InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NFHA Files Second REO Administrative Complaint
On April 17, the National Fair Housing Alliance and certain of its member organizations (collectively NFHA) filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging discriminatory practices with regard to real estate owned (REO) properties in violation of the Fair Housing Act. This is the second of several complaints and lawsuits the NFHA is expected to file with regard to these alleged practices.
Tenth Circuit Finds Emails Provide Sufficient Evidence of a Contract
On April 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a series of emails taken as a whole provided sufficient evidence that the parties intended to form a contract. Republic Bank, Inc. v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc., No 10-4145, 2012 WL 1223933 (10th Cir. Apr. 12, 2012). In this case, a Utah bank that acquired certain medical equipment after a borrower defaulted on an equipment lease identified a hospital as a potential buyer. The hospital subsequently made an offer via email to purchase certain pieces of equipment. A bank representative accepted the offer, also by email, and subsequently agreed to prepare a written agreement. Eventually the hospital informed the bank that it would not be able to make the purchase and the bank was forced to auction the equipment. The bank then sued the hospital for breach of contract. The court applied the Uniform Commercial Code to uphold the district courts ruling that a contract had been formed and breached. The UCC standard relies on objective, observable manifestations of intent to contract. Evidence of intent requires a signed writing that need only contain the essential terms of the agreement. In this case, an email from the hospital offering to purchase the items and an email from the bank accepting that offer, combined with multiple, subsequent references to a binding agreement by the bank that the hospital did not refute, as a whole, provided sufficient evidence of a contract.
CFPB Files Briefs in Three TILA Actions
On April 13, the CFPB filed amicus briefs in TILA cases pending in the Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits. As it did previously in a brief filed in the Tenth Circuit, the CPFB argued that borrowers who do not receive the material disclosures required by TILA are not required to file suit within the three-year rescission period. Rather, the CFPB argues that a borrower can rescind the transaction as long as they provide notice to the lender of the cancellation within three years of consummation.
Nevada Supreme Court Rules on Admissibility of Text Messages
On April 5, the Nevada Supreme Court held that a lower court abused its discretion when it admitted text messages absent sufficient evidence corroborating the identity of the sender. Rodriguez v. Nevada, No. 56413, 2012 WL 1136437 (Nev. Apr. 5, 2012). The defendant was found guilty in trial court of multiple counts related to an attack on a woman in her home. On appeal he argued that the trial court erred in overruling an objection to the admission of 12 text messages because the state failed to authenticate the messages and the messages constituted inadmissible hearsay. The Nevada Supreme Court held that it is essential that the identity of the author of the text message be established through the use of corroborating evidence. In this case, although the state established that the victims cell phone was stolen during the attack, and that the defendant was in possession of the cell phone prior to being arrested, the state did not offer any evidence that the defendant authored 10 of the 12 messages. Two messages were admissible and were not hearsay because in those instances, the state was able to offer bus surveillance video of the defendant using the phone at the time the two messages were sent. Despite the erroneous admission of the other 10 text messages, however, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the error was harmless.
IRS Finalizes New Reporting Requirement for U.S. Banks
On April 19, the Internal Revenue Service published a final rule that requires U.S. banks to report annually the deposit interest paid to nonresident alien account holders. The reporting requirement will apply to interest payments made on or after January 1, 2013. The IRS is intending to collect this information to help combat offshore tax evasion by (i) ensuring that the IRS can exchange information with other jurisdictions, (ii) supporting implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, and (iii) making it more difficult for U.S. taxpayers to falsely claim to be nonresidents in order to avoid taxes on deposit interest income. To address concerns about the confidential treatment of collected information, the final rule limits the IRS’s exchange of the reported information to those countries with which the U.S. has an exchange-of-information agreement. The IRS believes that those agreements contain legal limitations and administrative safeguards to ensure confidential treatment of the information.
FHFA Calls for Streamlined Short Sales, Freddie Mac Updates Short Sale Requirements
On April 17, the FHFA directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to develop procedures for streamlining short sales, deeds-in-lieu and deeds-for-lease in order to avoid foreclosures. Under the new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies, servicers will be required to (i) review and respond to requests for short sales within 30 calendar days from receipt of a short sale offer and a complete borrower response package, (ii) provide weekly status updates to the borrower if the short sale offer is still under review after 30 calendar days, and (iii) make and communicate final decisions to the borrower within 60 calendar days of receipt of the offer and complete borrower response package. Also on April 17, Freddie Mac issued Servicing Guide Bulletin 2012-09, which clarifies existing requirements and adds new minimum requirements for communication timelines for Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Short Sales and short sales processed under Guide Chapter B65. Servicers are encouraged to begin implementing the new requirements as soon as possible, but must do so for all new borrower evaluations conducted on or after June 15, 2012.
