InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Arkansas establishes GAP waiver requirements
On April 8, the Arkansas governor signed HB 1672, which provides a framework within which guaranteed asset protection (GAP) waivers may be offered in the state. Among other provisions, the act (i) clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance and are exempt from the state’s insurance laws; (ii) states that persons who market, sell, or offer GAP waivers are exempt from Arkansas’ licensing requirements, provided they comply with the act; (iii) establishes requirements for offering GAP waivers and clarifies that any cost to the borrower for the sale of a GAP waiver, in compliance with TILA, should not be considered a finance charge or interest; (iv) states that neither the extension of credit, nor the sale or lease terms of a motor vehicle, “may be conditioned upon the purchase of a [GAP] waiver;” and (v) clarifies contractual liability coverage, disclosure requirements, and requirements and restrictions for GAP waiver cancellations, including refund provisions. HB 1672 further stipulates that the state’s insurance commissioner may enforce the act’s provisions and impose penalties. The act takes effect 90 days after adjournment of the legislature.
New Mexico amends financial lending licensing requirements
On April 2, the New Mexico governor signed HB 584, which amends the Collection Agency Regulatory Act and the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act to, among other things, require sales finance companies obtain a license to conduct business in the state. The bill outlines licensing requirements for such companies. State and national banks authorized to do business in the state are not required to obtain a license under the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, “but shall comply with all of its other provisions.” Under HB 584, the Director of the Financial Institutions Division of the Regulation and Licensing Department may utilize the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) or other entities designated by the NMLS in order to receive and process licensing applications. The Director is also granted the authority to issue and deny licenses.
HB 584 also amends definitions used within the state’s Mortgage Loan Originator Licensing Act, and outlines provisions related to (i) licensing, registration, renewal, and testing requirements; (ii) certain exemptions; (iii) the issuance of temporary licenses to out-of-state mortgage loan originators who are both licensed through the NMLS and complete the mandatory education and testing requirements; and (iv) continuing education requirements. HB 584 also grants the Director the authority to establish rules for licensing challenges; “deny, suspend, revoke or decline to renew a licenses for a violation of the New Mexico Mortgage Loan Originator Licensing Act”; and impose civil penalties for violations.
Furthermore, HB 584 also amends the definitions used within the state’s Uniform Money Services Act and the Collection Agency Regulatory Act by listing licensing application requirements, and granting the Director the same authorities provided above.
The amendments take effect July 1, 2019.
Minnesota clarifies definition of “sales finance company” for licensing purposes
On April 5, the Minnesota Department of Commerce (Department) issued guidance clarifying the types of entities meeting the definition of “sales finance company” under Minnesota law for purposes of whether a license is needed to conduct business. The guidance requires “any company who purchases motor vehicle retail installment contracts from retail sellers located in Minnesota, and applies a finance charge,” to obtain a motor vehicle sales finance company license. Any company engaged in the business of a “sales finance company” is required to apply for and maintain a license under Minnesota law, regardless of whether the company has a physical presence in Minnesota or whether an in-state retail seller chooses to hold and collect retail installment contracts out-of-state.
Completed applications by companies that purchase motor vehicle retail installment contracts are due to the Department by July 1. The license application requirement will only apply to those contracts entered into on or after July 1. Non-depository financial institution applicants must apply through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS).
District Court finds auto dealerships did not violate UTPA or financial elder abuse law
On March 30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted a group of car dealerships’ (defendants) summary judgment motion in a putative class action involving claims that the dealership violated Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) as well as the state’s financial elder-abuse law. The plaintiffs, who all purchased vehicles along with other goods or services from one or more of the defendants, asserted that the defendants allegedly failed to “appropriately disclose [their] specific fees associated with arrangement of financing or the profit margins related to the sale of third-party products and services.” By failing to comply with these disclosure requirements, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants “wrongfully appropriated money from elderly persons.” Concerning the alleged violations of UTPA, the defendants argued that its section titled “Undisclosed Fee Payments” only applies to referral fees greater than $100 paid to non-employee third-parties and not to other payments made by a dealership to a third party. The court agreed and stated that the defendants’ position was further supported by the state’s official commentary. With regard to the plaintiffs’ other claim concerning deficiencies in the disclosures, the court concluded that “strict recitation of the statute is not required to meet the clear and conspicuous standard,” and that the disclosures in question were clearly visible and easy to understand. Finally, the court granted summary dismissal on the plaintiffs’ claim of elder abuse because the claim was premised on the alleged violations of UTPA, which were dismissed.
