InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
5th Circuit: Oral agreement to accept past-due mortgage payments is unenforceable under statute of frauds
On March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a national bank, upholding its foreclosure sale in a 2-1 opinion. According to the opinion, after the borrowers missed several payments the bank foreclosed on their property. The borrowers filed suit alleging, among other things, that the bank “violated the deed of trust and the Texas Property Code” by failing to send proper notices prior to the foreclosure of their home, and also violated the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA). The bank argued that it had properly served notice, and the district court agreed, granting summary judgment on the foreclosure-sale claims, concluding “that there was no genuine dispute over whether [the bank] properly sent notice in compliance with both the deed of trust and the Texas Property Code.” The district court also agreed with the bank that an oral agreement between the borrowers and a bank representative to accept a $14,000 payment “to bring the loan current” was “unenforceable under the statute of frauds because it modified the terms of the loan agreement.”
On appeal, the majority opinion considered, among other things, whether the statute of frauds barred consideration of the alleged oral agreement under the TDCA. The majority concluded that alleged oral agreement “cannot alone” sustain the borrowers’ claims under the TDCA. In order for the $14,000 to be considered “an actual, enforceable acceptance” as either part of the repayment plan or to bring the loan current, the agreement would have to be in writing under Texas law, the majority held. The dissenting judge argued, however, that the bank violated the TDCA by “misrepresenting, in a March 2017 phone call, that $14,000 would be automatically deducted from the [borrowers’] account to pay off the bulk of their past-due mortgage payments.” According to the dissent, “the phone call plausibly muddled the [borrowers’] understanding of whether they had a past-due mortgage debt, how much they owed, and whether they were in default,” thus creating a false sense of security about their mortgage—the kind of conduct the TDCA is intended to guard against.
Illinois reissues and extends several Covid-19 executive orders
On April 2, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker issued Executive Order 2021-06, which extends several executive orders through May 1, 2021 (previously covered here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Among other things, the order extends: (i) Executive Order 2020-07 regarding in-person meeting requirements, (ii) Executive Order 2020-23 regarding actions by individuals licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation engaged in disaster response, (iii) Executive Order 2020-25 regarding garnishment and wage deductions (previously covered here), (iv) Executive Order 2020-30 regarding residential evictions (previously covered here), and (v) Executive Order 2020-72 regarding the residential eviction moratorium (previously covered here and here).
Illinois reissues and extends several Covid-19 executive orders
On April 2, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker issued Executive Order 2021-06, which extends several previous executive orders through May 1, 2021 (previously covered here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Among other things, the order extends: (i) Executive Order 2020-07 regarding in-person meeting requirements, (ii) Executive Order 2020-23 regarding actions by individuals licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation engaged in disaster response, (iii) Executive Order 2020-25 regarding garnishment and wage deductions (previously covered here), (iv) Executive Order 2020-30 regarding residential evictions (previously covered here), and (v) Executive Order 2020-72 regarding the residential eviction moratorium (previously covered here and here).
DFPI sanctions former PACE solicitor under California Consumer Financial Protection Law
On March 30, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced it has permanently banned an individual and three companies he owns or controls for allegedly evading Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) laws. According to DFPI, the respondents, among other things, engaged in unfair and deceptive marketing tactics by “marketing their product as a ‘no-cost’ government-funded program” and “using an unenrolled company to advertise and solicit consumers for PACE financing.” DFPI claimed the respondents offered and sold PACE financing without enrolling with a PACE program administrator, failed to clearly and accurately inform consumers about how PACE financing works, and “misled consumers about their relationships with public agencies, lenders, PACE program administrators, and each other.” Under the terms of the consent order, the respondents agreed to cease and desist from offering PACE financing to consumers, agreed not to use “PACE” in business names, websites, marketing materials, or construction communications, and agreed not to seek future enrollment with any PACE program administrator.
