Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations
Section Content

Upcoming Events

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Freddie Mac releases various selling updates in Guide Bulletin 2018-15

    Federal Issues

    On September 19, Freddie Mac released Guide Bulletin 2018-15, which announces selling updates, including revisions to requirements for authorized user accounts and super conforming mortgages. Specifically, when reviewing a borrower’s credit report for tradelines where a borrower is listed as an authorized user but is not the primary account holder, sellers only have to meet additional documentation requirements if they receive a feedback message containing further instructions. These changes are effective for submissions and resubmissions made on or after October 4. The Bulletin also states that effective for mortgages settled on or after December 19, Freddie Mac will no longer require the manual underwriting of super conforming mortgages with original loan amounts greater than $1 million.

    Additionally, starting October 15, enhancements to the automated cash specified payups process will take effect, which will, among other things, “include cash payups for fixed-rate [m]ortgages with certain specified loan attributes.” The Bulletin also eliminates the requirement for sellers to obtain additional documentation or evaluate the income or loss from secondary self-employment when none of this income is used for mortgage qualification purposes. Furthermore, as of September 9, as previously covered in InfoBytes, Bulletin 2018-13 updated the required time frame for evaluating credit report inquiries; it has been reduced from 120 days to 90 days.

    Federal Issues Freddie Mac Mortgages Credit Report Consumer Finance

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB studies geographic patterns in credit invisibility

    Consumer Finance

    On September 19, the CFPB released a new Data Point report from the Office of Research titled, “The Geography of Credit Invisibility,” which examines geographic patterns in the prevalence of “credit invisible” consumers, a term for those who do not have a credit record maintained by a national credit reporting agency, or have a credit record that is deemed to have too little or too old of information to be treated as “scorable” by widely used credit scoring models. The report studies whether the geographic location of a consumer’s residence is correlated with the likelihood of remaining credit invisible and aims to “aid policymakers and advance the conversation around potential causes and solutions.” Among other things, the report found:

    • credit invisibility may be higher for geographic tracts near universities due to their concentration of adults under 25 who may not have established a credit record yet;
    • rural areas have the most credit invisibility per capita;
    • consumers are less likely to use a credit card as an entry product to establishing a credit record in rural and low-to-moderate income areas;
    • credit invisibility was more prevalent in areas with less internet access as many products are originated through online services; and
    • there is little relationship between distance to the nearest bank branch and the occurrence of credit invisibility.

    The CFPB previously published two other Data Point reports on the subject: “Credit Invisibles” in 2015 and “Becoming Credit Visible” in 2017.

    Consumer Finance CFPB Research Credit Reporting Agency

    Share page with AddThis
  • Federal and state financial regulatory agencies issue interagency disaster relief guidance for institutions affected by Hurricane Florence

    Federal Issues

    On September 14, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (collectively, the “agencies”) issued a joint statement providing guidance to financial institutions impacted by Hurricane Florence. The agencies encouraged lenders to work with borrowers in impacted communities and to consider, among other things, (i) whether to modify loans based on the facts and circumstances, and (ii) requesting to operate temporary bank facilities if faced with operational difficulties. On the same day, the FDIC also provided guidance for depository institutions assisting affected customers (see FIL-48-2018), which may include “waiving fees, increasing ATM cash limits, easing credit card limits, allowing loan customers to defer or skip payments, and delaying the submission of delinquency notices to credit bureaus.” Furthermore, the FDIC encouraged depository institutions to use Bank Secrecy Act-permitted “non-documentary verification methods” for customers unable to provide standard identification documents.

    The agencies also reminded institutions to contact their appropriate federal and/or state regulator should they experience disaster-related difficulties when complying with publishing and regulatory reporting requirements, and further noted that institutions may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery. The statement also provides links to previously issued examiner guidance for institutions affected by major disasters.

    Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.

