InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Utah Establishes Payday Loan Ability To Repay Requirements
On March 29, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 127, which amends state law to require deferred deposit lenders, i.e. payday lenders, to assess a borrower’s ability to repay the loan “in the ordinary course, which may include rollovers or extended payment plans” and to obtain a signed acknowledgment from a borrower that the person has the ability to repay the loan. The legislation states that a lender is in compliance with the ability to repay requirement if, at the time of the initial period of the deferred deposit loan transaction, the lender obtains (i) a consumer report; (ii) written proof or verification of income from the person seeking the deferred deposit loan; or (iii) prior repayment history with the deferred deposit loan from the records of the deferred deposit lender. In addition, if a borrower is charged 10 continuous weeks of interest or fees on a payday loan, including rollovers, then at the end of the 10-week period, the lender must allow the borrower, upon the borrower’s request, to repay the loan and rollovers under an extended payment plan that meets certain requirements. The legislation also requires a lender to provide notice of default at least 10 days before filing a civil action to collect on a deferred deposit loan.
Washington Amends State SCRA Statute To Provide State Remedy For Violation Of Federal SCRA
On March 27, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed HB 2171, which amends the Washington Service Member’s Civil Relief Act (WSCRA) to provide that a violation of the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is a violation of the WSCRA and applies in proper cases in all Washington courts. The bill also provides a private right of action for servicemembers or their dependents to enforce the WSCRA, and grants the state attorney general civil litigating authority, with penalties of up to $55,000 for a first violation and up to $110,000 for each subsequent violation. The changes take effect on June 12, 2014.
Minnesota Appeals Court Upholds State Regulation Of Online Payday Lender
On March 31, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the Minnesota state legislature may regulate the activities of online payday lenders that extend loans to individuals residing within the state’s borders, even if the lender’s operations are based in a different state. State of Minn. v. Integrity Advance, LLC, No. 62-CV-11-7168, 2014 WL 1272279 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2014). The state of Minnesota alleged that an online payday lender violated Minnesota law by charging high annual interest rates, automatically rolling-over loans for extended periods, and failing to obtain a state lending license. The lender argued that the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate commerce, prevented the Minnesota legislature from regulating the lender because the lender received and accepted Minnesotans’ loan applications at its place of business in Delaware, where the loans were consummated. The court rejected the lender’s argument and held that the U.S. Constitution permits states to regulate commercial transactions that affect their citizens so long as the transactions are not “wholly extraterritorial” – that is, occurring entirely outside of the state’s borders. The court determined that the online lender’s loans were not “wholly extraterritorial” because the lender (i) accepted loan applications online from Minnesota residents that indicated the applicant resided and worked in Minnesota; (ii) contacted Minnesotans in their home state approximately 27,944 times for loan underwriting and other business purposes; and (iii) deposited loan funds directly into Minnesota borrowers’ bank accounts. The court also upheld the district court’s award of $7 million in civil and statutory damages against the lender, finding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion since the award amounted to only 21% of the statutorily-allowed amount.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Clarify Rural Property Appraisal Requirements
On April 1, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2014-05, and on March 25, Fannie Mae issued Lender Letter LL-2014-02, in response to directives from the FHFA to clarify certain requirements related to appraisals for properties located in rural areas. In the clarifying documents, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac state that they do not require the use of third-party vendors such as appraisal management companies to order appraisals or to comply with requirements that the mortgage production function and the appraisal ordering and quality assurance functions remain separate. In addition, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide a small lender exception to the separation requirement. The guidance documents also state that a residential property in a market that contains properties or land uses that are non-residential in nature, is not necessarily ineligible for sale to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Both entities assert that they will purchase a mortgage secured by a property that is unique or may not conform to its neighborhood, provided an appraiser is able to evaluate and report on how the characteristics of the market area and unique property features affect the value and the marketability of the subject property. The guidance documents also advise sellers that in areas with less real estate activity, such as rural market areas, appraisers may, with documented support, use comparable sales that are older than 12 months, or that are a considerable distance from the subject property or not similar to the subject property.
California Seeks Comments On Money Transmission Regulations
On March 26, the California Department of Business Oversight issued a request for comments on proposed changes to regulations impacting money transmitters. The Department is required to amend outdated regulations that correspond to the repealed Payment Instruments Law, and establish new regulations to implement the Money Transmission Act. Specifically, the regulations under consideration include amendments to definitions, exemptions from the Money Transmission Act, license application requirements, administrative standards and procedures relating to an application for a license, tangible shareholders’ equity, consumer disclosures, and eligible securities. Comments on the proposal are due by April 26, 2014.
