InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB focuses on racial bias in home appraisals
On July 2, the CFPB announced its prioritization of resources to focus on the role of racial bias in home appraisals. According to the CFPB, undervaluation of homes based on race further drives the racial wealth divide and overvaluation of homes also puts family wealth at risk, leading to higher rates of foreclosure. On June 15, the CFPB hosted a home appraisal bias event where the NCUA, OCC, and HUD discussed insights on the role of racial bias in home appraisals, which led to conversations on how to collaborate with stakeholders in eliminating racial bias and other inequities in housing. The Bureau also noted it is “pleased to participate” in President Biden’s new interagency initiative to address inequity in home appraisals. The announcement offers numerous tools, among other resources, such as a joint housing website for those needing help paying their mortgage or rent, particularly in light of the CDC’s moratorium expiring on July 31, and a link to HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity office for victims of appraisal bias.
District Court partially grants a defendant’s MTD in FCRA, FDCPA case
On June 29, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted in part and denied in part a Wisconsin-based debt collection agency’s (defendant) motion for judgment in an FCRA and FDCPA case where the plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to update the information it was furnishing to credit bureaus after the plaintiff notified a credit bureau that she was no longer disputing the debt. Prior to February 2020, the plaintiff disputed the accuracy of a tradeline by the defendant appearing on her credit report with an unspecified party and then notified a credit reporting agency that she was no longer disputing the debt. The credit reporting agency forwarded the plaintiff’s notice to the defendant. After the plaintiff saw that the tradeline was still reported as disputed on her credit report, she filed suit alleging the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a proper investigation after being notified that the plaintiff was no longer disputing the debt and the FDCPA for reporting information it had knowledge of being false. The defendant argued “that it cannot be liable under the FCRA based on [the plaintiff’s] allegations because it had no new information to ‘reasonably investigate.’” However, the court denied the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiff’s FCRA claims stating that, “at this stage of the case, the Court cannot determine whether it would have been reasonable for [the defendant] to rely solely on its own files when performing its investigation after receiving [the plaintiff’s] letter stating that she no longer disputed her tradeline.” With respect to the FDCPA claim, the court cited the 8th Circuit’s ruling in Wilhelm v. Credico, Inc., which held that “whether ‘the consumer has disputed a particular debt’ is ‘always material’ and thus a debt collector must disclose that an account is disputed when it ‘elects to communicate ‘credit information[,]’ the fact that an account is no longer disputed would also be material.” In addition, the court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim pursuant to the alleged FDCPA violation because she did “not allege any facts demonstrating that [the defendant] continued to report false credit information after it received notice from [a reporting agency] that she no longer disputed her [debt].” However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
District Court approves $6.02 million settlement in student debt-relief action
On July 1, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against two defendants in a 2019 action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, which alleged a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. In addition, the complaint asserted the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting (i) the purpose and application of fees they charged; (ii) their ability to obtain loan forgiveness; and (iii) their ability to actually lower borrowers’ monthly payments.
The finalized settlement issued against the two relief defendants, who neither admit nor deny the allegations except as specifically stated, requires the payment of $3.98 million by one defendant and $2.04 million by the other. However, based on the defendant’s inability to pay, full payment of the $2.04 million will be suspended. The finalized settlement also ordered the paying relief defendant to disgorge any funds held in accounts in excess of the $3.98 million, “including any income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains, as of the date the funds are transferred.” Moreover, both relief defendants are required to grant all rights and claims of identified assets to the Bureau, as well as any assets “currently in the possession, custody, or control of the Receiver.”
The court previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here). Orders have yet to be entered against the remaining defendants.
CFPB issues summer supervisory highlights
On June 29, the CFPB released its summer 2021 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of auto loan servicing, consumer reporting, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage origination and servicing, payday lending, private education loan origination, and student loan servicing. The findings of the report, which are published to assist entities in complying with applicable consumer laws, cover examinations that generally were completed between January and December of 2020. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Auto Loan Servicing. Bureau examiners identified unfair acts or practices related to lender-placed collateral protection insurance (CPI), including instances where servicers charged unnecessary CPI or charged for CPI after repossession. Examiners also identified unfair acts or practices related to payoff amounts where consumers had ancillary product rebates due, and also found unfair or deceptive acts or practices related to payment application.
- Consumer Reporting. The Bureau found deficiencies in consumer reporting companies’ (CRCs) FCRA compliance related to the following requirements: (i) accuracy; (ii) security freezes applicable to certain CRCs; and (iii) ID theft block requests. Specifically, examiners found that CRCs continued to include information from furnishers despite receiving furnisher dispute responses that “suggested that the furnishers were no longer sources of reliable, verifiable information about consumers.” Additionally, the report noted instances where furnishers failed to update and correct information or conduct reasonable investigations of direct disputes.
