InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
California to examine feasibility of public banking
On October 4, the California governor signed AB 1177, which establishes the California Public Banking Option Act and requires the state treasurer to convene a commission to conduct a market analysis to determine the feasibility of establishing a program for California consumers who lack access to traditional banking services. The CalAccount Program, if implemented, would protect unbanked and underbanked consumers from predatory, discriminatory, and costly alternatives by providing “access to a voluntary, zero-fee, zero-penalty, federally insured transaction account . . . and related payment services at no cost to accountholders.”
Among other things, the Act would (i) require the establishment of a process for accountholders to deposit funds into a CalAccount for no fee; (ii) impose a mandate requiring employers and hiring entities to maintain payroll direct deposit arrangements to allow workers to voluntarily participate in the program; (iii) require landlords to allow tenants to pay rent and security deposits by electronic funds transfers from a CalAccount; (iv) require a board (established to administer the program) to contract with and coordinate financial services vendors for the program and build an expansive financial services network of participating ATMs, banks, credit union branches, and other in-network partners to allow account holders to load or withdraw funds from their CalAccount without paying fees; (v) require the board to establish a no-fee process to allow all account holders to arrange for payments to a registered payee using a preauthorized electronic fund transfer from a CalAccount; (vi) establish rules governing the participation of individuals under the age of 18; (vii) provide a secure web-based portal and mobile application to allow individuals access and management of their CalAccount; and (viii) facilitate connectivity with other state and local government agencies and entities so public assistance programs and other disbursements may be directly deposited by electronic fund transfer into a CalAccount. The Act requires the commission to be convened on or before September 1, 2022, with the market analysis due on or before July 1, 2024 to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions and the Chair of the Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance.
California governor signs legislation on debt collection
On October 4, the California governor signed SB 531, which requires debt collectors to provide more information to consumers when assigned to collect a debt. Among other things, the bill: (i) expands the standards to allow Californians to verify a collector’s authority; (ii) bans creditors from selling the debt without first giving the debtor 30-day notice; (iii) requires debt buyers to provide a written statement to the debtor upon request; and (iv) prohibits, in certain circumstances, a debt collector from making a written statement to a debtor in an attempt to collect a delinquent consumer debt. The law is effective starting July 1, 2022.
HUD announces Vermont and Montana disaster relief
On September 30, HUD announced disaster assistance for certain areas in Vermont impacted by a severe storm and flooding from July 29 to July 30, providing foreclosure relief and other assistance to affected homeowners. This followed President Biden’s major disaster declaration for the counties of Bennington and Windham issued on September 29. The following day, HUD announced disaster assistance for certain areas in Montana affected by the Richard Spring Fire from August 8 to August 20, also providing foreclosure relief and other assistance to affected homeowners. This followed President Biden’s major disaster declaration for Rosebud County and the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation issued on September 30. According to the announcement, federal funding is additionally available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation in all areas of Montana.
For both disaster relief measures, HUD is providing an automatic 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages for covered properties and is making FHA insurance available to victims whose homes were destroyed or severely damaged, such that “reconstruction or replacement is necessary.” Additionally, HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program will allow individuals who have lost homes to finance the purchase of a house, or refinance an existing house and the costs of repair, through a single mortgage. The program will also allow homeowners with damaged property to finance the rehabilitation of existing single-family homes. Flexibility measures for state and local governments, public housing authorities, tribes, and tribally designated house entities are also addressed.