NY AG obtains $53 million judgment against company selling debt relief on student loans
On March 30, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a default judgment and order against a student debt relief company, which requires the payment of $53 million in statutory penalties, after the defendant failed to respond to a suit filed by the New York attorney general. The AG alleged that the defendant sold debt-relief services to student loan borrowers that violated several laws, including the state’s usury, banking, credit repair, and telemarketing laws, and the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. In addition to the $53 million penalty, the order permanently bans the defendant from engaging in debt-relief activities, collecting on loans related to its debt relief products or services, or using any personal information it has for student borrowers. The court also ordered the defendant to turn over financial records and authorized the AG’s office to seek additional restitution and disgorgement on the basis of those records. The order follows a 2020 stipulated judgment entered against other defendants in the action, which included a $5.5 million judgment (covered by InfoBytes here).
Nevada issues final extension for eviction moratorium
On April 1, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak issued Declaration of Emergency Directive 043, relating to the implementation of Senate Bill 1 (previously covered here). The directive provides that certain residential unlawful detainer or summary eviction actions against covered persons are stayed through May 31, 2021. Emergency Directives 008, 025, 031, and 036 (covered here, here, here, and here) had previously prohibited such evictions through March 31. In the accompanying press release, Governor Sisolak stated that the moratorium will not be extended again.
Idaho Department of Finance once again extends “work from home” guidance
On March 31, the Idaho Department of Finance extended its temporary regulatory guidance (previously covered here, here, here) permitting mortgage brokers and lenders, mortgage loan originators, regulated lenders, title lenders, payday lenders, and collection agency licensees and registrants to work from home under certain circumstances. The original guidance (previously covered here) permits employees to work from home where the residence is not a licensed branch and certain data security requirements are met. The guidance is extended through December 31, 2021.
NYDFS updates cybersecurity fraud alert
On March 30, NYDFS issued an updated cybersecurity fraud alert that warns of other techniques used in a widespread cybercrime campaign targeting public-facing websites. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the update stems from NYDFS’ February 16 cybersecurity fraud alert sent to regulated entities, which described a “widespread cybercrime campaign” designed to steal nonpublic private consumer information (NPI) from public-facing websites and use the stolen NPI to fraudulently apply for pandemic and unemployment benefits. In addition to the techniques previously identified, NYDFS alerts regulated entities of the following additional hacking methods: (i) using web-debugging tools to steal unredacted, plaintext NPI while in transit from the data vendor to the company; and (ii) credential stuffing to gain access to insurance agent accounts and using those agent accounts to steal consumer NPI. To prevent sensitive data from being stolen from public-facing websites, NYDFS advises financial organizations to circumvent displaying prefilled NPI, even in redacted form, and to guarantee that all portals are being guarded by the “robust access controls required by [NYDFS]’s cybersecurity regulation.” The alert also outlines remediation steps that financial institutions should execute to guarantee basic security.
NY AG exempts stimulus payments from garnishment
On March 24, the New York attorney general issued official guidance for New York state banking institutions, creditors, and debt collectors to clarify that federal stimulus payments are exempt from garnishment under New York law. The guidance, which is based on multiple state and federal consumer protection laws, explains that any attempt to garnish stimulus funds from consumers in the state would constitute “illegal acts” because such garnishment would violate prohibitions under the New York City Consumer Protection Law, New York General Business Law 601(8), the FDCPA, and Dodd-Frank prohibitions of unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices. Banking institutions are also advised to treat these stimulus payments “as subject to the same protections as statutorily exempt payments.”
Maryland regulator amends guidance regarding foreclosures
On March 29, the Maryland commissioner of financial regulation issued amended regulatory guidance extending the prohibition of the initiation of foreclosures through May 3, 2021. The “re-start date” for the initiation of residential foreclosures will be May 4, 2021. The guidance is issued pursuant to the Maryland governor’s executive order 20-12-17-02, which amended and restated previous executive orders covered here, here, and here.