InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fourth Circuit Holds FDCPA Allows For Oral Disputes Of Debt
On January 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the FDCPA does not impose a requirement that debt disputes be presented in writing and permits debtors to orally dispute the validity of a debt. Clark v. Absolute Collection Serv., Inc., No. 13-1151, 2014 WL 341943 (4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2014). A debt collector moved to dismiss a suit in which the debtor sought to invalidate a debt because the debt collection notice required the debtor’s dispute to be in writing. The debtor argued the notice violated FDCPA section 1692g(a)(3), which provides the basic right to dispute a debt. The debtor also claimed that the writing requirement was a false or deceptive means of collection in violation of section 1692e(10). Considering only the first argument on appeal, the Fourth Circuit joined the Second and Ninth Circuits, but split from the Third Circuit, and held that the “FDCPA clearly defines communications between a debt collector and consumers” and section 1692g(a)(3) “plainly does not” require a written communication to dispute a debt. The court rejected the debt collector’s argument that 1692g(a)(3) imposes an inherent writing requirement.
Nevada Judge Sanctions State AG In Robosigning Suit
On January 30, Nevada’s Clark County District Court ordered the State AG to pay attorneys’ fees in connection with a mortgage servicing vendor’s attempts to obtain discovery in the state’s case alleging the company facilitated fraudulent residential foreclosures, including through so-called “robosigning” tactics. Nevada v. Lender Processing Svcs., Inc., No. A-11-653289-B, (Nev. Dist. Ct. Jan. 30, 2014). The company asserted that the AG abused the discovery process by repeatedly failing to produce materials sufficient to support its claims under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court rejected the AG’s defense, among others, that the alleged discovery deficiencies simply reflect disagreements between the parties over the evidence necessary to support a claim under state law. Although not a direct issue in this case, the company’s brief repeatedly calls out the AG’s use of outside counsel and notes a challenge to the AG’s use of an outside firm on a contingency fee basis, which is pending before the state supreme court.
SDNY Rejects SEC's Proposed Alternative Service For Two Chinese Nationals
On January 30, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the SEC’s motion for an order authorizing alternative means of service for two Chinese nationals residing in the People’s Republic of China. SEC v. China Intelligent Lighting & Electronics, Inc., No. 13 CIV. 5079, 2014 WL 338817 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2014). The SEC moved for the order after it was unable to serve two individual defendants in a securities fraud case by means of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters. The court agreed that alternative service would be appropriate, but rejected the SEC’s proposed method of alternative service: publication in the International New York Times and via email. The court held that alternative service is acceptable if it (i) is not prohibited by international agreement, and (ii) if it comports with constitutional notions of due process. Although no international agreement would prevent the SEC’s proposed methods of service, the court held the SEC failed to demonstrate such service was “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” The court held that the SEC failed to provide evidence that either method of service would actually reach the defendants—it did not provide any information about the distribution of the newspaper and failed to provide evidence the email addresses were accurate and in use by the defendants. The court denied the SEC’s motion without prejudice.
FinCEN Director Reinforces Enforcement And Compliance Themes, Highlights Risks For Securities Firms
On January 30, in remarks to SIFMA’s AML and Financial Crimes Conference, FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery stressed the importance of establishing a “culture of compliance” at financial institutions to support effective AML safeguards. The Director’s comments reinforce similar remarks made in recent months by both the Deputy U.S. Attorney General and Comptroller Curry. And like Comptroller Curry, Ms. Shasky Calvery highlighted the need for better information sharing not only within institutions but between institutions. FinCEN agrees with industry feedback that the agency needs to improve its own ability to share information. Also part of a broader theme among enforcement authorities, the Director explained that financial institutions should take responsibility when their actions violate the BSA, not only by admitting to the facts alleged by FinCEN but also by acknowledging a violation of the law. She highlighted specific risks in the securities sector including those related to the use of cash, and explained that securities firms that provide bank-like services need to consider the vulnerabilities associated with engaging in such services and must ensure that their compliance programs are commensurate with those risks.
Missouri AG Action Indicates Focus On Auto Service Contracts
On January 28, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster announced a settlement with the owners of a vehicle extended-service-contract seller alleged to have marketed limited-time extend warranty programs for vehicles. The AG alleged that the company attempted to sell vehicle breakdown coverage with a generalized and often misleading description of the coverage, and that many customers later discovered their contracts were actually provided by a third party and did not contain the coverage promised. The AG stated that consumers who asked for refunds faced numerous objections and delays. The settlement requires the owners to pay $60,000 to resolve claims of deception, unfair practices, and unlawful insurance practices, and also permanently prohibits them from selling “additive contracts” in Missouri. The AG stated that the settlement "highlights [his office’s] efforts to clean up the auto service contract industry in Missouri and protect consumers from future deceptive sales practices."