Virginia, North Dakota establish GAP waiver requirements
On March 21, the Virginia governor signed SB 1325, which provides a framework within which guaranteed asset protection (GAP) waivers may be offered in the state. Among other provisions, the act (i) clarifies that any cost to the borrower for the sale of a GAP waiver, in compliance with TILA, should not be considered a finance charge or interest; (ii) states that neither the extension of credit nor the sale or lease of a motor vehicle “may be conditioned upon the purchase of a GAP waiver;” (iii) requires creditors to comply with GAP waiver obligations; (iv) requires a GAP waiver to include disclosures regarding the cancellation of the GAP waiver during a free look period; and (v) establishes requirements and restrictions for GAP waiver cancellations, including refund provisions. The act also provides that GAP waivers are not insurance and are exempt from Virginia's licensing requirements. The act is effective July 1.
Separately, on March 20, the North Dakota governor signed HB 1181, which clarifies that GAP waivers effective on or after August 1 are not insurance and are exempt from the state’s insurance laws. Among other things, the act also (i) clarifies contractual liability coverage; (ii) outlines required disclosures that must be stipulated with the sale of a GAP waiver; and (iii) specifies GAP waiver cancellation conditions and refund provisions.
California DBO seeks to revoke auto title lender’s license
On March 19, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) filed an administrative action to revoke the license and void loans made by a Southern California auto title lender for allegedly violating state lending laws. According to the DBO announcement, the lender allegedly, among other things, (i) charged consumers more interest than permitted by state law; (ii) failed to consider the borrower’s ability-to-repay; and (iii) engaged in “false and misleading” advertising. Specifically, DBO alleges that, in two separate examinations, it determined the lender included DMV fees in borrowers’ principal loan amounts to bring the loans above $2,500. DBO alleges these loans carried interest rates over 100 percent, while the state law cap is 30 percent for loans under $2,500. DBO also alleges the lender violated state law by failing to report the profits it made from a “duplicate-key fee” and made loans from unlicensed locations.
In addition to the formal accusation, the DBO also has commenced an investigation to determine whether the more than 100 percent interest rates that the lender charges on most of its auto title loans may be unconscionable under the law.
CFPB issues winter 2019 Supervisory Highlights
On March 12, the CFPB released its winter 2019 Supervisory Highlights, which outlines its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of auto loan servicing, deposits, mortgage servicing, and remittances. The findings of the report cover examinations that generally were completed between June 2018 and November 2018. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Auto Loan Servicing. The Bureau determined that attempts to collect miscalculated deficiency balances from extended warranty products were unfair. The Bureau also found that deficiency notices were deceptive where eligible rebates were not sought or applied, although the notice purported to be calculated to include such rebates.
- Deposits. The Bureau found that companies engaged in a deceptive act or practice by failing to adequately disclose that when a payee accepts only a paper check through the institutions online bill-pay service, a debit may occur earlier than the date selected by the consumer.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau noted several issues related to mortgage servicing, including servicers (i) charging consumers late fees greater than the amount permitted by mortgage notes; (ii) misrepresenting the reasons PMI could not be cancelled; and (iii) failing to complete loss mitigation applications with “reasonable diligence.”
- Remittances. The Bureau determined that remittance transfer providers erred when they failed to refund fees and taxes when funds were not made available to recipients by the date listed in the disclosure and the mistake did not result from one of the exceptions listed in the Remittance Rule.
The report notes that in response to most examination findings, the companies have already remediated or have plans to remediate affected consumers, and implement corrective actions, such as new policies and procedures.
Lastly, the report also highlights recent public enforcement actions and guidance documents issued by the Bureau.