CFPB examines subprime auto loans
On September 30, the CFPB released a Data Point report, titled Subprime Auto Loan Outcomes by Lender Type, which examines interest rate and default risk trends across different types of subprime lenders, including how much of the variation of interest rates charged among subprime lenders can be explained by differences in default rates and how much is left to be explained. The report found notable average differences across lender types in the borrowers they serve and the types of vehicles they finance. Banks and credit unions offering subprime auto loans typically lend to borrowers with higher credit scores compared to finance companies and buy-here-pay-here dealerships, the report noted, adding that different lenders also charge very different interest rates on average. According to the report’s sample, a bank’s average subprime loan interest rate is approximately 10 percent, compared to 15 to 20 percent at finance companies and buy-here-pay-here dealerships. The report found that higher default rates were found at lenders that charged higher interest rates, and that “the likelihood of a subprime auto loan becoming at least 60 days delinquent within three years is approximately 15 percent for bank borrowers and between 25 percent and 40 percent for finance company and buy-here-pay-here borrowers.”
However, the report presented statistical analysis that called into question whether differences in default rates fully explained the average differences in interest rates across subprime lender types. As an example, an average borrower with a 560 credit score or higher would have the same default risk whether the borrower obtained a loan from a bank or a small buy-here-pay-here lender, but the estimated interest rate would be nine percent with a bank loan versus 13 percent from a small buy-here-pay-here lender. The report noted that there are other variables, not observed in the data collected, that may explain differences in interest rates charged by different types of auto lenders, such as down payments, vehicle values, variations in borrowers’ access to information, borrowers’ financial sophistication, and variations within lenders’ business practices and incentives.
District Court: Maryland escrow law does not confer private right of action
On September 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a national bank’s motion for summary judgment in an action claiming the bank allegedly failed to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts. The plaintiff filed a putative class action asserting various claims including for violation of Section 12-109 of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), which requires lenders to pay interest on funds maintained in escrow on behalf of borrowers. In response, the bank filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the MCPA is preempted by the National Bank Act and by 2004 OCC preemption regulations. In 2020, the court denied the bank’s motion to dismiss after it determined, among other things, that under Dodd-Frank, national banks are required to pay interest on escrow accounts when mandated by applicable state or federal law. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Citing previous decisions in similar escrow interest cases brought against the same bank in other states (covered by InfoBytes here and here), the court stated that Section 12-109 “does not prevent or significantly interfere with [the bank’s] exercise of its federal banking authority, because [Section] 12-109’s ‘interference’ is minimal, when compared with statutes that the Supreme Court has previously found were preempted.” The court further noted that state law—which “still allows [the bank] to require escrow accounts for its borrowers”—provides that the bank must pay a small amount of interest to borrowers if it chooses to maintain escrow accounts.
However, in its most recent ruling, the court held that the MCPA does not authorize the plaintiff to sue either. “[T]his court finds that § 12-109 does not confer a private right of action,” the court wrote, adding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim could not get around a notice-and-cure provision in her mortgage agreement that she had not complied with before suing. The plaintiff argued that these requirements did not apply because “her self-styled breach of contract claim is actually a statutory claim because the allegedly breached contractual provision is one which pledges general adherence to applicable law.” The court disagreed, stating that under the plaintiff’s theory “any claim for breach of contract, which also violated a federal or state law, would be vaulted to a privileged hybrid status. Such claims would enjoy an unlimited private right of action (regardless of whether the underlying statute created one) and. . .would be unbounded by any of the provisions or conditions precedent detailed in the contract itself.” The court also ruled that the plaintiff’s escrow statements, which “correctly reflected that her account was not accruing interest,” are themselves “not rendered deceptive by the mere fact that Plaintiff believes such interest is owed.”