    Federal Issues OCC Federal Reserve FDIC NCUA CSBS Consumer Finance Mortgages Bank Secrecy Act Disaster Relief

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB files lawsuit against pension advance company citing alleged CFPA and TILA violations

    Courts

    On September 13, the CFPB filed a complaint against a pension advance company, its owner, and related entities (defendants) based upon alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). In a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Bureau charged that the defendants engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the CFPA when they allegedly misrepresented to customers that “lump-sum” pension advances were not loans and carried no applicable interest rate, even though customers were required to pay back advances at amounts equivalent to a 183 percent interest rate and often incurred fees such as one-time $300 set up fees, monthly management fees, and 1.5 percent late fees. According to the Bureau, the defendants allowed customers to take out advance payments ranging from $100 to $60,000. The defendants then allegedly provided the income streams as 60- or 120-month cash flow payments to third-party investors, promising between 6 and 12 percent interest rates. Moreover, the defendants allegedly failed to provide customers with TILA closed-end-credit disclosures. The complaint seeks civil penalties, monetary and injunctive relief.

    As previously covered in InfoBytes, the pension advance company initiated a suit against the CFPB in January 2017 after the Bureau declined to set aside or keep confidential a civil investigative demand served against the company. The suit challenged the Bureau’s constitutionality and argued that the company was likely to suffer irreparable harm from being identified as being under investigation. However, in a split decision, the D.C. Circuit Court ultimately denied the company’s bid for an emergency injunction, citing the now-vacated majority opinion in PHH v. CFPB.

    Courts CFPB Consumer Finance Interest Rate CFPA TILA PHH v. CFPB Single-Director Structure

    Share page with AddThis
  • DOJ settles with apartment owner for alleged SCRA violations

    Consumer Finance

    On September 11, the Department of Justice announced a settlement with a Nebraska apartment complex owner resolving allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by unlawfully charging lease termination fees for 65 servicemembers. The complaint, which was filed on the same day as the settlement, alleges that between January 2012 and June 2017, the apartment complex owner imposed early lease termination fees, ranging from $78 to almost $1,500, on servicemembers who sought termination due to qualifying military orders under the SCRA. The settlement requires the apartment complex owner, among other things, to (i) pay more than $76,000 in damages to the 65 identified servicemembers; (ii) pay a $20,000 civil money penalty, and (iii) develop policies and procedures related to SCRA lease terminations.

    Consumer Finance DOJ SCRA Settlement Servicemembers

    Share page with AddThis
  • Washington state Attorney General sues towing company for alleged state SCRA violation

    State Issues

    On September 11, the Washington state Attorney General announced the filing of a lawsuit against a towing company for allegedly auctioning off a servicemember’s car while he was deployed, in violation of the Washington Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (WSCRA). The complaint argues that the towing company impounded and unlawfully sold a deployed servicemember’s car without first determining the military status of the car’s owner and without obtaining a court order, as required by the WSCRA. The complaint rejects the towing company’s arguments that the responsibility fell on the servicemember’s creditor to redeem the vehicle as the legal owner because the law places the duty for determining military status on the party enforcing the lien. The complaint seeks restitution for the servicemember and a permanent injunction. Additionally, the complaint seeks civil penalties of up to $55,000 for a first offense and up to $110,000 for subsequent offenses, as allowed by the WSCRA.

    State Issues State Attorney General SCRA Consumer Finance Auto Finance Servicemembers

    Share page with AddThis
  • FTC settles with debt collection operators for alleged fraudulent collections

    Federal Issues

    On September 7, the FTC announced a series of settlements with the operators of a Georgia-based debt collection business for allegedly violating the FTC Act by making false, or misleading claims and threats during debt collection. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in November 2017, the FTC filed a complaint alleging that the defendants threatened legal action, garnishment, and imprisonment if purported debts were not paid, and in other instances, attempted to collect debts after consumers provided proof that the debt was paid off. Each settlement order (available here, here, and here) imposes a $3.4 million penalty against the defendants, which, after surrendering certain assets, will be partially suspended due to the inability to pay. The settlement orders ban the defendants from the business of debt collection, and prohibit the defendants from (i) misrepresenting information related to financial products and services, and (ii) disclosing, using, or benefitting from the consumer information obtained through the course of the debt collection activities.

