InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
State Law Update: Recent Changes in Maryland, Minnesota, and Mississippi
Maryland Adds Foreclosure Registration Requirement, Authorizes Pre-file Mediation, Amends Mortgage Licensing. On May 2, Maryland Governor O’Malley signed House Bill 1373, which establishes a state foreclosed property registry. Foreclosure purchasers are required to (i) file an initial registration and pay a $50 registration fee for each foreclosed property within 30 days after a foreclosure sale, and (ii) file a final registration, with no additional fee, within 30 days after a deed transferring the title has been recorded. The law allows local jurisdictions to (i) enact laws that impose a civil penalty for failure to register under the new state requirement and (ii) collect from the foreclosure purchaser, as a charge on the property’s property tax bill, any costs associated with abating a nuisance on a registered property. The Governor also signed on May 2, House Bill 1374, which authorizes a secured party to offer to participate in pre-file mediation with a mortgagor or grantor to whom the secured party has delivered a notice of intent to foreclose. If the mortgagor or granter elects to participate, an order to docket or complaint to foreclose cannot be filed until the completion of the mediation. The bill also establishes a process through which a person with a secured interest in residential property that is in default can seek from a local jurisdiction a certificate of vacancy. If a certificate is not challenged by the record owner or occupant of the property the secured party can expedite the foreclosure process.
Finally, on the same date, Maryland enacted Senate Bill 546, which (i) requires a mortgage lender licensee to provide the commissioner with proof satisfying specified minimum net worth requirements within 90 days after the last day of the licensee’s most recent fiscal year and (ii) establishes a nonactive license status and process for licensees that cease to be employed by an approved financial institution.
Minnesota Amends Debt Collector Requirements. On April 23, Minnesota enacted House Bill 2335, which amends requirements for individual debt collectors and collection agencies. The bill (i) provides individual collectors additional time to report a change of contact information, (ii) sets requirements for a personnel screening process that a debt collection agency must follow in hiring and retaining individual collectors, and (iii) revises the list of past events that disqualify a person from registration as a debt collector. The final bill did not include a proposed revision that would have allowed individual debt collectors to remedy violations of the statute.
Mississippi Adds Protections for Bank Self-Assessments. On April 19, Mississippi enacted House Bill 1460 to grant privileged treatment to certain bank reports. The law takes effect July 1, 2012. Under the new law, reports reflecting voluntary self-assessments by banks, which are submitted to a bank regulator but not otherwise provided to third parties, will be considered privileged and not admissible in any legal or investigative action and are not subject to discovery in such actions. The law sets forth exceptions and circumstances under which the protections do not apply, including if a court determines that a report shows that a bank was not in compliance with a material provision of banking law, the bank did not initiate good-faith efforts to achieve substantial compliance within a reasonable time after the noncompliance was discovered, and the bank's failure to comply caused material harm to a bank customer or consumer.
Federal Appeals Court Finds Plaintiff States FDCPA Claim Against Servicer, Creditor When Acquiring Debt Purportedly in Default
On April 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a mortgage servicer and a creditor can be sued as a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when acquiring a debt in default at the time of acquisition. The plaintiffs, a borrower and her non-borrower husband, alleged that the servicer and creditor violated the FDCPA in attempting to collect from the borrower and her husband, notwithstanding that the mortgage was not in default and despite plaintiffs’ repeated requests the servicer cease further communication. The servicer argued that it could not be liable under the FDCPA based upon its status as a mortgage loan servicer and because the debt was not actually in default. Similarly, the creditor argued that as the purchaser of the debt it could not be a debt collector and that it was neither a debt collector nor a creditor under the circumstances of the case. The district court, assuming plaintiff’s allegations that the servicer was not a servicer and that the creditor was not a creditor for purposes of the motion to dismiss, granted the motion on the basis that neither the servicer nor owner was a debt collector under the FDCPA. On appeal, the court, relying on congressional intent and previous decisions from the Third and Seventh Circuits, held that an entity that acquires a debt it seeks to collect must be either a creditor or a debt collector, depending on the status of the debt at the time it was acquired. Similarly, the court held the servicer may be either a servicer or debt collector when acting on behalf of the debt-acquiring entity. To hold otherwise, the court reasoned, would frustrate the purpose of the FDCPA’s broad consumer protections. Further, the court held that after years of attempting to collect on the debt and acting as a debt collector, the servicer could not now attempt to defeat the broad protections of the FDCPA by relying on the borrower’s assertion that the loan was not actually in default. Finally, the court rejected the defendants’ claims that the plaintiff-husband failed to state a claim since he was not actually obligated on the debt in light of the FDCPA’s application to debt collectors when attempting to collect a debt “owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another.” The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
CFPB Begins Study of Arbitration Clauses, Extends Comment Period for Overdraft Inquiry
On April 24, the CFPB released a request for information to inform its study of the use and impact of arbitration clauses in consumer financial services agreements. Through June 23, 2012, the CFPB is seeking information from the public regarding (i) the prevalence of use of these arbitration clauses, (ii) what claims consumers bring in arbitration against financial services companies, (iii) whether claims are brought by financial services companies against consumers in arbitration, and (iv) how consumers and companies are affected by actual arbitrations and outside of actual arbitrations. The study is required by the Dodd-Frank Act and must be completed before the CFPB can begin exercising its Dodd-Frank authority to conduct rulemakings regarding arbitration agreements. Therefore, at this time the CFPB is not seeking comments on whether and how the use of such agreements should be regulated.