- Debt Collection. The report found that examiners found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors (i) made calls to a consumer’s workplace; (ii) communicated with third parties; (iii) failed to stop communications after receiving a written request or a refusal to pay; (iv) harassed consumers regarding their inability to pay; (v) communicated, and threatened to communicate, false credit information to CRCs; (vi) made false representations or used deceptive collection means; (vii) entered inaccurate information regarding state interest rate caps into an automated system; (viii) unlawfully initiated wage garnishments; and (ix) failed to send complete validation notices.
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed violations related to Regulation E and Regulation DD, including error resolution violations, issues with provisional credits, failure to investigate, failure to remediate errors, and overdraft opt-in and disclosure violations.
- Fair Lending. The report noted instances where examiners cited violations of HMDA/ Regulation C involving HMDA loan application register inaccuracies, and instances where lenders, among other things, violated ECOA/Regulation B “by engaging in acts or practices directed at prospective applicants that would have discouraged reasonable people in minority neighborhoods in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) from applying for credit.”
- Mortgage Origination. The Bureau cited violations of Regulation Z and the CFPA related to loan originator compensation, title insurance disclosures, and deceptive waivers of borrowers’ rights in security deed riders and loan security agreements.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau cited violations of Regulation X, including those related to dual tracking violations, misrepresentations regarding foreclosure timelines, and PMI terminations.
- Payday Lending. The report discussed violations of the CFPA for payday lenders, including falsely representing an intent to sue or that a credit check would not be run, and presenting deceptive repayment options to borrowers that were contractually eligible for no-cost repayment plans.
- Private Education Loan Origination. Bureau examiners identified deceptive acts or practices related to the marketing of private education loan rates.
- Student Loan Servicing. Bureau examiners found several types of misrepresentations servicers made regarding consumer eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, and identified unfair acts or practices related to a servicer’s “failure to reverse negative consequences of automatic natural disaster forbearances.” Additionally, examiners identified unfair act or practices related to failing to honor consumer payment allocation instructions or providing inaccurate monthly payment amounts to consumers after a loan transfer.
The report also highlights recent supervisory program developments and enforcement actions.
CFPB highlights consumer complaints related to pandemic response
On July 1, the CFPB released a new bulletin analyzing consumer complaints and responses related to actions taken by Congress or the Bureau to provide relief for consumers impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The bulletin expands upon the Bureau’s 2020 Consumer Response Annual report (covered by InfoBytes here) and specifically focuses on consumer complaints related to: (i) suspended monthly federal student loan payments; (ii) Economic Impact Payments (EIPs); and (iii) the Bureau’s interim final rule supporting the CDC’s eviction moratorium. With respect to student loans, the bulletin noted a significant decrease in federal student loan complaints following the suspension of payments, but identified complaints related to potential customer service issues concerning repayment options or available relief and discussed servicers’ ability to respond timely to complaints. With respect to EIPs, the bulletin discussed complaints about overdraft fees charged to consumers after advances made by financial institutions to allow consumers access to all of their EIP funds were reversed, and highlighted steps taken by institutions to refund these fees. According to the bulletin, consumers who received EIPs via prepaid debit cards also reported issues accessing funds, while some consumers claimed their accounts were locked following the second and third disbursements. The bulletin also described the various types of consumer complaints related to the eviction moratorium, including complaints related to collection activities and credit reporting.
District Court rules date on credit monitoring app report insufficient to prove FDCPA violation
On June 24, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted a defendant debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA action, holding that the plaintiff did not have enough evidence to prove her claim that the defendant violated FDCPA Section 1692e(8) by failing to communicate that her debts were disputed. According to the order, the plaintiff obtained a copy of her credit report and noticed that the defendant was reporting five debts that she allegedly owed to a healthcare provider. The plaintiff’s counsel sent the defendant a letter disputing the debts. While the defendant did not report to the credit bureaus that the debts were disputed, the defendant received instructions from the healthcare provider to remove all of its consumer debts from the national credit bureaus. The defendant subsequently instructed the credit bureaus to remove all of the accounts from their services. However, the defendant did not verify that the debts were removed, claiming that it did not recall ever having “‘an issue raised as a result of one of the credit bureaus not removing a debt as requested,’” and as such “had ‘no reason to confirm that its instructions to [the credit bureau] had been carried out.’” When the plaintiff checked her credit report nearly three months later using a credit monitoring app, she saw that the debts were still being reported and were not marked as being disputed. The app showed the information to be reported as of a date that was three weeks after the defendant asked to have the debts marked as disputed. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to mark the debts as disputed and alleged that it communicated information to the credit bureaus without identifying the debts as being disputed. The defendant countered, arguing among other things, that it “‘has no control over when or how [the credit bureau] inputs data from [the defendant] or how [the credit bureau] describes the report date of the data that [the defendant] submits to it.’”
In granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court determined that simply because the app used a date to indicate how current the information was does not mean that information was communicated to the credit bureaus by the defendant on that date. The app report relied upon by the plaintiff “does not indicate that [the defendant] communicated with [the credit bureau] on that date,” the court wrote. “It is simply silent on that question. It certainly gives rise to the possibility that [the defendant] communicated with [the credit bureau] on that date, but a possibility is not the same as probability.” As a result, the court found there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the plaintiff’s claims and it granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor.
Special Alert: CFPB specifies pandemic foreclosure protections and signals tight supervision and enforcement around servicer efforts
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Covid-relief mortgage servicing rule issued yesterday steered away from a nationwide foreclosure freeze as initially proposed, instead creating heightened protections for those borrowers who became seriously delinquent during the pandemic. The distinction may not prove to be a game-changer for servicers, however, which will be obligated to carefully document outreach efforts and decisions to advance borrowers into foreclosure — with little margin for error.
The bureau’s final rule, which takes effect Aug. 31, obligates a servicer to continue specifying, with substantial detail, any loss mitigation options that may help the borrower resolve their delinquency. It also largely preserves the proposed streamline modification option on the basis of an incomplete loss mitigation application, although most servicers already have been offering many of these modifications since the early days of the pandemic.
Supreme Court denies request to lift CDC’s eviction moratorium
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Alabama Association of Realtors et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al. denying a request from a coalition of landlords and realtor groups to lift the federal government’s eviction moratorium. In his concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the CDC “exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium.” However, he explained his vote to deny the request by pointing out that the moratorium is set to expire on July 31 and keeping it in place until then will allow for a “more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, on June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the group’s motion to lift an administrative stay placed by a district court on its own order, in which it had ruled that the CDC’s nationwide eviction moratorium issued in response to the Covid-19 pandemic exceeded the agency’s statutory authority.
FHFA announces CFPB final rule
On June 29, FHFA announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) will not be permitted to make a first notice or filing for foreclosure that would be prohibited by the CFPB’s “Protections for Borrowers Affected by the COVID-19 Emergency Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Regulation X” final rule prior to the rule’s effective date. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the Bureau’s final rule, which takes effect August 31, obligates a servicer to continue specifying, with substantial detail, any loss mitigation options that may help borrowers resolve their delinquencies. GSEs are required to follow the CFPB’s new protections a month before the CFPB rule takes effect, which will protect borrowers from foreclosure and provide certainty for servicers regarding GSE expectations. According to FHFA, “[s]ervicers will still be able to make a notice or filing for foreclosure on abandoned properties and those that had a foreclosure referral prior to March 2020, along with certain other exceptions.” FHFA’s action eliminates the gap between the expiration of its current moratoriums for single family foreclosures and real estate owned (REO) evictions that will expire on July 31 (covered by InfoBytes here) and the effective date of the CFPB’s rule, which is a month later.
Maine enacts predominant economic interest standard
On June 21, the Maine governor signed S.P. 205/L.D. 522, which enacts and amends provisions prohibiting certain actions in the making of consumer loans to protect consumers from predatory, fraudulent lending practices. Among other things, the act prohibits covered entities from “engag[ing] in any device, subterfuge or pretense to evade the requirements of this Article, including, but not limited to, making a loan disguised as a personal property sale and leaseback transaction, disguising loan proceeds as a cash rebate for the pretextual installment sale of goods or services or making, offering, assisting or arranging a debtor to obtain a loan with a greater rate of interest, consideration or charge than is permitted by this Article through any method.” Loans that violate these provisions are “void and uncollectible as to any principal, fee, interest or charge.” The act also specifies that a person qualifies as a lender subject to the act’s requirements if, among other things, (i) “[t]he person holds, acquires or maintains, directly or indirectly, the predominant economic interest in the loan”; (ii) “[t]he person markets, brokers, arranges or facilitates the loan and holds the right, requirement or first right of refusal to purchase the loan or a receivable or interest in the loan”; or (iii) “[t]he totality of the circumstances indicate that the person is the lender and the transaction is structured to evade the requirements of this Article.” Additionally, the act provides that a lender who violates the act’s provisions may not furnish information concerning a debt associated with the violation to a consumer reporting agency, nor may it refer the associated debt to a debt collector. The bill takes effect 90 days after legislative session adjourns.