InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
2nd Circuit: NY law on interest payments for escrow accounts is preempted
On September 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that New York’s interest-on-escrow law impermissibly interferes with the incidentals of national bank lending and is preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA). Plaintiffs in two putative class actions obtained loans from a national bank, one before and the other after certain Dodd-Frank provisions took effect. The loan agreements—governed by New York law—required plaintiffs to deposit money into escrow accounts. After the bank failed to pay interest on the escrowed amounts, plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, alleging, among other things, that under New York General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-601 (which sets a minimum 2 percent interest rate on mortgage escrow accounts) they were entitled to interest. The bank moved to dismiss both actions, contending that GOL § 5-601 did not apply to federally chartered banks because it is preempted by the NBA. The district court disagreed and denied the bank’s motion, ruling first that RESPA (which regulates the amount of money in an escrow account but not the accruing interest rate) “shares a ‘unity of purpose’ with GOL § 5-601.” This is relevant, the district court said, “because Congress ‘intended mortgage escrow accounts, even those administered by national banks, to be subject to some measure of consumer protection regulation.’” Second, the district court reasoned that even though TILA § 1639d does not specifically govern the loans at issue, it is significant because it “evinces a clear congressional purpose to subject all mortgage lenders to state escrow interest laws.” Finally, with respect to the NBA, the district court determined that “the ‘degree of interference’ of GOL § 5-601 was ‘minimal’ and was not a ‘practical abrogation of the banking power at issue,’” and concluded that Dodd-Frank’s amendment to TILA substantiated a policy judgment showing “there is little incompatibility between requiring mortgage lenders to maintain escrow accounts and requiring them to pay a reasonable rate of interest on sums thereby received.” As such, GOL § 5-601 was not preempted by the NBA, the district court said.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit concluded that the district court erred in its preemption analysis. According to the appellate court, the important question “is not how much a state law impacts a national bank, but rather whether it purports to ‘control’ the exercise of its powers.” In reversing the ruling and holding that that GOL § 5-601 was preempted by the NBA, the appellate court wrote that the “minimum-interest requirement would exert control over a banking power granted by the federal government, so it would impermissibly interfere with national banks’ exercise of that power.” Notably, the 2nd Circuit’s decision differs from the 9th Circuit’s 2018 holding in Lusnak v. Bank of America, which addressed a California mortgage escrow interest law analogous to New York’s and held that a national bank must comply with the California law requiring mortgage lenders to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the 2nd Circuit determined that both the district court and the 9th Circuit improperly “concluded that the TILA amendments somehow reflected Congress’s judgment that all escrow accounts, before and after Dodd-Frank, must be subject to such state laws.”
In a concurring opinion, one of the judges stressed that while the panel concluded that the specific state law at issue is preempted, the opinion left “ample room for state regulation of national banks.” The judge noted that the opinion relies on a narrow standard of preempting only those “state laws that directly conflict with enumerated or incidental national bank powers conferred by Congress,” and stressed that the appellate court declined to reach a determination as to whether Congress subjected national banks to state escrow interest laws in cases (unlike the plaintiffs’ actions) where Dodd-Frank’s TILA amendments would apply.
District Court denies request to reverse summary judgment in FDIA suit
On August 29, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a consumer plaintiff’s request to reconsider its summary judgment order against him in a Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) suit. According to the opinion, the plaintiff accrued debt to a federally-insured, state-chartered bank, which had then assigned that debt to defendants, who were not state-chartered, federally-insured banks. The plaintiff’s debt included interest charges that had accrued at an annual rate between 24.99 percent and 25.99 percent, which the plaintiff argued could not be collected by defendants because the interest exceeded the six percent allowed under Pennsylvania's usury law. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, relying on a recently promulgated FDIC rule that determined that state usury laws are preempted by section 27 of the FDIA in cases where state usury law interferes with state-chartered, federally-insured banks' ability to make loans or when they interfere with a state-chartered, federally-insured bank’s assignee’s efforts to collect on those loans. The plaintiff requested the reconsideration of the district court's summary judgment decision and filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In his motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff argued that the court’s previous summary judgment decision was “erroneous” because: (i) the 3rd Circuit held in In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia that “the FDIA unambiguously excludes non-bank purchasers of debt from its coverage and that deference to the FDIC’s contrary interpretation would, therefore, be inappropriate”; (ii) the FDIC’s rule cannot apply to his debts because such an application would be impermissibly retroactive; and (iii) LIPL fits within the FDIC rule’s exception for “licensing or regulatory requirements.”