The CFPB also this week extended through June 29, 2012, the comment period for its inquiry into overdraft programs and their costs, benefits, and risks to consumers.
Banking Regulators Clarify Volcker Rule Compliance Timeline, Senators Push for Final Rule
Recently, the Federal Reserve Board approved a statement clarifying that an entity covered by the Volcker Rule, section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, has until July 21, 2014 to comply unless the Board extends the conformance period. The clarified compliance date reflects the full two-year period provided by the statute for covered institutions to fully conform activities and investments. Generally, the Volcker Rule imposes certain prohibitions and requirements on banking entities and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board that engage in proprietary trading and have certain interests in, or relationships with, a hedge fund or private equity fund. The Federal Reserve Board and other federal banking regulators continue their efforts to adopt regulations implementing the statutory restrictions. In October 2011, the Federal Reserve Board sought comment on a proposed rulemaking, as did the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in January 2012, but no final rules have emerged. On April 26, 22 Senators sent a letter to the regulators urging that they adopt a strong clear rule this summer.
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.
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.
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.
CFPB Issues Bulletin Regarding Supervision of Vendors
On April 13, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2012-3, which states the CFPB's expectation that supervised banks and nonbanks have an effective process for managing the risks of service provider relationships. In a press release announcing the Bulletin, the CFPB promised to “take a close look at service providers’ interactions with consumers” and “hold all appropriate companies accountable when legal violations occur.” According to the Bulletin, the CFPB expects supervised institutions to (i) conduct thorough due diligence to verify that a service provider understands and is capable of complying with the law, (ii) request and review a service provider’s policies, procedures, internal controls, and training materials to ensure that the service provider conducts appropriate training and oversight of employees or agents that have consumer contact or compliance responsibilities, (iii) include in the contract with a service provider clear expectations about compliance, as well as appropriate and enforceable consequences for violating any compliance-related responsibilities; (iv) establish internal controls and on-going monitoring to determine whether a service provider is complying with the law, and (v) take prompt action to address fully any problems identified through the monitoring process.
CFPB Proposes Narrowing Application of Credit Card Fee Limit
On April 12, the CFPB published a proposed rule that would lift the current limit on credit card fees charged prior to account opening. Under the current rule, as adopted by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) in April 2011, card issuers are limited to charging fees up to 25 percent of the credit limit in effect when the account is opened. The FRB rule applies this fee limit prior to account opening and during the first year after account opening. The CFPB proposal would limit the application of this fee restriction to only during the first year after account opening. This proposal addresses a legal challenge to restricting the amount of fees charged prior to account opening, which resulted in a court issuing a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of the FRBs broader application of the fee limit. The CFPB is accepting comments on the proposal through June 11, 2012.
Fourth Circuit Holds State Debt Collection Law Not Preempted by National Banking Act
On April 5, the Fourth Circuit held that the National Bank Act (NBA) did not preempt the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC). Epps v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 10-2444, 2012 WL 1134065 (4th Cir. Apr. 5, 2012). In Epps, the plaintiff purchased a car through a retail sales installment contract subject to the CLEC. The contract was later assigned to Chase which repossessed the vehicle after the plaintiff defaulted. The plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging in part that Chases notices regarding the sale of the vehicle failed to comply with the CLEC. Relying on OCC regulations implementing the NBA, 12 C.F.R. § 7.4008(d)-(e), the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court for the District of Maryland and held that the CLEC was not preempted. The court explained that because the CLEC provisions at issue related exclusively to repossession and not to the extension of credit, they were not preempted by the NBA and excluded from preemption by the OCCs regulations. The court further found that the notices required under CLEC, which only related to debt collection upon default under an existing loan, were not disclosures within the meaning of the NBA and OCC regulations.