InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Tenth Circuit Overturns Heightened Pleading Standard for TILA Rescission Cases
On July 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overturned a district court ruling that would have required borrowers seeking rescission under TILA to state their ability to repay in the initial complaint. Sanders v. Mountain Am. Fed. Credit Union, No. 11-4008, 2012 WL 3064741 (10th Cir. Jul. 30, 2012). The borrowers timely sued to compel rescission of their mortgage loan, claiming that the lender failed to provide disclosures required under TILA. The district court held that the borrowers were not entitled to rescission because they failed to plead their ability to repay. On appeal the court held that, while TILA recognizes that a court may entertain a creditor’s petition for an order equitably modifying the rescission procedure, in this case the district court impermissibly altered that procedure and created a pleading standard that would require all borrowers seeking TILA rescission to plead their ability to repay. The court reasoned that such a standard would add a condition not supported by TILA or Regulation Z, and that categorical relief is outside of the district court’s equitable powers. However, the court maintained that a district court still may use its equitable powers to protect a creditor’s interest during the rescission process. The appellate court also reversed the district court’s dismissal of the borrowers’ ECOA claim related to a separate refinance transaction because the district court made factual assumptions about the refinance process in violation of its obligation to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff borrowers. While the TILA and ECOA claims were remanded for further proceedings, the court upheld the district court’s dismissal of the borrowers’ claims that the lender also violated FCRA when it reported false information to consumer reporting agencies, holding that FCRA does not provide a private right of action against the furnisher of credit information.
FTC Submits Staff Comments on CFPB's Proposed Prepaid Card Regulation
On July 30, the FTC released staff comments submitted in response to the CFPB’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the regulation of prepaid cards. The CFPB issued the Notice in May, noting its intention to extend Regulation E to cover general purpose reloadable gift cards and seeking comment, data, and information about such cards. In response, the FTC staff comments review the current regulation of payment cards, and identify for the CFPB’s consideration several consumer protection issues that may arise with regard to prepaid cards, including (i) liability limits, (ii) disclosure and fees expiration dates, (iii) error resolution procedures, (iv) authorization standards for recurrent payments, and (v) consumer access to account information.
Federal Court Ruling on Placement of ATM Fee Notice Favors Consumers
On July 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to a consumer alleging that the placement of an ATM fee notice on the inside of a “hooded ATM” was not “prominent and conspicuous” as required under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). Brown v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 11-1362 2012 WL 3030294 (D. Minn. Jul. 25, 2012). The consumer, on behalf of a putative class, alleged that the ATM fee disclosure was placed on the inside of the hood protecting the screen, and not in a more conspicuous position. The consumer did not contest that the disclosure was provided electronically on the screen, as also required by the EFTA, and that he was aware before completing the transaction that he would be charged a fee. Because the EFTA does not define “prominent and conspicuous,” the court looked to other consumer protection statutes to determine that the disclosure must be displayed such that a reasonable person ought to have noticed. In this case, the court held that a reasonable person would not conclude that the notice was prominent and conspicuous because (i) the disclaimer was not in capital letters, (ii) the type and background of the notice were in a coordinating, not contrasting color, (iii) the notice was placed inside the hood as opposed to on top of the machine, and (iv) the notice generally did not stand out relative to other information on or near the ATM. While the court granted the consumer’s motion for summary judgment on the EFTA claims, the court disposed of his claim for unjust enrichment, and refused to certify the class, holding that the consumer failed to meet the requirements of either Rule 23(a) or (b). As we have reported in recent weeks, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would eliminate the physical fee disclosure requirement, and instead require that ATM operators only provide an on-screen notice.
State Law Update: Massachusetts Set to Enact Foreclosure Reform Measure
On July 26, the Massachusetts state legislature passed a bill, H 4323, that establishes new pre-foreclosure requirements that will make it harder to foreclose in that state. Under the bill, prior to initiating a foreclosure sale, a creditor must make specified good faith efforts to avoid foreclosure, including assessing potential mortgage modification options. The bill sets up a pre-foreclosure process by which a creditor must notify a borrower of his or her right to a loan modification assessment. In addition, the bill (i) prohibits publication of a foreclosure notice if the creditor knows or should know that the mortgagee is neither the note holder or the note holder’s authorized agent, (ii) requires that assignments be recorded in the registry of deeds and that each assignment of a mortgage be referenced in any notice of foreclosure for a given property, and (iii) establishes a task force to study foreclosure mediation programs. Governor Deval Patrick is expected to sign the bill, the majority of which would take effect November 1, 2012.
