Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Crypto lender to provide refunds to Californians
On March 27, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that a New Jersey-based crypto lending platform has agreed to provide more than $100,000 in refunds to California residents. The refunds, subject to bankruptcy court approval, stem from the lender’s conduct following the collapse of a major crypto exchange last November. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December, DFPI moved to revoke the lender’s California Financing Law license following an examination, which found that the lender “failed to perform adequate underwriting when making loans and failed to consider borrowers’ ability to repay these loans, in violation of California’s financing laws and regulations.” At the time the lender announced it was limiting platform activity and pausing client withdrawals. The lender eventually filed a petition for chapter 11 bankruptcy. An investigation also revealed that due to the lender’s failure to timely notify borrowers that they could stop repaying their loans, borrowers remitted at least $103,471 in loan repayments to the lender’s servicer while they were unable to withdraw funds and collateral from the platform. A hearing on the lender’s petition to direct its servicer to return borrowers’ loan repayments is scheduled for April 19.
The lender agreed to an interim suspension of its lending license while the bankruptcy and revocation actions are pending. It also agreed to a final order to discontinue unsafe or injurious practices, as well as a desist and refrain order. Among other things, the lender has agreed to continue to direct its agents to pause collection of repayments on loans belonging to California residents while its license is suspended (including turning off autopay), will continue to set interest rates to 0 percent, and continue to not levy any late fees associated with any payments or report any loans that became delinquent or defaulted on or after November 11, 2022, to credit reporting agencies while the bankruptcy and revocation actions are pending.
2nd Circuit affirms dismissal in FCRA suit
On January 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment for a credit reporting agency (defendant) in a suit alleging FCRA violations. According to the opinion, four years after the plaintiff took out a student loan, he filed for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court issued a final decree of discharge, which released the plaintiff from all “dischargeable debts,” but did not specifically indicate that the loan was discharged. The student loan servicer indicated that the student loan was not discharged, and the plaintiff executed a loan modification agreement with the loan holder and made payments for several years. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant consumer reporting agency, alleging that it violated the FCRA and New York law for including the loan on his credit report. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant after determining that the consumer’s loan had not been discharged. The plaintiff appealed.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit noted that the plaintiff’s claim “hinges on the resolution of an unsettled legal question”: whether the loan was in fact discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding. Making such a determination would have required the defendant to resolve a legal question related to the debt, which the appellate court concluded was not required under the FCRA. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint because the alleged inaccuracy is not considered to not be an actionable “inaccuracy” under the FCRA.
6th Circuit affirms FCRA summary judgment
On November 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a credit reporting agency (defendant) accused of violating the FCRA. According to the opinion, a father and son (plaintiff) filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions just over a year apart with the same attorney. Both petitions had their similar names, identical address, and, mistakenly, the plaintiff’s social security number. Although the attorney corrected the social security number on the father’s bankruptcy petition the day after it was filed, the defendant allegedly failed to catch the amendment and erroneously reported the father’s bankruptcy on the plaintiff’s credit report for nine years. When the plaintiff noticed the error, he sent the defendant a letter and demanded a sum in settlement. The defendant removed the father’s bankruptcy filing from the plaintiff’s credit report. The plaintiff sued two credit reporting agencies, alleging they violated the FCRA by failing to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of his reported information. One of the agencies settled with the plaintiff. A district court granted the other defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiff appealed.
On the appeal, the 6th Circuit noted that the plaintiff “has standing to bring this action, but also agree that he cannot establish that [defendant’s] procedures were unreasonable as a matter of law.” The appellate court found that, because the defendant gathered information from reliable sources and because someone “with at least some legal training” would have had to manually review the bankruptcy docket to notice that the Social Security number had been updated, the defendant did not violate the FCRA. The appellate court wrote that the defendant’s “processes strike the right balance between ensuring accuracy and avoiding ‘an enormous burden’ on consumer credit reporting agencies.” Furthermore, the 6th Circuit stated that, “[g]iven the sheer amount of data maintained by these companies, we know that consumers are ‘in a better position . . . to detect errors’ in their credit reports and inquire about a fix.”