The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, holding that the plaintiff “failed to identify an appropriate basis for reconsideration,” as the consumer’s arguments are “either a new argument that could have been presented before judgment was entered or a reprisal of an argument that the Court addressed in its original decision.” The court further noted that it would be “inappropriate for the Court to grant a motion to reconsider under either of those circumstances.” The court went on to determine that the new arguments advanced by the plaintiff were unpersuasive in any event, finding that the 3rd Circuit had not held section 27 of the FDIA to be unambiguous in its meaning and that application of the FDIC’s rule did not create an impermissible retroactive effect.
California bankruptcy court says a forbearance that modifies the original loan is subject to state usury laws in certain instances
Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment in an action concerning “piecemeal exemptions” to California’s usury law. Plaintiffs entered into a loan agreement secured by their residence carrying an interest rate of 11.3 percent and a default interest rate of 17.3 percent (plus late fees) with a then-unlicensed lender. They also signed a promissory note, which stated that should they fail to make a monthly payment within 10 days of the due date they would be assessed a late charge equal to 10 percent of the monthly payment. After plaintiffs struggled to make payments, the parties entered into an extension agreement to supplement and amend the original loan (but not replace it), which slightly lowered the initial interest rate but increased the monthly payments and default interest rate. The extension also included language adding a charge on the final balloon payment that was not part of the original loan. Plaintiffs again began to miss loan payments and sought to refinance the loan with a different lender. A payoff quote provided by the defendant included what was originally called a “prepayment penalty” but was later changed to represent a late charge on the principal balance in line with the extension.
Plaintiffs sued the defendant and related parties in state court, seeking damages and alleging claims related to breach of contract, fraud, and intentional interference. After the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs filed an appeal on the same day one of the plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy. The defendant eventually filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims in the amended complaint, whereas plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on several new claims, including that (i) the extension violated state usury law; (ii) the defendant “demanded an illegal acceleration penalty” from plaintiffs; and (iii) the defendant illegally charged multiple late fees on a single loan payment.
In a case of first impression, the court held that under California law, a loan extension that modifies the original loan, including by extending the maturity date, is considered a forbearance subject to state usury laws because there was no other sale, lease, or other transaction involved. The court noted that the statute “provides a restricted definition of the term ‘arranged’ in relation to a forbearance,” and that it also “painstakingly sets forth the instances in which a forbearance negotiated by a real estate broker would be exempt under usury law: when that broker was previously involved in arranging the original loan and that loan was in connection with a sale, lease, or other transaction, or when that broker had previously arranged for the sale, lease or other transaction for compensation.” The court further stated that “[c]onspicuously absent from those instances is a scenario in which a forbearance is arranged on a simple loan of money secured by real estate, with no other sale, lease, or other transaction involved,” adding that it “cannot create an exemption here to save [the defendant].” In the subject transaction, the real estate broker involved when the original loan was made was not involved in the extension, the court said.
The court also held that the loan forbearance violated California usury laws although the original loan was exempt from usury laws, disagreeing with the defendant’s position that “an originally non-usurious transaction cannot be transformed into a usurious transaction at a later point.” The court pointed out the distinction in this case from others cited by the defendant, stating that the “difference between a non-usurious loan and a loan subject to an exemption is slight but distinct. . . . Once the exemption (no real estate broker involved) ceased to apply, the exemption disappeared, and the transaction became subject to the full consequences of the usury law.” Because the extension’s interest rate and default interest rate both violated state usury law, the defendant is entitled only to the principal balance of the extension minus the amount of usurious interest paid.
Additionally, the court determined that under California law, the liquidated damages provision of the loan extension was separate from the interest charged by the extension, and a late charge on top of a balloon payment under extension was an unenforceable penalty provision instead of a valid provision for liquidated damages. The court also declined to consider punitive or other damages and said it will make a determination in the future as to what the defendant is entitled to by way of reimbursements or costs, as well as any interest accrued and owed after the extension’s maturity date.