FHFA Decides Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Will Not Offer Principal Forgiveness; Updates Other Borrower Assistance Efforts
On July 31, FHFA announced that it will not direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer principal reduction assistance to troubled borrowers, concluding that a principal forgiveness policy does not “clearly improve foreclosure avoidance while reducing costs to taxpayers relative to the approaches in place today.” The Treasury Department immediately objected, countering that FHFA’s cost concerns could be alleviated with Treasury assistance to pay for additional administrative implementation costs. With its announcement, FHFA released correspondence to members of Congress explaining FHFA’s decision and providing a detailed assessment of the principal forgiveness policy option. FHFA also reported that it is working with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on a series of other borrower assistance efforts including (i) an update to Freddie Mac's refinance program to align it with Fannie Mae’s policy for refinancing mortgages with loan-to-value ratios equal to or less than 80%, (ii) new requirements expected in September related to representations and warranties, which will shift the loan quality review closer to the time of loan origination, (iii) a single, aligned short sale program for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with more flexible terms, (iv) a new set of adjustments to guarantee fee pricing, expected to be announced in August and to take effect later in the year, and (v) closing on the first set of REO pilot transactions in August.
Federal Reserve Board Finalizes Rule Allowing Debit Fraud-Prevention Adjustments
On July 27, the Federal Reserve Board issued a final rule that amends Regulation II. The rule allows a debit issuer that is subject to the interchange fee standards to charge—in addition to interchange fees—a fraud-prevention fee to defray costs associated with implementing policies and procedures that reduce fraudulent electronic debit transactions. The fee cannot exceed one cent per transaction, unchanged from the Federal Reserve’s interim final rule on this issue. The final rule details fraud-prevention program requirements that an issuer must meet in order to charge the fee. An issuer charging such a fee must annually review and update its fraud-prevention program and notify its payment card networks that it complies with the rule’s fraud prevention standards. The rule takes effect October 1, 2012.
Federal Reserve Board Provides Guidance on Abandoned Foreclosures
The Federal Reserve Board recently issued a supervisory letter advising covered banking institutions about risk management practices related to decisions not to complete foreclosure proceedings after they have been initiated. The letter advises covered institutions that their policies and practices governing abandoned foreclosures should include (i) notification to borrowers, (ii) extensive communication methods comparable to those used when attempting to collect payment, (iii) notification to local authorities, and (iv) a process for obtaining information about collateral value of the property.
Majority of NCUA MBS Claims Survive Motion to Dismiss
On July 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion to dismiss that sought to dispose of allegations that the defendant financial institutions misled investors in connection with the sale of certain mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Nat. Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. RBS Secs., Inc., No. 11-2340, 2012 WL 3028803 (D. Kan. Jul. 25, 2012). The NCUA brought the suit against several MBS-issuers on behalf of a failed credit union for which it had been appointed conservator, arguing that the MBS issuers’ documents used in offering the MBS contained material misstatements and omissions that led to substantial losses to the investor credit union and the NCUA Stabilization Fund. The facts and arguments are similar to those NCUA has presented in several cases around the country in an effort to recover MBS-related losses for failed institutions. Here, the MBS issuers argued that the NCUA complaint exceeded the statute of limitations, having been filed more than three years from the issuance of the securities. The issuers maintained that the failed institution should have been able to identify the issues within the statutory limit. The court disagreed and held that the federal extender statute applied, allowing NCUA to bring the case beyond the three year limit. Because the government could not have known the details of the offerings until after it became conservator, and given that ambiguous statutes of limitations should be construed in favor of the government, the court determined the NCUA claims were timely. The court also held that the NCUA presented evidence sufficient to maintain a plausible claim of misrepresentation, except with regard to certain credit enhancement language that the NCUA charged was untrue and material.
Arizona Attorney General Settles Action Against Internet Payday Loan Lead Generator
On July 30, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne announced an agreement with an Internet lead generator that requires the firm to halt operations through which it solicited information on behalf of payday lenders. Under state law, lenders have been prohibited from offering payday loans to Arizona consumers since July 2010. The Attorney General alleged that the settling company operated a website that collected Arizona consumers’ personal information and then sold that information to payday lenders who subsequently offered illegal payday loans to those consumers. While the agreement requires that the lead generator cease collecting and transmitting consumer information in connection with any type of consumer loan, it does not include any monetary payment beyond attorney fees.
HUD Delays Changes to Title Approval at Conveyance
On July 31, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2012-14, which delays until November 1, 2012 implementation of recent changes to title approval at conveyance. The changes, originally set to take effect August 1, 2012, were issued in June as Mortgagee Letter 2012-11. Pursuant to that letter, mortgagees must pay in full prior to conveyance all taxes, homeowners’ association fees, and water, sewer or other assessments. The initial letter also detailed related documentation and certification requirements and outlined FHA’s rights to reconvey a property under certain circumstances.