InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Illinois reissues and extends several Covid-19 executive orders
On August 21, the Illinois governor issued Executive Order 2020-52, which extends several earlier executive orders through September 19, 2020. Among other things, the order extends Executive Order 2020-25 regarding garnishment and wage deductions (previously covered here) and Executive Order 2020-30 regarding residential evictions (previously covered here and here). However, Executive Order 2020-30 has been amended to provide that the moratorium on the enforcement of eviction orders for residential premises does not relieve an individual of the obligation to pay rent, make mortgage payments, or comply with any other obligation that the individual may have pursuant to a lease, rental agreement, or mortgage.
Texas Office of Consumer Credit updates guidance for regulated lenders
On August 20, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner issued updated guidance, previously covered here, for regulated lenders navigating the Covid-19 crisis. The guidance: (1) encourages lenders to work with consumers, including by working out modifications to assist with payments, waiving fees and charges, suspending charged-off accounts, and suspending repossessions of collateral or foreclosure of real property, among other things; (2) reminds lenders of legal requirements for using electronic signatures; and (3) permits lenders to conduct regulated lending activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through September 30, 2020, unless withdrawn or revised.
Texas Office of Consumer Credit updates guidance urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with borrowers
On August 20, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner updated its advisory bulletin urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to work with consumers during the Covid-19 crisis (previously covered here, here, here, and here). Among other measures, the regulator urges licensees to increase consumer communication regarding the effects of Covid-19 for licensees, work out modifications for payment difficulties, waive certain charges, and suspend repossessions. The guidance also reminds licensees of legal requirements for using electronic signatures, and continues to permit licensees to conduct activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through September 30, 2020, unless withdrawn or revised.
New York extends commercial foreclosure restrictions
On August 20, the New York governor issued Executive Order 202.57, which extends various earlier executive orders. Among others, the executive order extends through September 19, 2020, the directive in Executive Order 202.48 relating to the initiation of a proceeding or enforcement of an eviction of any commercial tenant for nonpayment of rent or a foreclosure of any commercial mortgage for nonpayment of such mortgage.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court says state mortgage law does not apply retroactively
On August 18, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a lower court’s decision, holding that 2008 amendments to the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law (also known as “Act 6”), which raised the mortgage principle-amount ceiling from $50,000 to nearly $215,000, do not apply retroactively to loans executed prior to 2008. According to the opinion, in May 2002, homeowners executed a mortgage for $74,000. In 2008, the homeowners defaulted on their mortgage and in 2009, their bank—through its counsel—filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint, which included $1,300 in attorneys’ fees. In 2012, while their foreclosure was still pending, the homeowners filed a class action against the bank’s counsel, alleging the counsel violated Act 6’s limit on attorney’s fees. The trial court sustained the counsel’s demurrer, concluding that the homeowners’ mortgage was not “a ‘residential mortgage’ as Act 6 defined that term in 2002.” The superior court affirmed.
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the superior court, noting not only the “presumption against finding statutes retroactive,” but the state’s General Assembly’s “explicit instruction that courts should avoid applying legislation retroactively unless the statute clearly and manifestly states otherwise.” Because Act 6 does not expressly state that the 2008 increased mortgage-ceiling should apply to mortgages executed prior to the amendment, the Court concluded there was “no basis allowing for application of the updated law to the [homeowners]’ mortgage,” and thus, the counsel was not subject to Act 6’s limitation on attorneys’ fees.
District court certifies class in a lawsuit against an unlicensed debt collector
On August 17, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah certified two classes related to a debt collector’s efforts to pursue judgments on defaulted debts without being appropriately registered with the state. The order certified two classes: one for class claims arising under the FDCPA, and another for class claims brought under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA). The court certified the UCSPA class for liability purposes only, as the statute does not allow a plaintiff to seek statutory damages on behalf of a class, leaving “issues related to what relief may be available for which class members to subsequent proceedings.” According to the order, the lead plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant after it attempted to collect unpaid medical debt. The defendant obtained a judgment but was not registered as a debt collector in the state when it filed the action. The defendant argued that Utah’s registration requirement did not apply to it and filed a motion for summary judgment, but the court disagreed and allowed the plaintiff to seek certification for two classes of individuals who had debt collection lawsuits filed against them in Utah by the defendant while it was unlicensed. Among other things, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s proposed class included individuals without an underlying consumer debt, which destroyed commonality under Rule 23. The court agreed and limited the proposed FDCPA class to individuals who were sued for a “debt” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5). However, the court stated that the need for individualized determinations concerning each class member’s debt did not upset Rule 23’s predominance requirement, and concluded that the issue does not predominate over the question of whether the failure to register as a debt collector was a violation of the FDCPA and UCSPA. The court also disagreed with the defendant’s res judicata argument to defeat the certification request, ruling that even though the defendant ultimately obtained a judgment against the lead plaintiff—which it also allegedly did for at least 645 other members of the class—that was not enough to prove a conflict existed between the lead plaintiff and the other unaffected members of the class.