En banc 9th Circuit: FHA does not support downstream injuries
On September 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc decision concluding that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) “is not a statute that supports proximate cause for injuries further downstream.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the City of Oakland sued a national bank alleging violations of the FHA and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, claiming the bank provided minority borrowers mortgage loans with less favorable terms than similarly situated non-minority borrowers, which led to disproportionate defaults and foreclosures and caused (i) decreased property tax revenue; (ii) increased city expenditures; and (iii) neutralized spending in Oakland’s fair-housing programs. In 2020, a three-judge panel affirmed both the district court’s denial of the bank’s motion to dismiss claims for decreased property tax revenue, as well as the court’s dismissal of Oakland’s claims for increased city expenditures. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The panel further held that Oakland’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were also subject to the FHA’s proximate-cause requirement and, on remand, the district court must determine whether Oakland’s allegations satisfied this requirement. The bank filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc last year arguing, among other things, that the panel had “fashioned a looser, FHA-specific proximate-cause standard” in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami. As covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in 2017, the Supreme Court held that municipal plaintiffs may be “aggrieved persons” authorized to bring suit under the FHA against lenders for injuries allegedly flowing from discriminatory lending practices, but that such injuries must be proximately caused by, rather than simply the foreseeable result of, the alleged misconduct.
The 9th Circuit agreed with the bank and remanded the case for dismissal of the FHA claims and proceedings consistent with the opinion. Citing the Miami decision as one of the leading factors, the panel stated that “[w]e begin where Miami began, with ‘[t]he general tendency. . .not to go beyond the first step,’” adding that “[t]here is no question that Oakland’s theory of harm goes beyond the first step—the harm to minority borrowers who receive predatory loans. Oakland’s theory of harm runs far beyond that—to depressed housing values, and ultimately to reduced tax revenue and increased municipal expenditures. Oakland thus fails a strict application of the general tendency not to stretch proximate causation beyond the first step.” The panel also affirmed the district court’s decision that Oakland failed to sufficiently plead claims related to increased municipal expenditures and reversed the district court’s denial of the bank’s motion to dismiss claims for lost property tax revenue and injunctive and declaratory relief.
CFPB releases consumer credit card report
On September 29, the CFPB released its fifth biennial report on the state of the credit card market as required by Section 502 of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act. The 2021 report covers the credit card market for the 2019-2020 period, and revisits similar baseline indicators and in-depth topics to examine market changes and track market developments and trends. Specifically, the report updates the deferred interest analysis last conducted in the 2017 Report. The report also analyzes the latest research on consumer card use, cost, and availability, among other things, finding that “[f]rom a 2019 peak of $926 billion, credit card debt fell to $811 billion by the second quarter of 2020, the largest six-month decline on record, before reaching $825 billion by the end of the year.” The report also highlights indicators related to consumer credit card activity during the pandemic, including (i) more than 25 million consumer credit card accounts represented approximately $68 billion in outstanding credit card debt entered relief programs in 2020; (ii) application volume for credit cards sharply declined in 2020 from its peak in 2019; (iii) late payment and default rates were at a historic low; (iv) consumers with below prime scores saw the greatest constriction in available credit card line; and (v) digital engagement is increasing across all age groups.
District Court orders student loan debt-relief defendant to pay $20 million
On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a judgment in favor of the CFPB against an individual defendant in an action taken by the Bureau against a lender and several related individuals and companies (collectively, “defendants”) for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint in 2020 claiming the defendants violated the FCRA by, among other things, illegally obtaining consumer reports from a credit reporting agency for millions of consumers with student loans by representing that the reports would be used to “make firm offers of credit for mortgage loans” and to market mortgage products. However, the Bureau alleged that the defendants instead resold or provided the reports to numerous companies, including companies engaged in marketing student loan debt relief services. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging and collecting advance fees for their debt relief services, and violated both the TSR and CFPA by placing telemarketing sales calls and sending direct mail to encourage consumers to consolidate their loans, while falsely representing that consolidation could lower student loan interest rates, improve borrowers’ credit scores, and allow borrowers to change their servicer to the Department of Education. Settlements have already been reached with certain defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here).