New Jersey AG sues used-car dealerships for predatory selling practices
On March 5, the New Jersey Attorney General's Office and Division of Consumer Affairs filed a lawsuit against two auto dealerships and their owner for allegedly targeting financially vulnerable consumers through the use of predatory sales and loan practices. According to a March 7 press release issued by the New Jersey AG, the defendants allegedly targeted consumers who were unable to qualify for credit at more traditional auto dealerships by offering in-house loans on used vehicles with inflated prices, high interest rates, and terms that presented a high risk of default. When the consumers were unable to make the required payments, the defendants allegedly reclaimed the vehicles and restarted the “sell, finance, and repossess” churning cycle. The AG claims that the defendants’ practices violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Used Car Lemon Law, and the state’s motor vehicle advertising regulations. The complaint asks the court to permanently shut down the defendants’ operations and permanently enjoin the owner from owning, managing, and/or operating any business that advertises and/or sells motor vehicles in the state. The complaint also seeks restitution, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees.
Indiana Court of Appeals allows class action to proceed against dealership
On March 6, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s denial of an auto dealership’s motion to dismiss a proposed class action alleging the dealership violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (the Consumer Act). According to the opinion, consumers filed the proposed class action alleging that the dealership charged document preparation fees that exceeded the actual costs incurred by the dealership for preparation and that the fees were not affirmatively disclosed or negotiated with the consumers. The proposed class action argued the charging of the fees was an “unfair, abusive, or deceptive act, omission, or practice in connection with a consumer transaction” under the Consumer Act and quoted a statutory provision from the Indiana Motor Vehicle Dealer Services Act (the Dealer Act). The dealership moved to dismiss the action, arguing there was no private right of action under the Dealer Act and that the consumers failed to state a claim for relief under the Consumer Act. The consumers conceded there was no private right under the Dealership Act, but noted the quoted reference was used to merely describe an unfair practice that is prohibited by the Consumer Act. The lower court denied the motion, concluding that the non-disclosure claim fell within the “catch-all” provision of the Consumer Act.
On appeal, the appellate court noted that in order to state a claim under the Consumer Act, the consumer must have alleged the dealership “committed an uncured or incurable deceptive act.” The appellate court acknowledged that the allegations that the dealership charged an unfair fee and “did not state its intention as part of the bargaining process” generally fell within the realm of the Consumer Act, and determined that, even without specifics, the complaint’s “general allegations of uncured and incurable acts are adequate to withstand dismissal.”
New Jersey appellate court affirms dismissal of lease fraud claims against auto financier
On March 1, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a lower court’s order granting summary judgment to an auto finance company and dismissing with prejudice a plaintiff’s New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims. According to the opinion, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement for a vehicle serviced by the defendant. The plaintiff, who incurred late charges on 35 of her 39 monthly payments of $300, returned the vehicle before the end of the lease and was required to pay a $495 vehicle return fee, along with wear and tear fees and late charges. The plaintiff subsequently entered into a new lease transaction, in which the dealership agreed to pay the defendant the outstanding payments on her old lease, but did not, according to the court, waive the vehicle return fee. The dealership paid the full balance to the defendant after the plaintiff received notification about an overdue lease payment, and the day after the dealership’s payment was applied, the plaintiff paid an additional $300—which was mistakenly applied to a $395 disposition fee, as opposed to the larger vehicle return fee. The plaintiff made a final payment of $655 to settle the balance of the disposition fee as well as wear and tear fees and late charges. A complaint was filed later by the plaintiff against the defendant alleging that it fraudulently procured an additional $300 lease payment and falsely reported that she was delinquent on payments.
Affirming the lower court, the appeals court concluded that the defendant’s representations regarding the outstanding $300 payment were accurate and, under the lease terms, the plaintiff remained responsible for the vehicle return and wear and tear fees. In addition, the appeals court held that the plaintiff’s FCRA claim failed because the record confirmed that within 30 days of being notified of a dispute with the plaintiff’s credit score, the defendant conducted an investigation and requested that the credit reporting agencies remove the “late marks.”