InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Sixth Circuit Holds That Mortgage Foreclosures are Debt Collections Under the FDCPA
On January 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that mortgage foreclosures are debt collections under the FDCPA. Glazer v. Chase Home Finance LLC, No. 10-3416, 2013 WL 141699 (6th Cir. Jan. 14, 2013). The decision rejects the view held by a majority of district courts, including the district court in this case, that mortgage foreclosures are generally outside the scope of the FDCPA because they are enforcements of a security instrument, not attempts to collect money. In this case, the borrower brought suit alleging that the law firm that attempted to foreclose on his property violated the FDCPA, and the district court dismissed the claim, ruling that foreclosures are not debt collections. In reaching its conclusion, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that “whether an obligation is a ‘debt’ depends not on whether the obligation is secured, but rather upon the purpose for which it was incurred.” The court explained that collecting such a debt can occur through personal solicitation or legal proceedings. As such, the court held that “every mortgage foreclosure, judicial or otherwise, is undertaken for the very purpose of obtaining payment on the underlying debt,” and, therefore, every mortgage foreclosure is a debt collection. Further, the court held that lawyers who meet the general definition of “debt collector” must comply with the FDCPA when engaged in a mortgage foreclosure. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Holds Standing in Servicemember Proceeding Requires Evidence of Mortgagee Status
On January 14, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) reversed a Land Court decision and held that a trustee lacked standing to bring a servicemember proceeding because the trustee was not the clear holder of either the note or the mortgage. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Matt, 464 Mass. 193 (Mass. 2013). As the court explained, under the Massachusetts Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, a lender must file a complaint in equity, a proceeding separate from the foreclosure proceeding, to determine if a borrower is entitled to foreclosure protections under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). Failure to bring a such a servicemember proceeding leaves the title vulnerable to a challenge that the foreclosure sale was defective due to the possibility that it violated a borrower’s rights under the SCRA. On appeal, the borrower argued that the Land Court erred in holding that the trustee bringing the servicemember proceeding satisfied general requirements of standing based on its contractual right to become the holder of a mortgage, even though the trustee failed to establish that it was the current holder of the note or the mortgage. Extending its holding in Eaton v. Fannie Mae that a party with an option to become the holder of a mortgage does not have the present authority to foreclose, the court held that the Massachusetts servicemembers act contemplated that only mortgagees would have the requisite standing to bring a servicemember complaint, and parties with an option to hold the mortgage lack standing. As such, the court held that “only mortgagees or those acting on behalf of mortgagees have standing to bring servicemember proceedings.”
Florida AG Announces Settlement with Prepaid Debit Card Companies
On January 16, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that she obtained “first of their kind” settlements from the state’s five largest prepaid debit card companies. The settlements resolve claims that the companies failed to properly disclose information about fees and misled consumers with claims that use of the cards would improve credit history. While the agreements are not identical, they each require enhanced compliance measures, which generally relate to fee disclosures, use of comparison charts, and use of claims about credit improvements. Each company also agreed to make a donation to the Central Florida Chapter of Junior Achievement and pay the cost and fees for the matters investigated to the Office of the Attorney General.
California District Court Unseals FCA Complaint Filed Against Numerous Banks
Last week, after the government declined to intervene in the case, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unsealed a qui tam False Claims Act (FCA) complaint filed by a whistleblower in April 2012 against numerous banks. U.S. ex rel Hastings v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-3624, Complaint (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2012). The relator claims that the banks knowingly endorsed for FHA-insurance mortgage loans originated in transactions where down payment gift programs were used fraudulently. According to allegations in the complaint, the banks’ programs generated gift funds by manipulating the sales price to pass FHA down payment assistance fees onto the buyer. Further, the alleged system forced the borrower to repay the down payment gift, a violation of FHA policy. The relator alleges that the banks then submitted to HUD false certifications for the non-compliant endorsed loans, upon which HUD relied to issue FHA mortgage insurance. The relator claims that the government was required to pay, and will continue to have to pay, FHA benefits on defaulted loans that contained material violations, and seeks treble damages and penalties under the FCA, a cease and desist order against the lenders, and a civil penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 for each alleged violation of the FCA.
Federal Regulators Announce Additional Monetary Settlements in Lieu of Independent Foreclosure Review
On January 16, the Federal Reserve Board announced that two additional mortgage servicers subject to consent orders issued in April 2011 agreed in principle to a monetary resolution of allegations that the firms engaged in improper mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices. As described, the agreements in principle mirror those obtained by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC from 10 other servicers, which were announced last week. Together the two firms will provide $232 million in direct payments to more than 220,000 borrowers whose homes were in foreclosure during 2009 and 2010. The companies also will provide $325 million in other assistance, such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments. On January 18, the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC announced an agreement in principle with another servicer that will provide $96 million in direct payments to more than 112,000 borrowers, and $153 million in other assistance. Under all three agreements, borrowers will be contacted by the end of March about their exact payout, which could range from hundreds of dollars to $125,000, depending upon the type of alleged servicing error.