District court partially grants summary judgment in FDCPA suit
On July 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama partially granted a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA case. According to the memorandum opinion, the plaintiff purchased a home security system, which, after a period of time, she transferred to someone else. The account became delinquent and the plaintiff began receiving collection letters from a debt collection agency regarding the debt owed to the security company. The plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection. More than two years later, the debt collection agency assigned plaintiff’s account to the defendant for collection. The plaintiff contended that the defendant violated the FDCPA because when it contacted her – via a text message and several alleged telephone calls – to collect a debt on behalf of the debt collection agency, she was a party to Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings in which the alleged debt was listed. The defendant argued that the text message was not an attempt to collect on the debt because it made no demand or request for payment. The district court disagreed, based on the “plain language” of the text message, which stated, “This communication is from a debt collector, this is an attempt to collect a debt.” The text message also referenced a specific debt, thus making the text a “false representation” because it asserted that money was due. The defendant also argued that it should be entitled to the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense. The district court found that the defendant’s actions were “not intentional,” stating that “[w]hen it sent the text message, [the defendant] was not aware that [the plaintiff] had filed for bankruptcy or was represented by an attorney in connection with the debt.” The district court continued, “Moreover, [the plaintiff] had not notified [the defendant] in writing that she refused to pay the debt or that she wished communications to cease. Thus, [the defendant] did not deliberately contact a debtor who had filed for bankruptcy, was represented by an attorney, was refusing to pay the debt, or wished communications to cease.” Though the district court found that the defendant’s error was bona fide, it held that the defendant’s procedure of “relying exclusively” on the collection agency that had assigned the debt to defendant, without any “internal controls,” was “not reasonably adapted to avoid” the error at issue—and thus the defendant was not entitled to the bona fide error defense.
8th Circuit says bank is entitled to proceeds from condo sale
On June 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a trial court’s decision that a plaintiff bank is entitled to the proceeds from the sale of a condominium despite the defendant’s ex-husband’s bankruptcy and an outstanding balance owed to the bank on a business loan. When the defendant signed and initialed a mortgage securing the financing of a condominium, she consented to her ex-husband’s execution of the note but was not a signatory. The mortgage contained three provisions, including (i) a choice-of-law provision specifying that Iowa law governed the mortgage; (ii) a homestead waiver, in which the defendant and her ex-husband “waive[d] all appraisement and homestead exemption rights relating to” the condominium, except as prohibited by law; and (iii) a future advances clause or “dragnet clause,” which granted the plaintiff a security interest in the mortgage that covered future funds the ex-husband may borrow. The plaintiff initiated litigation against the defendant seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendant’s portion of the escrowed sale proceeds was subject to the mortgage’s future advances clause, and that the plaintiff could apply the proceeds to her ex-husband’s business loan. The trial court concluded that the bank was entitled to the proceeds.
On appeal, the 8th Circuit concluded that the mortgage’s future advances clause encompassed and secured the defendant’s ex-husband's business loan. Among other things, the appellate court rejected the defendant’s arguments that (i) the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that it was entitled to the condo sale proceeds because it purportedly “did not prove the proceeds comported with the mortgage’s maximum obligation limit clause (finding “no miscarriage of justice in declining to analyze her claim”); and (ii) the mortgage forced “her to waive her homestead rights in contravention of public policy” and in violation of the FTC’s “unfair credit practices” regulation (16 C.F.R. § 444.2)—a regulation, the appellate court pointed out, that does not apply to “banks” by its own terms. The 8th Circuit also rejected defendant’s unconscionability claim under Iowa law, stating that the “doctrine of unconscionability does not exist to rescue parties from bad bargains.” The appellate court further rejected the defendant’s other “equitable arguments” as “untenable” primarily because the mortgage is a “credit agreement” regulated under Iowa Code § 535.17(5)(c), and that statute expressly displaces equitable remedies.
1st Circuit: Bankruptcy Code “unequivocally strips tribes” of their sovereign immunity to sue
On May 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a district court’s decision, ruling that American tribes are not exempt from federal law barring suits against debtors once they file for bankruptcy. The debtor (plaintiff) in 2019 took out a $1,100 payday loan from a creditor (appellee), who is a subsidiary of a tribe. He voluntarily filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, listing his debt to the appellee, which had increased to approximately $1,600, as a nonpriority unsecured claim. He also listed the appellee on the petition’s creditor matrix, and his attorney mailed the appellee a copy of the proposed Chapter 13 plan. When the plaintiff filed the petition, the Bankruptcy Code imposed an automatic stay enjoining “debt-collection efforts outside the umbrella of the bankruptcy case.” The appellee continued to attempt to contact the plaintiff regarding the debt, but the plaintiff had allegedly previously notified the appellee’s representatives that he had filed for bankruptcy. Two months after the plaintiff filed the petition, he claimed that his “mental and financial agony would never end,” and blamed his agony on the appellee’s “regular and incessant telephone calls, emails and voicemails.” To stop the appellee’s collection efforts, the plaintiff relocated to enforce the automatic stay against the appellee and its corporate parents and sought an order prohibiting future collection efforts, as well as damages, attorney's fees, and expenses. In response, the tribe and its affiliates asserted tribal sovereign immunity and moved to dismiss the enforcement proceeding. The bankruptcy court agreed with the tribe and granted the motions to dismiss.
On the appeal, the tribe argued that the Bankruptcy Code cannot abrogate tribal sovereign immunity because it never uses the word “tribe.” The appellate court noted that the argument “boils down to a magic-words requirement” that tribes must be mentioned in order to be covered by a law, but U.S. Supreme Court precedent “forbids us from adopting a magic-words test.” However, the appellate court further noted that Congress did not determine that tribes were subject to the Code, stating that “[e]ven if Congress need not use magic words to make clear that its abrogation provision applies to Indian tribes, it must at least use words that clearly and unequivocally refer to Indian tribes if it wishes to make that abrogation provision apply to them.” The appellate court ruled that Congress took away tribes' sovereign immunity as “domestic governments” covered by the Bankruptcy Code, stating that even though tribes are not explicitly named in the Code, “we have no doubt that Congress understood tribes to be domestic dependent nations,” and since those “are a form of domestic government, it follows that Congress understood tribes to be domestic governments.”