SCOTUS Denies Certiorari In Lien Stripping Case
On March 31, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in an Eleventh Circuit case that raises the issue of whether, under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, a chapter 7 debtor can “strip off” a junior-lien mortgage when the outstanding debt owed to a senior lienholder exceeds the current value of the collateral. Bank of America v. Sinkfield, 13-700, 2014 WL 1271326 (U.S. Mar. 31, 2014). Here, the debtor’s property was subject to two mortgage liens, with the outstanding amount of the first-priority mortgage exceeding the fair market value of the property. In the bankruptcy court, the debtor filed a motion to strip off the junior lien under section 506(d). Controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent allowed the junior-lien mortgage to be stripped off or voided because it was wholly unsupported by the collateral. The parties stipulated to the facts and the applicability of the precedent, but the holder of the junior lien disputed the correctness of the Eleventh Circuit precedent and reserved the right to appeal its continued viability. In its eventual petition to the Supreme Court, the holder of the junior lien argued that the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent is out of step with every other federal appeals court that has addressed the issue. The junior lien holder explained that, relying on a prior Supreme Court holding that section 506(d) does not permit a chapter 7 debtor to “strip down” a mortgage lien to the current value of the collateral, the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits held that section 506(d) similarly does not permit a “strip off.” The Court declined to address the apparent circuit split.
Freddie Mac Revises Modification Requirements
On March 28, Freddie Mac announced in Bulletin 2014-4, that with regard to the processing of standard and streamlined modifications for mortgages with pre-modification mark-to-market loan-to-value ratios less than 80%, servicers must provide eligible borrowers the option to select a 480-month, 360-month, or 240-month term for the modification agreement. Servicers must include in the trial period plan notice each amortization term and its trial period payment only when the associated monthly principal and interest (P&I) payment reduction condition is met. For a 480-month amortization term, the estimated modified P&I payment must be less than or equal to the current contractual P&I payment. For a 360-month or 240-month amortization term, the estimated modified P&I payment must be at least 20% less than the current contractual P&I payment. Additionally, Freddie Mac eliminated the options for a borrower to request a term that is different than those provided in the trial period plan offer or to change the amortization term after the first trial period payment is made. The Bulletin also advises servicers that, effective July 8, 2014, Freddie Mac will evaluate market rates on a monthly basis to determine whether a change to the standard modification interest rate is necessary, and, if so, will post the new rate and its mandatory effective date on the Standard Modification Interest Rate web page by the fifth business day of each month.
Washington Amends Provisions Impacting Non-Depository Institutions
Recently, the state of Washington enacted SB 6134, which amends numerous provisions related to the supervision of non-depository institutions. The bill clarifies the statute of limitations applicable to certain violations by non-depository institutions by providing that enforcement actions for violations of the Escrow Act, the Mortgage Broker Practices Act, the Uniform Money Services Act (UMSA), the Consumer Loan Act, and the Check Cashers and Check Sellers Act (CCSA) are subject to a five-year statute of limitations. In addition, the bill provides that licensees under the CCSA and the UMSA that conduct business in multiple states and register through the NMLS must submit call reports to the Department of Financial Institutions. The changes take effect June 12, 2014.
S.D. Fla. Court Holds TILA Assignee Liability Limited To Violations Apparent At Time Of Assignment
On March 10, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida held that a mortgage assignee “may only be held liable for violations that are apparent on the face of disclosure documents that exist at the time of the assignment.” Alaimo v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc., No. 13-62437-CIV, 2014 WL 930787 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2014). In this case, a borrower sued his current servicer alleging that the servicer violated Section 1641 of TILA by failing to disclose, upon the borrower’s request, the identity of the owner and master servicer of the loan, as well as the total outstanding balance that would be required to satisfy the mortgage loan in full as of a specified date. The court determined that TILA’s plain language demonstrates that “Congress intended assignees to be responsible only for violations within documents that existed prior to assignment.” While acknowledging the potential policy implication of its decision that could allow assignees to avoid liability for certain TILA violations, the court declined to go beyond congressional intent. The court rejected the borrower’s argument that TILA’s requirement that an assignee provide written notice to the borrower upon acquiring the loan includes an exception to the prerequisites for a suit against an assignee. The court dismissed the borrower’s suit.
UK FCA Describes Approach To Consumer Credit Markets, Launches Review Of Credit Card Market
On April 3, Martin Wheatley, Chief Executive of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which took over responsibility for overseeing consumer credit markets in the UK on April 1, 2014, identified the FCA’s most “immediate priority” as ensuring “providers of credit, as well as satellite services like credit broking, debt management and debt advice, have sustainable and well-controlled business models, supported by a culture that is based on ‘doing the right thing’ for customers.” He explained that the FCA wants to expand financial service providers’ focus on compliance with specific rules to include “wider FCA expectations of good conduct.” Referencing a paper the FCA published on April 1, the day it began overseeing consumer credit markets, Mr. Wheatley stated that consumer credit providers need to consider how they engage with consumers in vulnerable circumstances. On this issue, the FCA also announced a “competition review” of the UK credit card market to determine, among other things, “how the industry worked with those people who were in difficult financial situations already.”