California District Court Holds Assignee Indirect Auto Finance Company Not Subject to FDCPA
On January 9, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that an indirect auto finance company that took assignment of a retail installment sales contract from an automobile dealer is not a debt collector subject to the FDCPA. Tu v. Camino Real Chevrolet, No. 12-9456, 2013 WL 140278 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2013). As the court explained, FDCPA Section 1692a(6) defines a “debt collector” to include any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails for the principle purpose of enforcing security interests. In this case, a customer purchased and financed a car with a dealer who subsequently assigned the retail installment sales contract to an auto finance company. When the borrower fell behind on his payments and the finance company tried to collect the debt, the borrower sued the finance company, alleging violations of the FDCPA. The court held that the finance company was primarily in the business of accepting installment sales contracts with its debt collection activities ancillary to its financing activities. Therefore, the finance company is not a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA. The court dismissed the borrower’s claims.
DOJ Announces Redlining Enforcement Action against Community Bank
On January 15, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it reached a settlement with a Michigan community bank regarding alleged redlining practices. In its complaint, the DOJ charged that between 2006 and 2009, the bank served the credit needs of white neighborhoods in the Saginaw and Flint, Michigan metropolitan areas to a significantly greater extent than it served the credit needs of majority African-American neighborhoods. Under the terms of the consent order, the bank is required to open a loan production office in an African-American neighborhood in Saginaw, invest $75,000 in a special financing program to increase the amount of credit the bank extends to majority African-American neighborhoods in and around Saginaw, invest $75,000 in partnerships with organizations that provide credit, financial, homeownership, and/or foreclosure prevention services to the residents of those neighborhoods, and invest $15,000 in outreach that promotes the bank’s products and services to potential customers in those neighborhoods.
Federal Regulators Announce BSA/AML and Derivatives Trading Enforcement Actions Against Large Bank.
On January 14, the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC issued two consent orders against a large international bank and its trust company over alleged deficiencies in its Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) compliance programs. Under the Federal Reserve Board Order, the bank is required to conduct a full review of its compliance program and submit written reports to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York regarding the review’s findings and recommendations. Any proposed improvements are subject to approval by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The OCC Order identifies “critical deficiencies” in the bank’s BSA/AML compliance programs with respect to suspicious activity reporting, transaction monitoring, customer due diligence, and internal control implementation and requires specific corrective actions in response. Neither order requires a civil money penalty. On the same day, the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC issued consent orders concerning the bank’s derivatives trading activity. Under those orders, the bank must take corrective action as to its risk-management program, finance and internal audit functions, and Chief Investment Office, but the orders do not include a monetary settlement. The Federal Reserve Board stated that the corrective actions are necessary in light of disclosed, significant losses in a large synthetic credit portfolio managed by the Chief Investment Office. An OCC report found that the bank lacked adequate oversight to protect itself from such material risk, and had other inadequate risk management processes, trade valuation controls, and audit processes.
Retail Customers Obtain Unusually Favorable Settlement in Zip Code Collection Case
On January 11, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement between a retailer and a class of customers to resolve allegations that the retailer violated the California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by collecting customer zip codes as part of credit card purchase transactions and storing that information in a customer databases. Burdewick v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., No. 12-119, Final Order and Judgment (Jan. 11, 2013). The settlement is the most recent in a series following the California Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores Inc. that zip codes constitute "personal identification information" under the Act. In this case, class members can submit claims to obtain a gift card from a common $650,000 fund. The exact amount of the gift card will depend upon the number of valid claims, but actual payments are expected to far exceed the $10-$20 amounts typically provided by most similar settlements to date. Moreover, the settlement places no restriction on the use or transferability of the cards. The court also approved a $215,000 award to class counsel, and a $7,500 incentive award to the class representative.
State Law Update: Michigan Amends Rental-Purchase Agreement Act
Last month, Michigan enacted HB 5892, which makes several amendments to the state’s Rental-Purchase Agreement Act. Effective January 3, 2013, a lessor is prohibited from requiring numerous fees, including (i) any processing fee, (ii) a periodic payment or late fee for a rental period beginning after the lessee has returned or surrendered the leased property to the lessor or the lessor’s agent, and (iii) any charge or fee for reinstatement of the rental-purchase agreement in addition to or in excess of those expressly permitted by the Act. The bill also revised the conditions under which a lessee who fails to make timely periodic payments may reinstate a rental-purchase agreement without losing any rights or options. The bill included a revised sample rental-purchase agreement form to reflect the enacted changes.