InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit: TILA right of rescission does not apply for mortgages used to reacquire property
On August 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that TILA’s right of rescission does not apply when a borrower obtains a mortgage to reacquire residential property after having no ownership rights. According to the opinion, in 2003, a borrower quitclaimed his interest in residential property to his then wife; in 2007, he obtained a mortgage loan and took title to the property in accordance with a divorce judgment. The borrower sought rescission of the mortgage loan and the district court dismissed the action as untimely. On appeal, the 9th Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment, holding the borrower gave proper notice within the three year limit under TILA. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the mortgage company, concluding the transaction was a residential mortgage transaction, in which no statutory right of rescission exists under TILA.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the mortgage company. The appellate court rejected the borrower’s arguments that (i) the mortgage documents showed he already owned an interest in the property before he took out the mortgage loan; and (ii) the mortgage was taken in accordance with a divorce judgment, not to finance the acquisition of the property. The appellate court concluded that under TILA, the mortgage loan was a “residential mortgage transaction,” the definition of which “includes both an initial acquisition and a reacquisition of a property.” The fact the mortgage company characterized the transaction as a refinance is not determinative, according to the panel, because the borrower did not acquire title to the property until the day after he signed the loan. Moreover, while the divorce judgment ordered the borrower to make a payment to his ex-wife in order to obtain title to the property, he obtained a residential mortgage loan “in order to carry out those conditions.”
FDIC to ease deposit-rate restrictions on less than well capitalized institutions
On August 20, the FDIC announced a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) concerning interest rate restrictions applicable to less than well capitalized insured depository institutions. The NPR provides additional flexibility for these institutions to compete for funds and amends the methodology for calculating the national rate, national rate cap, and local rate cap for specific deposit products. According to the FDIC, the NPR is intended to “provide a more balanced, reflective, and dynamic national rate cap.” Specifically, under the NPR, the “national rate would be the weighted average of rates paid by all insured depository institutions on a given deposit product, for which data are available, where the weights are each institution's market share of domestic deposits,” while the national rate cap for particular products will be set at the higher of either (i) the 95th percentile of rates paid by insured depository institutions weighted by each institution’s share of total domestic deposits; or (ii) the proposed national rate plus 75 basis points. The NPR also will “simplify the current local rate cap calculation and process by allowing less than well capitalized institutions to offer up to 90 percent of the highest rate paid on a particular deposit product in the institution’s local market area.”
Additionally, the FDIC seeks comments on alternative approaches to setting the national rate caps. According to the FDIC, “[s]etting the national rate cap too low could prohibit less than well capitalized banks from fairly competing for deposits and create an unintentional liquidity strain on those banks competing in national markets. . . . Preventing such institutions from being competitive for deposits, when they are most in need of predictable liquidity, can create severe funding problems.”
Comments on the NPR are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Indiana Court of Appeals reverses state regulator’s finance charge action
On August 19, the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (Department) finding that a car dealership charged an “impermissible additional charge” in violation of the state’s additional-charges statute when the dealership improperly disclosed a finance charge to its consumers. According to the opinion, the dealership charged, in addition to a third party titling fee, a $25.00 convenience fee to its credit customers for electronic titling through the third party. The service was required for credit customers but was optional for cash customers. After conducting a routine examination, the Department identified one violation from a transaction in July 2015, where the dealership did not disclose the convenience fee in the “finance charge” box of the disclosures, noting “the fee was only mandatory for credit customers and therefore was ‘a condition of the extension of credit.’” The dealership provided a contract from the same time period, showing it disclosed the fee in the “Itemization of Amount Financed” and “Amount Financed” boxes, not in the “Finance Charge” box. The Department charged the dealership with violating the state’s additional-charges statute, “for assessing ‘impermissible additional charges’ in the form of the $25.00 convenience fee,” as opposed to a charge for violating the state’s disclosure statute.