CFPB reports on credit card interest rates
On August 12, the CFPB released a blog post analyzing factors affecting high credit card interest rates. According to the Bureau, over 175 million Americans have at least one credit card and nearly half of active credit card accounts carry a balance. The Bureau noted that reforms in the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) “advanced competition and saved consumers billions of dollars by restricting harmful back-end or hidden pricing practices,” however, “after the market adjusted to these changes, credit card interest rates have increased despite falling charge-off rates, a stable share of subprime cardholders, and a historically low prime rate.” The Bureau further noted that credit card interest rates increased following the Great Recession, even though several industry indicators suggested the risk of credit card lending has fallen to an all-time low. Regarding subprime accounts, since 2015, the share of credit card holders with subprime scores has remained stable, representing less than one-fifth of total accounts. Therefore, high rates persist even though presumably riskier subprime loans have not increased. Regarding prime accounts, the Bureau noted that “[c]ompared to other lending products, credit card pricing appears to be less responsive to macroeconomic trends like changes in the cost of funds – a measure of how much banks spend to acquire money to lend to consumers – as represented by the prime rate.” As for credit card profitability, the Bureau suggested that the apparent mismatch between credit card interest rates and the risk and cost of lending may explain part of the market’s profits. The Bureau further explained that in 2021, large credit card banks reported an annualized return on assets of near seven percent, which was the highest level since at least 2000, and “[w]hile credit card portfolios have higher rates of defaults than other consumer lending products, it is unclear whether these factors fully account for revenue from high interest rates.” The Bureau also noted that because six credit card issuers account for more than two-thirds of total balances every year since 2005, the CFPB plans to assess whether this is the result of “trends, like increasing rewards and high switching costs, or the result of anti-competitive practices.”
District Court partially affirms summary judgment in interest case
On April 28, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part parties’ motions for summary judgment in a suit challenging the retroactive application of a New York statute reducing the state’s statutory interest rate on money judgments arising out of consumer debt. In doing so, the court considered S5724A, the Fair Consumer Judgment Interest Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the New York governor signed S5724A in December 2021, which amended the civil practice law and rules relating to the rate of interest applicable to money judgments arising out of consumer debt. Specifically, the bill provides that the interest rate that can be charged on unpaid money judgments is 2 percent and applies to judgments involving consumer debt, which is defined as “any obligation or alleged obligation of any natural person to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family or household purposes […], including, but not limited to, a consumer credit transaction, as defined in [section 105(f) of the civil practice law and rules].” The bill became effective April 30. According to the suit, a group of credit unions (plaintiffs) filed a federal class action lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement or implementation of S5724A. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate the retroactive portion of S.5724A, arguing that it is an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment and violative of their substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs claimed that they are collectively owed about $3.8 million of outstanding consumer judgments, which includes approximately $1 million in interest, and sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the effective date of S572A. The plaintiffs brought suit against the Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Courts, and the sheriffs of three New York counties in their official capacity on the basis that those parties “will be involved in enforcement of the Amendment.” The district court issued the preliminary injunction with respect to the sheriffs, relying on the credit unions’ arguments that retroactive application will “eradicate millions of dollars from the balance of judgments lawfully due and owing to judgment creditors.” The district court noted that “[r]egulatory takings … involve government regulation of private property [that is] . . . so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster. Thus, ‘while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.’”
10th Circuit: Extended overdraft fees do not qualify as interest under the NBA
On April 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concluded that extended overdraft fees do not legally qualify as interest under the National Bank Act (NBA). According to the opinion, after the plaintiff overdrew funds from his checking account, the bank covered the cost of the item and charged an initial overdraft fee. The bank later began imposing an extended overdraft fee each business day following the initial overdraft, ultimately assessing 36 separate overdraft fees. The plaintiff filed a putative class action, contending that the bank’s extended overdraft fees qualify as interest under the NBA, and that the amount charged (which he claimed translated to an effective annualized interest rate between 501 and 2,462 percent) violated the NBA’s anti-usury provisions because it exceeded Oklahoma’s maximum annualized interest rate of 6 percent. While the plaintiff recognized that the initial overdraft fee qualifies as a “deposit account service,” he argued that the extended overdraft fee “‘is an interest charge levied by [the bank] for the continued extension of credit made in covering a customer’s overdraft’ and therefore cannot be considered connected to the same banking services that [the bank] provides to its depositors.” The district court disagreed and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim after determining that the bank’s extended overdraft fees were fees for “deposit account services” and were not “interest” under the NBA.
In affirming the district court’s dismissal, the appellate majority (an issue of first impression in the 10th Circuit) agreed that the fees qualify as non-interest account fees rather than interest charges under the NBA. The majority deferred to the OCC’s 2007 Interpretive Letter, which addressed the legality of a similar overdraft program fee structure. The letter “represents OCC’s reasonable interpretation of genuinely ambiguous regulations, and OCC’s determination that fees like [the bank’s] extended overdraft fees are ‘non-interest charges’ is neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulations it interprets,” the majority wrote. “As ‘non-interest charges’ under § 7.4002, [the bank’s] extended overdraft fees are not subject to the NBA’s usury limits, and [plaintiff] fails to state a claim,” the majority added.