    Federal Issues FTC Consumer Finance Debt Collection Enforcement FTC Act

    Share page with AddThis
  • Court approves final class action settlement; previously ruled that extended overdrawn balance charge fees are “interest” under National Bank Act

    Courts

    On August 31, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted final approval to a class action settlement, resolving a suit alleging that a national bank’s overdraft fees exceeded the maximum interest rate permitted by the National Bank Act (NBA). According to the order, the settlement ends a putative class action concerning the bank’s practice of charging a $35 “extended overdrawn balance charge” fee (EOBCs) on deposit accounts that remained overdrawn for more than five days when funds were advanced to honor an overdrawn check. Class members argued that the fee amounted to interest and—when taken into account as a percentage of an account holder’s negative balance—exceeded the NBA’s allowable interest rate. The bank countered, stating that “EOBCs were not ‘interest’ and therefore cannot trigger the NBA.” A 2016 order denying the bank’s motion to dismiss, which departed from several other district courts on this issue, found that “covering an overdraft check is an ‘extension of credit’” and therefore overdraft fees can be considered interest under the NBA. The bank appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit in April 2017, but reached a settlement last October with class members.

    Under the terms of the approved settlement, the bank will refrain from charging extended overdraft fees for five years—retroactive to December 31, 2017—unless the U.S. Supreme Court “expressly holds that EOBCs or their equivalent do not constitute interest under the NBA.” The bank also will provide $37.5 million in relief to certain class members who paid at least one EOBC and were not provided a refund or a charge-off, and will provide at least $29.1 million in debt reduction for class members whose overdrawn accounts were closed by the bank while they still had an outstanding balance as a result of one or more EOBCs applied during the class period. The bank also will pay attorneys’ fees.

    Courts Overdraft Settlement Class Action National Bank Act Fees Consumer Finance

    Share page with AddThis
  • Court finds no ECOA violation with credit union’s dispute-free credit report requirement

    Courts

    On August 28, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed an action against a credit union, holding that the credit union’s decision to consider only dispute-free credit reports of all applicants does not amount to a “prohibited basis” under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). According to the opinion, the credit union required the consumer to remove his disputed debts from his credit report in order for his application for a home equity loan to move forward. After the disputes were removed, the consumer’s credit score dropped below the minimum required by the credit union, and his application was denied. In December 2017, the consumer brought an action against the credit union, alleging that he was discriminated against in violation of ECOA for exercising his dispute rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The court rejected the consumer’s arguments, concluding that the FDCPA and the FCRA do not give a consumer a right to dispute debts, but rather a right to ensure that disputed debts are accurately reported as such. The court also rejected the consumer’s theory of recovery under ECOA, finding that his arguments were inconsistent with ECOA’s implementing regulation, Regulation B. The court determined that Regulation B allows a creditor to restrict the types of credit history that it will consider if the restrictions are applied to all applicants without regard to a prohibited basis. Because the dispute-free restriction was applied to all applicants of the credit union equally, the consumer’s claim failed.

    Courts ECOA FCRA FDCPA Regulation B Consumer Finance

    Share page with AddThis
  • 6th Circuit holds that failing to report a trial modification plan can constitute incomplete reporting under FCRA

    Courts

    On August 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held that a borrower met the requirements necessary for a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim to proceed when two mortgage servicers failed to report the existence of a trial modification plan when reporting the borrower was delinquent to reporting agencies. In 2014, a borrower brought an action against three credit reporting agencies and two mortgage servicers alleging, among other claims, violations of the FCRA due to payments being reported as past due while successfully making payments under a trial modification plan (also referred to as a Trial Period Plan, or “TPP”) and working towards a permanent modification. Regarding the FCRA claim, the 6th Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision granting the servicers’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the borrower met the statutory requirements for an FCRA claim because failing to report the existence of a TPP can constitute “incomplete reporting” in violation of the statute. The 6th Circuit rejected the servicers’ argument that the Home Affordable Modification Program guidelines “encouraged, but did not require” that they report a TPP. The court acknowledged this distinction but noted that “[r]eporting that [a borrower] was delinquent on his loan payments without reporting the TPP implies a much greater degree of financial irresponsibility than was present here.” The court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the servicers conducted a reasonable investigation after the borrower disputed the reporting.

    Courts Sixth Circuit Mortgages Loss Mitigation Mortgage Servicing Credit Report Credit Reporting Agency FCRA HAMP Consumer Finance

    Share page with AddThis

Pages