ARRC releases transition guides for ARMs, private student loans referencing LIBOR
On August 18, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) released reference rate transition guides for adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and variable rate private student loans that reference LIBOR. Both guides are intended to support the transition from LIBOR to an alternative reference rate, such as the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), and focus on LIBOR-based contracts that will continue to exist after LIBOR’s anticipated cessation at the end of 2021. The LIBOR ARM Transition Resource Guide and the LIBOR-Based Private Student Loan Transition Resource Guide cover key milestones, suggested readiness timeframes, transition risks, and stakeholder impacts, and include various resource guidance, tools, and templates to assist institutions in “fortify[ing] their products and support[ing] consumers’ transitions to SOFR.”
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on LIBOR here.
Special Alert: FinCEN outlines approach to BSA enforcement
On August 18, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which has overall responsibility for administering the Bank Secrecy Act, issued a short statement that, for the first time, publicly outlined its approach to BSA enforcement. Of note, FinCEN indicated that it will not base enforcement actions on an institution’s failure to comply with standards announced solely in a guidance document. Additionally, for the first time, FinCEN listed a nonexhaustive set of factors it will use to determine what enforcement steps should be taken. The statement leaves FinCEN with considerable flexibility in enforcing the BSA, and raises a number of questions for legal and compliance professionals.
The statement will be of most interest to “financial institutions,” which under the BSA include a wide swath of financial services companies, that are not subject to supervision by a federal prudential regulator authorized to enforce compliance with the BSA; most prudential regulators have their own enforcement guidelines, and the federal banking agencies recently issued a joint statement on BSA enforcement. Companies subject to FinCEN’s BSA enforcement authority, particularly those such as money services businesses without federal prudential regulators, may wish to familiarize themselves with FinCEN’s enforcement factors and tailor their compliance efforts accordingly. The statement also provides implicit guidance on what actions institutions should take upon identification of a potential violation.
Special Alert: CFPB proposes new Qualified Mortgage definition for Seasoned QMs
On August 18, the CFPB released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to create a new category of Qualified Mortgages to be called “Seasoned QMs”. The CFPB concluded that if a loan has performed for a long enough period of time and meets certain underwriting conditions and product restrictions, it is warranted to conclusively presume that the creditor’s determination of a consumer’s ability to repay at consummation was reasonable. The new QM category would designate the loan as a safe harbor QM, even if the loan did not meet the criteria of any of the other QM definitions at consummation.
Under the NPRM, a loan originated as a rebuttable presumption QM or as a Non-QM loan will be granted a safe harbor presumption that it complies with the ATR requirements if it (1) meets certain product restrictions and (2) is held in portfolio during the seasoning period and meets specified performance criteria. The product restrictions require that (1) the loan is secured by a first lien; (2) the loan has a fixed rate, with fully amortizing payments and no balloon payment; (3) the loan term does not exceed 30 years; and (4) the total points and fees do not exceed specified limits.
D.C. enacts law extending obligations for debt collection, credit reporting, mortgage servicing, and evictions during the Covid-19 pandemic
On August 19, the mayor of D.C. signed the Coronavirus Support Second Congressional Review Emergency Act of 2020. The act extends the provisions of D.C.’s prior Covid-19 relief act (previously covered here), which was set to expire after 90 days, until November 16. Among other things, the act includes consumer protection provisions, including provisions regarding debt collection and credit reporting. It also provides housing and tenant protections, including in the areas of mortgage relief, restrictions on evictions, and foreclosures.