Fourth Circuit Holds Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Exempt From Local Transfer, Recordation Taxes
On January 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a district court decision and held that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are exempt from state and local real estate transfer taxes. Montgomery County, Md. v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, No.13-1691/1752, 2014 WL 279852 (4th Cir. Jan. 27, 2014). In this case, as in other similar cases around the country, Maryland and South Carolina counties sued to recover state and local real estate transfer taxes from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHFA for property transfers made by those entities. The court held that Congress expressly exempted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from “all taxation,” including all state and local taxation, when it chartered those institutions and, in a footnote, explained that, as conservator stepping into the shoes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the same exemption applies to FHFA. The court rejected the counties’ argument that the state and local taxes imposed on transfer and recordation of real property fell within the real property tax exclusions from the general tax exemption provision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's respective charters. The court added that Congress specifically carved out real property taxes from the “all taxation” exemption, but that the types of transfer taxes at issue in this case were distinguishable from a real property tax. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHFA.
New Jersey Bill Regulates Vehicle Service Contracts, Ancillary Products
Last month, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed SB 854, which will regulate, among other things, motor vehicle service contracts and motor vehicle ancillary protection products. For example, the new law (i) requires service contract providers or sellers to provide to the purchaser receipts or other written evidence of a contract, and copies of such contracts within a reasonable period of time following the date of purchase; (ii) specifies the form and contents of service contracts, including plain language requirements and certain disclosures; and (iii) grants purchasers the right to return a contract and obtain a full refund of the contract's purchase price. In addition, providers must meet certain financial security requirements. A violation of the new provisions constitutes an unlawful practice under to the states consumer fraud act, which provides for fines of up to $10,000 for the first offense and up to $20,000 for any subsequent offense. The bill exempts, among other things, warranties and mechanical breakdown insurance policies offered by licensed insurers. The bill takes effect on 180 days following enactment, i.e. July 16, 2014.
Texas Supreme Court Clarifies HELOC Fee Cap Decision
On January 31, the Texas Supreme Court released a January 24 supplemental opinion clarifying a June 2013 opinion in which it invalidated state regulations that (i) defined “interest” with regard to home equity loans to exclude lender-retained fees, and (ii) would have allowed borrowers to mail consent to a lender to have a lien placed on the homestead and to attend the equity loan closing through an agent. Finance Commission of Texas v. Norwood, No. 10-0121, 2014 WL 349790 (Tex. Jan. 24, 2013). The Texas Bankers Association sought clarification as to whether interest paid at closing falls outside the definition of interest, noting (i) that interest can be paid at closing for part of a payment period, calculated per diem, until the regular payment date, and (ii) that a borrower may pay discount points at closing to lower the interest rate for the term of the loan. In its supplemental opinion, the court held that per diem interest is still interest, even if prepaid, and that legitimate or “bona fide” discount points to lower the loan interest rate are, in effect, a substitute for interest. The court further explained that true discount points are not fees “necessary to originate, evaluate, maintain, record, insure, or service,” but are an option available to the borrower and thus are not subject to the three percent cap. The court also reaffirmed its holding requiring borrowers to be present at closing. It rejected the bankers’ argument that requiring a power of attorney, like other closing documents, to be executed “at the office of the lender, an attorney at law, or a title company” can be a hardship on certain borrowers for whom such locations are not readily accessible, explaining that such hardships are a public policy issue that should be addressed by the framers and ratifiers of the state Constitution.
CFPB Announces First Steps In HMDA Rulemaking Process, Launches Additional HMDA Data Tools
On February 7, the CFPB announced the first public phase of its rulemaking to expand the scope of HMDA data reporting, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The CFPB is asking small businesses to provide feedback on its initial proposal to collect new mortgage origination data from financial institutions and potential changes to the data collection and reporting process.
Proposed Data Requirements
Section 1094 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred responsibility for HMDA and its implementing regulation to the CFPB and directed the CFPB to conduct a rulemaking to expand the collection of mortgage origination data to include, among other things: (i) the length of the loan; (ii) total points and fees; (iii) the length of any teaser or introductory interest rates; (iv) the applicant or borrower’s age and credit score; and (v) the channel through which the application was made. The Dodd-Frank Act granted the CFPB discretion to collect additional information as it sees fit.