State Law Update: Several States Alter Mortgage and Other Consumer Finance Laws
CSBS and NMLS Issue New Forms for Expanded Use of Registry. On April 16, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the National Mortgage License and Registry System (NMLS) issued new licensing forms to support the CSBSs previously announced plans to expand the use of NMLS to include nonbank, non-mortgage financial service providers. With the issuance of the new forms, the NMLS announced that 11 states have committed to requiring non-mortgage financial services institutions to begin using the NMLS this year, with Washington, Vermont, and Rhode Island as the most recent to provide transition plans. The other states include theDistrict of Columbia,Idaho,Louisiana,Maryland,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,Oklahoma,Tennessee, andPennsylvania. Nebraska Expands NMLS Use and Alters Mortgage Licensing. On April 5, Nebraska enacted Legislative Bill 965 to require and provide for the transition of the states manual licensing of installment loan companies to licensing through the NMLS. This change will take effect beginning January 2013. The law also amends the Residential Mortgage Licensing Act to, among other things (i) update and add certain exemptions for mortgage banker and mortgage loan originator licensing requirements, and (ii) adjust the powers of the Department of Banking and Finance to administer the mortgage banker and loan originator licensing process. Kentucky Enacts Numerous Bills Impacting Mortgages and Vehicle Finance. On April 11, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear signed several bills impacting consumer lending. House Bill 417 makes a variety of amendments impacting motor vehicle installment contracts, including, among other things, (i) altering the form and required content of retail installment contracts, (ii) adjusting the permissible delinquency and collection charge on an installment in arrears for a period of 10 or more days, (iii) creating a safe harbor for retail installment contracts that satisfy the requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, and (iv) making various amendments regarding retail installment sales that are precomputed. House Bill 62 and House Bill 396 relate to foreclosures. The former requires a mortgage holder to file a deed in lieu of foreclosure with the county clerk within 45 days of the instrument's execution and allows for a penalty in the form of a violation of law for any mortgage holder who fails to do so. The bill also exempts filing deeds in lieu of foreclosures from the states transfer tax on property as well as the voluntary surrender under a mortgage in lieu of a foreclosure proceeding. The latter relates to an expedited sale mechanism for foreclosures involving vacant and abandoned real property and amends the offense of defrauding a secured creditor to add situations where collateral is intentionally damaged. Finally, House Bill 409, among other things, exempts from most laws and regulations applicable to mortgage loan companies and brokers persons other than natural persons that originate four or fewer mortgage loans per year and do not hold themselves out to be primarily in the mortgage loan business, while House Bill 533 prohibits private transfer fees. Oregon Establishes Foreclosure Mediation Process. On April 11, Oregon established a foreclosure mediation process when it enacted Senate Bill 1552. The law requires that a beneficiary (i) enter into mediation with a grantor for the purpose of negotiating a foreclosure avoidance measure and (ii) notify a grantor if they are not eligible for any foreclosure avoidance measure or if the grantor has not complied with the terms of a foreclosure avoidance measure. The new law details the form for notices required under the new process and establishes potential penalties for a beneficiary failing to comply with the new procedures. The bill took effect on April 11, with most of the new requirements becoming operative 91 days after the effective date. Maryland Alters Mortgage Licensing Exemptions, Expands Commissioners Enforcement Power. On April 10, Maryland enacted Senate Bill 302, which removes the mortgage licensing exemption for a person who makes three or fewer mortgage loans per calendar year and brokers no more than one mortgage loan per calendar year. The law also expands the authority of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation to investigate and enforce state law with regard to a subsidiary or affiliate of an institution over which the Commissioner has jurisdiction. The law becomes effective on January 1, 2013. Colorado Amends Foreclosure Law. On April 12, Colorado passed a law amending administrative procedures under its foreclosure law. Pursuant to Senate Bill 30, effective September 1, 2012 counties must (i) notify a homeowner during the foreclosure process that they may be due money if excess funds are obtained through the sale of their foreclosed property, (ii) attempt to locate the homeowner and notify them of excess funds obtained from the public auction of their foreclosed property, and (iii) turn excess funds over to the state treasurer if the homeowner cannot be located. The state will hold the funds in perpetuity, allowing a homeowner to claim the funds at any time. Under existing law, counties are not required to conduct any initial outreach and can retain for themselves any money not claimed within five years of the sale.
