiff did not allege an injury in fact. On appeal, the 11th Circuit issued multiple opinions, with the first two affirming the settlement approval. The full panel ordered a rehearing en banc, vacating the last opinion.
The en banc panel vacated the district court order approving the settlement, concluding that the named plaintiff lacked standing under Spokeo. Specifically, the panel rejected the named plaintiff’s argument that “receipt of a noncompliant receipt itself is a concrete injury,” noting that “nothing in FACTA suggests some kind of intrinsic worth in a compliant receipt.” Moreover, the panel disagreed with the named plaintiff’s distinction that his claim was a “substantive” violation and not just a “procedural” one, reasoning that “no matter what label you hang on a statutory violation, it must be accompanied by a concrete injury.” Because the complaint did not allege a concrete injury, the panel vacated the order.
In dissent, one judge argued that the named plaintiff plausibly alleged concrete harm by establishing that the retailer’s FACTA violation elevated his risk of identity theft. In the second dissent, another judge asserted that both common law and congressional intent support the conclusion that the plaintiff’s complaint constitutes a concrete injury in fact. And lastly, the third dissent argued that the order should not be dismissed outright because the majority made “assumptions about the risks of identity theft without the benefit of a factual record, expert reports, or adversarial testing of the issue in the district court.”
38 state AGs argue for broad TCPA autodialer definition
On October 23, a coalition of 38 state attorneys general filed an amici curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to accept the broad definition of an autodialer under the TCPA, which would cover all devices with the capacity to automatically dial numbers that are stored in a list. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Court agreed to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Duguid v. Facebook, Inc. (covered by InfoBytes here), which concluded the plaintiff plausibly alleged the social media company’s text message system fell within the definition of autodialer under the TCPA. The 9th Circuit applied the definition from their 2018 decision in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC (covered by InfoBytes here), which broadened the definition of an autodialer to cover all devices with the capacity to automatically dial numbers that are stored in a list.
The attorneys general argue that the 9th Circuit’s definition of autodialer is “the only reading of the autodialer definition that is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the definition’s two key verbs: ‘store’ and ‘produce.’” Moreover, they assert the broad definition is within the original 1991 meaning of the TCPA when it was enacted by Congress as a way to address the gaps state consumer protection laws may have in preventing interstate telephone fraud and abuse. According to the attorneys general, every state statute that defined an autodialer in 1991, “understood that term to reach devices with the capacity to store and dial numbers from a predetermined list, regardless of whether a random or sequential number generator was used.” Therefore, when Congress enacted the TCPA with the intention to “supplement—not to shrink—preexisting state laws,” it would follow that Congress would not intentionally adopt a narrower definition than existed at the time among the states.