As detailed in its outline for small businesses, in addition to the statutorily required fields, the CFPB also is considering requiring financial institutions to report more underwriting and pricing information, such as the interest rate, the total origination charges, and the total discount points of the loan, which the CFPB believes will help regulators investigate “true trouble spots” in the mortgage market. The Bureau also states that it is considering new requirements that would “more accurately capture access to credit in the mortgage market.” Specifically, the CFPB is considering requiring institutions to (i) provide an explanation of rejected loan applications; (ii) explain whether the institution considers a loan to be a Qualified Mortgage; and (iii) report the borrower’s debt-to-income ratio. The CFPB states that debt-to-income data would allow the Bureau to determine whether financial institutions are making loans that are unsuitable for borrowers.
Potential Reporting Changes
In addition to the planned expansion in the types of data to be collected, the CFPB is seeking small business feedback on how financial institutions report HMDA data. The CFPB is considering streamlining the collection process to mitigate the burden on lenders, including by possibly aligning the HMDA data requirements with “well-established data standards already in use by a significant portion of the mortgage market.” The CFPB also is proposing to standardize the reporting threshold. It explains that currently, all banks, savings associations, and credit unions that meet certain conditions must submit annual reports if they make even a single loan, while nonbank mortgage lenders typically only report if they make 100 loans and meet other conditions. The Bureau is considering requiring all banks and nonbanks that meet certain conditions to report HMDA data if they make 25 or more loans in a year. Finally, the CFPB states it is seeking to improve data entry, including by potentially streamlining the data submission and editing processes for lenders by creating an interface that will allow lenders to connect their software to a CFPB intake system. The CFPB is consulting with other federal agencies on potential data entry streamlining options.
Enhanced Access To Existing HMDA Data
The CFPB also re-launched and expanded the capabilities of its new HMDA data tool, which it originally announced in September 2013. The tool now includes additional features, which allow users to (i) filter records by, among other things, geography (state, metropolitan area, county, and census tract), borrower characteristics, loan characteristics, and property type; (ii) create summary tables (e.g. to compare refinances, home purchases, and home improvement loans over a given time period); (iii) download data and summary tables to allow researchers and software developers to incorporate the CFPB-provided HMDA data into other applications and visualizations; and (iv) save and share results, including through social media platforms.
Next Steps
This initial framework for enhancing HMDA data collection and reporting was released as part of the small business review process required when a potential CFPB rule could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In such cases, including with this HMDA proposal, the CFPB must convene a panel of representatives from the Bureau, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (the Review Panel) to meet with small business representatives. The CFPB released a fact sheet explaining the process, and a list of issues the Review Panel will discuss with small businesses. Within 60 days of convening the Review Panel, it must issue a report on the feedback received from small business, which then must be considered as the CFPB prepares a proposed rule. The small business review process is the first public step in a lengthy rulemaking process. Along the way, financial institutions of all sizes will have opportunities to weigh-in on the proposal, which could evolve over the coming months.
CFPB Reports Results Of Student Loan Payment Allocation Practices Inquiry
On February 3, the CFPB’s student loan ombudsman, Rohit Chopra, released a summary of student loan servicers’ responses to questions the CFPB posed last November about the application of borrower payments. In that November request, the CFPB asked a group of unidentified servicers to provide information about (i) the allocation of lump sum payments by the Department of Defense and other third parties on behalf of servicemembers or others seeking to direct lump-sum payments to specific loans; (ii) the percentage of borrower payments made through online bill pay systems and direct debit, and servicer practices related to borrower instructions provided with such payments; (iii) servicers’ ability to accommodate standing instructions for future excess payments; and (iv) the methods by which servicers communicate with borrowers about directing prepayments.
The CFPB’s summary of the responses explains that the request was sent to “a number of private student loan servicers” and that the respondents “represented many different forms” including “third-parties servicing notes held by banks or in a securitized pool, large depository institutions servicing loans in-house, and small depository institutions.” However, a chart included in the summary reports the results of only six respondents.
The report presents a short list of “key findings”:
- Many servicers responded that they cannot honor specific payment allocation instructions communicated through online, third-party bill pay services.
- Many servicer online payment platforms allow borrowers to direct payments to a specific loan, but others do not. Some that do not provide a workaround, requiring the borrower to contact their servicer following a payment and request a reallocation.
- Many servicers indicated that they are making other changes to improve communications to borrowers about payment processing policies.
- Many servicers have limited ability to accept payment instructions in advance of a payment made by a third party (e.g. payments made by the Department of the Defense on behalf of servicemembers receiving loan repayment assistance).
- Some servicers have recently changed their payment allocation policies and now allocate payments from borrowers in excess of the scheduled payment amount or statement balance due to balances with the highest interest rate.
In addition, in response to servicer inquiries regarding an appropriate standard allocation policy when borrowers have both fixed and variable rate loans, the Ombudsman states, based on the CFPB’s preliminary analysis, that applying excess funds toward the loan with the highest current interest rate will save the borrower interest in the short run and over the life of the loan.