On review, the Court of Appeals concluded the charge was a finance charge because it was mandatory for the dealership’s credit customers but not its cash customers, and noted a finance charge cannot also be an additional charge. The Department argued it made no practical difference which violation it alleged, because the remedies under both statutes are the same, while the dealership noted a disclosure violation would entitle it to raise certain defenses under TILA. The appellate court did not address this issue, but nonetheless concluded “a finance charge doesn’t become an ‘impermissible additional charge’ when it’s not disclosed in the ‘Finance Charge’ box,” and remanded the case back to the Department for proceedings under the disclosure statute.
President directs Ed to discharge disabled veterans’ student loan debt
On August 21, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum to Secretary Betsy DeVos of the U.S. Department of Education directing the Department to implement a streamlined process to automatically discharge the federal student loan debt of totally and permanently disabled veterans (TPD discharge). The Higher Education Act currently allows veterans to seek a TPD discharge, but the “process has been overly complicated and difficult, and prevented too many [] veterans from receiving the relief for which they are eligible.” The memo notes “[o]nly half of the approximately 50,000 totally and permanently disabled veterans who currently qualify for the discharge” have availed themselves of the benefit. The memo defines “federal student loan debt” as Federal Family Education Loan Program loans, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program loans, and Federal Perkins Loans, and requires the Department to create a policy to facilitate the swift and effective discharge of the applicable loan. The Department is required to implement the directive “as expeditiously as possible.”
OFAC and FinCEN target synthetic opioids
On August 21, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced coordinated actions related to the manufacturing, selling, or distribution of synthetic opioids or their precursor chemicals. OFAC identified two Chinese nationals, a trafficking organization, and a related entity as “significant foreign narcotics traffickers” pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, for running “an international drug trafficking operation that manufactures and sells lethal narcotics, directly contributing to the crisis of opioid addiction, overdoses, and death in the United States.” OFAC notes that, in August 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio unsealed an indictment, which charged one of the Chinese nationals and his father with operating a conspiracy that allegedly manufactured and shipped deadly fentanyl analogues, cathinones, and cannabinoids to at least 37 U.S. states. Additionally, in September 2017, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi indicted another significant foreign narcotics trafficker on two counts of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute multiple controlled substances, including fentanyl, and seven counts of manufacturing and distributing the drugs in specific instances. As a result of the sanctions designation, “all property and interests in property of these individuals and entities that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC.”
Additionally, FinCEN released an advisory alerting financial institutions to financial schemes related to the trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. The advisory provides detailed explanations of the funding mechanisms associated with fentanyl trafficking patterns, including (i) purchases from a foreign source of supply made using money services businesses (MSBs), bank transfers, or online payment processors; (ii) purchases from a foreign source of supply made using convertible virtual currency (CVC); (iii) purchases from a U.S. source of supply made using a MSB, online payment processor, CVC, or person-to-person sales; and (iv) more general money laundering mechanisms associated with procurement and distribution. The advisory also provides a list of red flags financial institutions should be aware of that may assist in identifying suspected schemes related to illicit fentanyl trafficking. Lastly, the advisory reminds financial institutions of their regulatory obligations to combat illicit financing and anti-money laundering, such as due diligence obligations, customer identification, and suspicious activity reporting.