The dissenting judge countered that extended overdraft fees are interest, and that the OCC’s interpretation did not deserve deference because these fees “unambiguously” meet the definition of interest under 12 C.F.R. § 7.4001(a). According to the dissenting judge, this regulation provides that “‘interest’ ... includes any payment compensating a creditor ... for an extension of credit,” and that as such, the “definition maps onto extended overdraft fees like [the bank’s]” and thus the plaintiff had stated a claim.
New York reduces judgment interest on debts
On December 31, the New York governor signed S5724A, which amends the civil practice law and rules relating to the rate of interest applicable to money judgments arising out of consumer debt. Specifically, the bill provides that the interest rate that can be charged on unpaid money judgments is 2 percent and applies to judgments involving consumer debt, which is defined as “any obligation or alleged obligation of any natural person to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family or household purposes […], including, but not limited to, a consumer credit transaction, as defined in [section 105(f) of the civil practice law and rules].” The bill is effective April 30.
4th Circuit: Tribal lenders must face usury claims
On November 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court’s ruling denying defendants’ bid to dismiss or compel arbitration of a class action concerning alleged usury law violations. The plaintiffs—Virginia consumers who defaulted on short-term loans received from online lenders affiliated with a federally-recognized tribe—filed a putative class action against tribal officials as well as two non-members affiliated with the tribal lenders, alleging the lenders violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Virginia usury laws by charging interest rates between 544 and 920 percent. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under a clause in the loan agreements and moved to dismiss on various grounds, including that they were exempt from Virginia usury laws. The district court denied the motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss, ruling that the arbitration provision was unenforceable as a prospective waiver of the borrowers’ federal rights and that the defendants could not claim tribal sovereign immunity. The district court also “held the loan agreements’ choice of tribal law unenforceable as a violation of Virginia’s strong public policy against unregulated lending of usurious loans.” However, the district court dismissed the RICO claim against the tribal officials, ruling that RICO only authorizes private plaintiffs to sue for money damages and not injunctive or declaratory relief.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit concluded that the arbitration clauses in the loan agreements impermissibly force borrowers to waive their federal substantive rights under federal consumer protection laws, and contained an unenforceable tribal choice-of-law provision because Virginia law caps general interest rates at 12 percent. As such, the appellate court stated that the entire arbitration provision is unenforceable. “The [t]ribal [l]enders drafted an invalid contract that strips borrowers of their substantive federal statutory rights,” the appellate court wrote. “[W]e cannot save that contract by revising it on appeal.” The 4th Circuit also declined to extend tribal sovereign immunity to the tribal officials, determining that while “the tribe itself retains sovereign immunity, it cannot shroud its officials with immunity in federal court when those officials violate applicable state law.” The appellate court further noted that the “Supreme Court has explicitly blessed suits against tribal officials to enjoin violations of federal and state law.” The 4th Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court’s judgment, noting that the loan agreement provisions were unenforceable because “tribal law’s authorization of triple-digit interest rates on low-dollar, short-term loans violates Virginia’s compelling public policy against unregulated usurious lending.”
The appellate court also agreed with the district court that RICO does not permit private plaintiffs to seek an injunction. “Congress’s use of significantly different language” to define the scope of governmental and private claims under RICO “compels us to conclude” that “private plaintiffs may sue only for treble damages and costs,” the appellate court stated. While plaintiffs “urge us to consider by analogy the antitrust statutes,” provisions outlined in the Clayton Act (which explicitly authorize injunction-seeking private suits) have “no analogue in the RICO statute,” the appellate court wrote, adding that “nowhere in the RICO statute has Congress explicitly authorized private actions for injunctive relief.”
FDIC argues “valid-when-made rule” fills statutory gaps
On July 15, the FDIC filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging the agency’s “valid-when-made rule.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August state attorneys general from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California arguing, among other things, that the FDIC does not have the power to issue the rule, and asserting that the FDIC has the power to issue “‘regulations to carry out’ the provisions of the [Federal Deposit Insurance Act],” but not regulations that would apply to non-banks. The AGs also claimed that the rule’s extension of state law preemption would “facilitate evasion of state law by enabling ‘rent-a-bank’ schemes,” and that the FDIC failed to explain its consideration of evidence contrary to its assertions, including evidence demonstrating that “consumers and small businesses are harmed by high interest-rate loans.” The complaint asked the court to declare that the FDIC violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in issuing the rule and to hold the rule unlawful. The FDIC countered that the AGs’ arguments “misconstrue” the rule because it “does not regulate non-banks, does not interpret state law, and does not preempt state law,” but rather clarifies the FDIA by “reasonably” filling in “two statutory gaps” surrounding banks’ interest rate authority (covered by InfoBytes here).