Suit Challenging Charges for Minors' In-App iTunes Purchases Survives Motion to Dismiss
On March 31, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied, in large part, a motion to dismiss claims brought by parents of children who made in-app purchases from the parents iTunes accounts. In re Apple In-App Purchase Litigation, No. 11-1758, 2012 WL 1123548 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2012). The parent plaintiffs sued Apple on behalf of a putative class claiming that apps provided by Apple and advertised as free allowed children, without the parents knowledge, to make in-app purchases of online game supplies during a 15-minute window following the parents initial account authentication. The parents alleged that each purchase by a minor under these circumstances constituted separate, voidable contracts with Apple that may be disaffirmed by a parent or guardian. Apple countered that the only contracts at issue are those between it and the iTunes account holders, and the terms and conditions of those contracts provide that account holders are solely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality and security of [their] Account and for all activities that occur on or through [their] Account. In denying the motion to dismiss, the court held that the complaint can not be dismissed as a matter of law because Apple offered no case law to support its contention that the terms and conditions constitute a relational contract that governs each subsequent transaction. Further, the court allowed to proceed (i) claims under Californias Consumer Legal Remedies Act because allegations that Apple omitted material facts to induce minors into buying additional gaming products were actionable, and (ii) Unfair Competition Law claims because plaintiffs alleged all three prongs of the UCL, properly pleading that Apples actions were unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts or practices.
Key Considerations in Drafting Mobile Disclosures
Recent developments at the FTC and CFPB provide some guidance on how regulators may approach disclosures on smartphones and other mobile devices.
The recent CFPB Remittance Rule on international remittance transfers indicates some flexibility in the provision of disclosures in the remittances context via a mobile device. Additionally, the FTC’s recent report on best practices in consumer data privacy notes the difficulty in providing privacy notices on the smaller screens of mobile devices and encourages shorter, more effective privacy policies as a result.
These developments raise a series of questions for corporate counsel to consider when advising on the drafting and delivery of mobile disclosures. Specifically, questions include:
- Is the length of the mobile disclosure document as brief and succinct as it can be? Does it use concrete, everyday words and the active voice? Do the disclosures avoid multiple negatives, technical jargon and ambiguous language?
- Are the mobile disclosures presented in a logical sequence? Are they laid out in clear, concise sentences, paragraphs and sections? Are they placed in equal prominence to each other, absent any other specific regulatory format or placement requirements? Is the content placed on a particular page appropriate for the sizing of the page on the mobile screen? If not, are textual or visual cues used to encourage scrolling?
- Does the mobile disclosure "call attention to itself?" Is it on a screen the mobile user must access or will likely access frequently? If not, is it behind a hyperlink on an introductory screen that is clearly labeled so as to convey the importance of the linked disclosure? Is it presented with a clear, visible heading and an easy-to-read typeface and typesize?
- Have various technical and other applicable industry standards been consulted in the process of designing, developing and displaying mobile disclosures?
CFPB Puts Consumer Lenders on Notice Regarding Discriminatory Practices
The CFPB today put consumer lenders on notice that it “will use all available legal avenues, including disparate impact, to pursue lenders whose practices discriminate against consumers.” The CFPB intends to employ disparate impact when examining auto lenders, credit card issuers , student lenders, mortgage lenders, and other providers of consumer credit, allowing the CFPB to claim an institution has engaged in discriminatory lending based on the effects and not the intent of the lending practices. In remarks to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition today, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that “[t]he consequences of ‘disparate impact’ discrimination are very real and they affect consumers just as significantly as other forms of discrimination.” To help consumers identify and avoid credit discrimination, the CFPB also compiled and released new lending discrimination “tips and warning signs.”
Concurrent with the announcement, the CFPB published Bulletin 2012-04 to specifically reaffirm its commitment to applying disparate impact when conducting supervision and examination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and its implementing regulation, Regulation B. In support of this application, the CFPB cites what it refers to as the “consensus approach” outlined by a 1994 interagency Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending, which notes court findings that discriminatory lending in violation of ECOA can be established through (i) overt evidence of discrimination, (ii) evidence of disparate treatment, and (iii) evidence of disparate impact. The CFPB also argues that the ECOA legislative history, as characterized in the original Regulation B adopted by the Federal Reserve Board, supports application of the disparate impact doctrine.