3rd Circuit: Proof of written agreement needed for TILA claims
On August 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit concluded that a plaintiff failed to adequately allege the existence of a written agreement for his deductible payment plan and therefore, his surgery institute did not violate TILA’s disclosure requirements. According to the opinion, the day before his surgery, the surgery institute orally agreed to accept a partial deductible payment and agreed to permit the plaintiff to pay the remaining deductible requirements in monthly installments. The plaintiff received two emails, one confirming the initial payment and the other confirming the payment plan and listing the plaintiff’s credit card. The institute performed the surgery, but the plaintiff failed to make any further payments on the deductible. Instead, the plaintiff filed an action against the institute alleging it violated TILA by extending credit and failing to provide the required disclosures. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for the institute, concluding that the plaintiff' failed to establish a written agreement for the extension of credit. The court also issued sanctions, in the form of attorneys’ fees, against the plaintiff’s counsel, reasoning the counsel could have reasonably discovered the lack of written agreement and lack of payment before initiating the action.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part in the district court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a written agreement for credit with the institute, noting “the requirement of a written agreement [under TILA] is not satisfied by a ‘letter that merely confirms an oral agreement.’” But the appellate court noted that the district court erred in relying on an admission to that effect by plaintiff’s counsel during a telephone conference. Nonetheless, the error was “harmless” because the plaintiff failed to establish a written agreement was executed and signed, stating “[n]owhere does he allege that he signed a written agreement, and the [] email correspondence was merely ‘confirming’ the ‘previously discussed’ agreement." The appellate court then reversed the district court’s sanctions ruling, concluding it abused its discretion when it imposed them.
District court concludes loan servicer violated TCPA
On August 19, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan held that a Pennsylvania-based student loan servicing agency violated the TCPA by calling the plaintiffs’ cell phones over 350 times using an automatic telephone dialing system (autodailer) after consent was revoked. According to the opinion, after revoking consent to receive calls via an autodialer, two plaintiffs asserted that the servicer called their cell phones collectively over 350 times in violation of the TCPA and moved for summary judgment seeking treble damages for each violation. In response, the loan servicer argued that the system used to make the calls does not meet the statutory definition of an autodialer under the TCPA and disputed the appropriateness of treble damages.
The court, in disagreeing with the loan servicer, concluded that the system used by the loan servicer to make the calls qualified as an autodialer. The court applied the logic of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC (covered by InfoBytes here), stating that it was not bound by the FCC’s interpretations of an autodialer, based on the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in ACA International v. FCC, and therefore, “‘only the statutory definition of [autodialer] as set forth by Congress in 1991 remains.’” The court noted that there was “no question” that the system used by the loan servicer “stores telephone numbers to be called and automatically dials those numbers,” which qualifies the system as an autodialer. However, the court determined that the loan servicer did not violate the statute “willfully or knowingly,” noting that at the time of the calls it was not clear from the FCC whether the system being used was an autodialer. As a result, the court awarded statutory damages, but not the treble damages sought by the plaintiffs.
OCC finalizes assessment fee refunds
On August 21, the OCC published in the Federal Register a final rule providing partial assessment refunds to banks under OCC jurisdiction that exit the OCC’s jurisdiction within the prescribed timeframe. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in March, the OCC proposed to maintain semiannual assessment fee payments, but allow for partial refunds equal to the prospective half of the assessment for banks that leave the OCC’s jurisdiction between the date of the applicable Call Report and the date of collection. The final rule was adopted without substantive changes to the proposed rule and is effective as of September 20.
NCUA allows credit unions to serve hemp businesses
On August 19, the NCUA released interim guidance allowing federally insured credit unions to service hemp businesses. The guidance notes that, as of December 20, hemp is no longer a controlled substance at the federal level—the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) removed hemp from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. However, hemp may not be produced lawfully under federal law, beyond a 2014 pilot program, until the USDA promulgates regulations and guidelines to implement the hemp production provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill. The guidance instructs credit unions to be aware of federal, state, and tribal laws and regulations that apply to any hemp-related businesses they may service and to have Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance programs equal to the level of complexity and risks involved. The guidance emphasizes that lending to lawfully operating hemp-related businesses is permissible, but that the lending must be done in accordance with NCUA’s regulations for lending, and appropriate underwriting standards must be considered. NCUA notes that the guidance will be updated once the USDA regulations are finalized.
Fed issues two enforcement actions for flood insurance violations
On August 20, the Federal Reserve Board announced enforcement actions against two separate Massachusetts-based banks for allegedly violating the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H, which implements the NFIA. The first consent order assesses a $20,000 penalty against the bank for a pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H, but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations; the second consent order assesses a $36,000 penalty, while similarly not specifying the number or precise nature of the violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,000 per violation.