In August the court granted the Bureau’s motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant after determining that undisputed evidence showed that the individual defendant, among other things, “obtained and later used prescreened lists from [a consumer reporting agency] without a permissible purpose” in order to send direct mail solicitations from the businesses that he controlled to consumers on the lists as opposed to firm offers of credit or insurance. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) At the time, the court found that injunctive relief, restitution, and a civil money penalty were appropriate remedies. While the individual defendant objected to the proposed judgment, the court ultimately ordered that the Bureau is entitled to a judgment for monetary relief of over $19 million as redress for fees paid by affected consumers. This restitution is owed jointly and severally with the student loan debt relief company defendants in the amounts imposed in default judgments entered against each of them (covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, the court determined that the individual defendant “recklessly” violated the CFPA, TSR, and FCRA, warranting a $20 million civil money penalty. The individual defendant is also permanently banned from participating in telemarketing activities or from using or obtaining prescreened consumer reports.
CFPB offers reminder on forbearance options for borrowers
On September 30, the CFPB issued an analysis of recent rules that ensure mortgage servicers provide options to potentially vulnerable borrowers exiting forbearance. The analysis points out that there are approximately 1.6 million borrowers exiting mortgage forbearance programs and that many may be vulnerable to a greater risk of harm due to a variety of circumstances, which may have been exacerbated by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the Bureau issued a final rule earlier this year, which took effect August 31, obligating servicers to continue specifying, with substantial detail, any loss mitigation options that may help borrowers resolve their delinquencies. In April, the CFPB also urged mortgage servicers “to take all necessary steps now to prevent a wave of avoidable foreclosures this fall.” Citing the millions of homeowners in forbearance due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Bureau’s April compliance bulletin warned servicers that consumers would need assistance when pandemic-related federal emergency mortgage protections expire (covered by InfoBytes here). In addition, in August the Bureau released an overview report of Covid-19 pandemic responses from 16 large mortgage servicers, finding that, among other things: (i) most servicers reported abandonment rates of less than 5 percent during the reporting period, while others’ rates exceeded 20 percent, with one servicer as high as 34 percent; (ii) most servicers saw increased rates of borrowers who were delinquent upon exiting pandemic hardship forbearance programs in March and April 2021 compared to previous months; and (iii) delinquency rates ranged from about 1 percent to 26 percent for federally-backed and private loans (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the September analysis, the Bureau “encourages servicers to enhance their communication capabilities and outreach efforts to educate and assist all borrowers in resolving delinquency and enrolling in widely available assistance and loss mitigation options.” The Bureau further encourages servicers to ensure that their compliance management systems include robust measures and warns against one-size-fits-all practices that may harm vulnerable consumers.
VA extends Covid-19 loan deferment, clarifies forbearance timeline
On September 29, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued circulars providing updates for servicers on assisting borrowers who continue to be affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. According to Circular 26-21-19, servicers may continue to offer loan deferments as a home retention option to borrowers exiting a Covid-19 forbearance period. Servicers who select this option will defer repayment of principal, interest, taxes, and insurance “to the loan maturity date or until the borrower refinances the loan, transfers the property, or otherwise pays off the loan (whichever occurs first) and with no added costs, fees, or interest to the borrower, and with no penalty for early payment of the deferred amount.” The VA’s Covid-19 Home Retention Waterfall and Covid-19 Refund Modification guidance, issued in July (covered by InfoBytes here), provides that the loan deferment option may be used in situations where a borrower indicates that he or she can resume normal monthly guaranteed loan payments but cannot repay the arrearages. Additionally, the VA notes that in order “to relieve undue prejudice to a debtor, holder, or other person,” it is “temporarily waiving the requirement that the final installment on any loan shall not be in excess of two times the average of the preceding installments.” This waiver, the agency notes, is applicable only to VA’s Covid-19 Home Retention Waterfall cases. The Circular is rescinded July 1, 2023.
The same day, the VA also issued Circular 26-21-20 to clarify timeline expectations for forbearance requests submitted by affected borrowers. “For borrowers who have not received a COVID-related forbearance as of the date of this Circular, servicers should approve requests from such borrowers provided that the borrower makes the request during the National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic.” The VA states that it expects all Covid-19 related forbearances to end no later than September 30, 2022.