The AGs disagreed, arguing, among other things, that the rule violates the APA because the FDIC’s interpretation in its “Non-Bank Interest Provision” (Provision) conflicts with the unambiguous plain-language statutory text, which preempts state interest-rate caps for federally insured, state-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (FDIC Banks) alone, and “impermissibly expands the scope of [12 U.S.C.] § 1831d to preempt state rate caps as to non-bank loan buyers of FDIC Bank loans.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In its reply in support of the summary judgment motion, the FDIC’s arguments included that the rule is a “reasonable interpretation of §1831d” in that it filled two statutory gaps by determining that “the interest-rate term of a loan is determined at the time when the loan is made, and is not affected by subsequent events, such as a change in the law or the loan’s transfer.” The FDIC further claimed that the rule should be upheld under Chevron’s two-step framework, and that §1831d was enacted “to level the playing field between state and national banks, and to ‘assure that borrowers could obtain credit in states with low usury limits.’” Additionally, the FDIC refuted the AGs’ argument that the rule allows “non-bank loan buyers to enjoy § 1831d preemption without facing liability for violating the statute,” pointing out that “if a rate violates § 1831d when the loan is originated by the bank, loan buyers cannot charge that rate under the Final Rule because the validity of the interest is determined ‘when the loan is made.’”
OCC supports national bank’s challenge to state law requiring interest payments on escrow accounts
On June 15, the OCC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a defendant-appellant national bank in an appeal challenging a requirement under New York General Obligation Law § 5-601 that a defined interest rate be paid on mortgage escrow account balances. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the bank argued that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempts the state law, but the district court disagreed and issued a ruling in 2019 concluding that there is “clear evidence that Congress intended mortgage escrow accounts, even those administered by national banks, to be subject to some measure of consumer protection regulation.” The district court also determined that, with respect to the OCC’s 2004 real estate lending preemption regulation (2004 regulation), there is no evidence that “at this time, the agency gave any thought whatsoever to the specific question raised in this case, which is whether the NBA preempts escrow interest laws,” citing to and agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lusnak v. Bank of America (which held that a national bank must comply with a California law that requires mortgage lenders to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts, previously covered by InfoBytes here). The district court further applied the preemption standard from the 1996 Supreme Court decision in Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson, and found that the law does not “significantly interfere” with the bank’s power to administer mortgage escrow accounts, noting that it only “requires the [b]ank to pay interest on the comparatively small sums” deposited into the accounts and does not “bar the creation of mortgage escrow accounts, or subject them to state visitorial control, or otherwise limit the terms of their use.”
In its amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the OCC wrote that it “respectfully submits that the [appellate court] should reverse the decision of the [d]istrict [c]ourt and find that application of Section 5-601 to [the bank] is preempted by federal law,” adding that the 2019 ruling “upsets…settled legal principles” and “creates uncertainty regarding national banks’ authority to fully exercise real estate lending powers under the [NBA].” In addressing the district court’s application of Barnett, the OCC argued that the district court had incorrectly concluded that state laws cannot be preempted unless they “practical[ly] abrogat[e] or nullif[y] a national bank’s exercise of a federal banking power—a “stark contrast to the preemption standard set forth in Barnett and the OCC’s—as well as many other federal courts’—interpretation of that standard.” The OCC urged the appellate court to “conclude that a state law that requires a national bank to pay even a nominal rate of interest on a particular category of account impermissibly conflicts with a national bank’s power by disincentivizing the bank from continuing to offer the product. This is sufficient to trigger preemption under Barnett.”
The OCC further stated, among other things, that the district court also incorrectly disregarded the agency’s 2004 regulation, which the OCC said “specifically authorizes national banks to exercise their powers to make real estate loans ‘without regard to state law limitations concerning…[e]scrow accounts, impound accounts, and similar accounts….’” The agency further cautioned that the district court’s determination that the OCC’s 2004 regulation was not entitled to any level of deference was done in error and warned that “[i]f the OCC’s regulation regarding escrow accounts is rendered ineffective, this result could cause disruption within the banking industry by upsetting long-settled law regarding the applicability of state laws to national bank powers.”