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.
District Court denies defendant's motion in FCCPA case
On March 25, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a TV provider’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment while partially granting and partially denying a motion for partial summary judgment from the plaintiff in a Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) suit. According to the order, the plaintiff allegedly signed up for the defendant’s service, but “pause[d]” the program, which permitted her to suspend her service for nine months for $5 per month. The plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection, listed the defendant as an unsecured creditor, and obtained a discharge. The plaintiff’s lawyer sent two faxes to the defendant, which disclosed to the defendant that the plaintiff was represented by counsel. The defendant sent five billing notifications and made six calls to the plaintiff, attempting to collect on the $5 monthly payment. A district court granted the defendant summary judgment on claims that it violated the FCCPA and the TCPA. The plaintiff appealed the decision, which affirmed the ruling on the TCPA claim, but reversed the FCCPA ruling, finding that the defendant may have attempted to collect a debt that was discharged and that it contacted the plaintiff after being notified that she was represented by an attorney. According to the order, the court stated that the “[p]laintiff has proffered enough evidence in the record from which a jury could reasonably infer that [the defendant] knew the Pause debt was invalid and that it did not have the right to collect it,” but “[o]n the other hand, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to [the defendant], a jury could reach the opposite conclusion, as [the defendant] has provided record evidence from which a jury could infer [the defendant] did not know that the Pause debt was invalid.”
7th Circuit: Collector did not violate FCRA by obtaining a “propensity-to-pay score”
On December 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector in an FCRA action alleging a plaintiff’s credit information was acquired without a permissible purpose. The plaintiff and her husband jointly filed for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court ordered a discharge of their debts, which included a debt incurred by the plaintiff’s husband that was being serviced by the defendant. The defendant was notified of the discharge (which included each of the four former last names used by the plaintiff) and scanned its system for affected accounts; however, by the time it received notice of the bankruptcy, it had already closed the account it had been servicing. Later, another account bearing one of the plaintiff’s former names was placed with the defendant. The defendant sent the account to a third-party vendor to see if the individual had filed for bankruptcy protection and did not received any bankruptcy results. It then ordered a “propensity-to-pay-score” from a credit reporting agency. The plaintiff’s records were eventually updated by the third-party vendor with information about the bankruptcy, and the defendant closed the account. However, the plaintiff noted the soft inquiry on her credit report and sued, alleging the defendant did not have a permissible purpose to make such an inquiry. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit determined that the plaintiff had suffered a concrete injury, concluding that an “unauthorized inquiry into a consumer’s propensity‐to‐pay score is analogous to the unlawful inspection of one’s mail, wallet, or bank account.” However, after reviewing the merits of the case, the appellate court held that an alleged invasion of privacy was not enough for it to overturn the district court’s ruling. There was no negligent violation of the FCRA “because no reasonable juror could conclude that the inquiry into [the plaintiff’s] propensity‐to‐pay score resulted in actual damages,” the appellate court wrote. Additionally, while the 7th Circuit acknowledged that the plaintiff’s debt was discharged by the time the defendant obtained her propensity-to-pay score, there was no willful violation of the FCRA because the defendant “lacked actual knowledge of the bankruptcy” and “did not recklessly disregard the possibility that debt had been discharged.” The appellate court added that the evidence showed that the defendant “had a reasonable basis for relying on its procedures.”
District Court denies MSJ in FDCPA case
On October 19, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a defendant’s motion for judgment without prejudice concerning allegations that it knowingly ignored cease-and-desist letters sent by an individual while the individual had a pending bankruptcy petition. The plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt that was placed with the defendant for collection. After, the plaintiff sought protection under the Bankruptcy Code. During the bankruptcy case, the defendant allegedly sent the plaintiff text messages to collect the debt, the plaintiff responded with a cease-and-desist letter, and then the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter. The plaintiff sent another cease and desist letter and the defendant sent four more collection letters. Based on the defendant’s post-petition actions, the plaintiff sued for FDCPA and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act violations. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to disclose this lawsuit in her bankruptcy case, which would result in the FDCPA case being dismissed on judicial estoppel grounds. However, the court found that while the plaintiff omitted the name and specific circumstances of her claims against the defendant, she “put the Bankruptcy Court, trustee, and creditors on notice she had a claim against a creditor and properly sought approval from the Bankruptcy Court before retaining counsel to pursue it.” The court went on to state that if the plaintiff “intended to deceive creditors or others in bankruptcy, filing the Application strayed from that intent,” and that “the filing mitigates any prejudice claimed by [the defendant].”