InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DOJ, CFPB agree to early termination of consent order with indirect auto lender
On May 15, the auto lending branch of an international automobile company (indirect auto lender) reported in an 8-K filing that the DOJ and CFPB had reached an agreement that the indirect auto lender has met the requirements for early termination of a consent order entered into in 2016 over allegations of unfair lending practices. As previously covered in InfoBytes, a joint agency investigation under ECOA found that the indirect auto lender’s policies allowed for dealers to mark up a consumer’s interest rate on the retail installment contract above the established risk-based buy rate. The parties currently await final court approval of a joint stipulation and proposed order for early termination of the consent order from three years to two years in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
House approves repeal of CFPB’s 2013 indirect auto guidance
On May 8, the House voted to repeal, under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), CFPB Bulletin 2013-02 (Bulletin) on indirect auto lending and compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Senate approved the resolution on April 18 and the White House issued a Statement of Administrative Policy supporting the Senate resolution; it is expected that President Trump will sign the measure soon.
If the measure is successful, this would be the first time that Congress has used the CRA to repeal a regulatory issuance outside the statute’s general 60-day period. In December 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a letter to Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa) stating that “the Bulletin is a general statement of policy and a rule” that is subject to override under the CRA, which allowed for the Senate to introduce the resolution measure years after the CFPB released the Bulletin.
Florida District Court of Appeal holds contract for used car not covered by state usury law
On April 25, a Florida District Court of Appeal held that a Florida usury law did not apply to the purchase of a used car because the contract for purchase was a retail installment sales contract covered under the Florida Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act (the Finance Act). According to the opinion, a consumer filed a lawsuit against a used car seller and a lender claiming violations of Florida’s general usury law, which prohibits interest of more than 18 percent per year, because the contract for purchase of a used car had a 27.81 percent interest rate. In affirming the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment for the car seller and lender, the appeals court found that the contract for purchase met the state’s definition of a retail installment sales contract and, therefore, was governed by the Finance Act (which both the seller and lender were licensed under) rather than the general usury statute. Additionally, because the car was financed over a four-year period, the appeals court found that the finance charge per year was permissible under the Finance Act at $16.48 for every $100. The court also held that the general usury law did not apply to a contract to secure the price of personal property sold, as opposed to a contract for the “loan of money.”
CFPB and OCC fine national bank $1 billion for mortgage and auto lending practices
On April 20, the CFPB, in coordination with the OCC, announced a $1 billion settlement with a national bank for certain auto and mortgage lending practices the bank had previously discontinued and for which voluntary consumer remediation was initiated by the bank. According to the CFPB consent order, the Bureau alleged the bank inappropriately (i) charged fees for mortgage rate-lock extensions, and (ii) operated a force-placed insurance program in connection with auto loans. Specifically, the CFPB alleged that the bank sometimes charged rate lock extension fees to consumers when it should have absorbed the fees. With respect to auto loans, the Bureau alleged that, due to issues with the vendor employed to monitor for insurance and issue insurance if not maintained by the consumer, certain consumers paid for force-placed insurance premiums and interest that may not have been required resulting in potential consumer harm. The CFPB consent order acknowledges that the bank voluntarily discontinued the above practices and has voluntarily begun consumer remediation. Under the terms of both of the consent orders, the bank will remediate affected consumers and will implement necessary changes to its compliance risk-management program.
Senate votes to block CFPB’s 2013 indirect auto guidance
On April 18, the Senate voted to strike down, under the Congressional Review Act, the CFPB’s Bulletin 2013-02 (Bulletin) on indirect auto lending and compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The vote follows a December 2017 letter issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa) stating that the Bulletin is a “general statement of policy and a rule” that is subject to override under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, GAO reasoned that the CRA’s definition of a “rule” includes both traditional rules, which typically require notice to the public and an opportunity to comment, and general statements of policy, which do not. GAO concluded that the Bulletin meets this definition “since it applies to all indirect auto lenders; it has future effect; and it is designed to prescribe the Bureau’s policy in enforcing fair lending laws.” The measure has been sent to the House and is expected to be voted on soon. On April 17, the White House issued a Statement of Administrative Policy which supported the Senate resolution nullifying the guidance, stating that if the resolution were to be presented to the president, his advisors would recommend he sign it. If the measure is successful, this would be the first time that Congress has used the CRA to repeal a regulatory issuance outside the statute’s general 60-day period.
Multiple states pass bills addressing GAP waiver framework
On March 28, HB 4186, which amends the Code of West Virginia by adding a section related to guaranteed asset protection waivers (GAP waivers), became law without the governor’s signature. Among other things, HB 4186 clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance, and that GAP waivers issued after the bill’s effective date are exempt from West Virginia insurance laws. The bill also (i) specifies terms and conditions when offering GAP waivers; (ii) provides requirements for offering GAP waivers, including “contractual liability” obligations, certain disclosures, and cancellation/non-cancellation terms; and (iii) outlines exemptions, such as commercial transactions and GAP waivers sold or issued by federally regulated depository institutions. Additionally, HB 4186 clarifies the procedures a borrower must follow to activate benefits under a GAP waiver. The bill will apply to all GAP waivers in effect on or after July 1.
On March 28, the Wisconsin governor signed Assembly Bill 663 (AB 663), which amends statutes related to GAP waivers sold in connection with the credit sale or lease of a vehicle. Among other things, AB 663 prohibits creditors from requiring borrowers to purchase GAP waivers and requires creditors to provide written disclosures to borrowers prior to, or at the time of execution, which include that (i) the purchase of a GAP waiver is optional; (iii) outlines the costs and terms; and (iii) specifies procedures borrowers are required to follow to receive GAP waiver benefits. AB 663 also addresses cancellation provisions for borrowers. Furthermore, the bill clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance and that any cost to a borrower must be separately stated as part of the finance agreement and cannot be considered a finance charge or interest. AB 663 becomes effective September 1.
Finally, on March 26, the Mississippi governor signed SB 2929, which clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance and are therefore exempt from Mississippi insurance laws. Provisions promulgated under SB 2929 provide a framework for which GAP waivers may be offered to borrowers in the state and include (i) requirements for contractual liability and other policies to insure a GAP waiver; (ii) disclosure requirements; and (iii) cancellation policies for GAP waivers and procedures for borrowers to obtain a refund in the instance of cancellation or early termination. Similar to Wisconsin AB 663, any cost to a borrower associated with a GAP waiver must be separately stated as part of the finance agreement and cannot be considered a finance charge or interest. The act takes effect July 1.
DOJ sues California subprime auto lender for alleged SCRA violations
On March 28, the DOJ filed a complaint in the Central District of California against a California-based indirect auto lending company (defendant) for allegedly repossessing servicemembers’ vehicles in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The allegations stem from an investigation into the defendant’s practices after an Army Private submitted a complaint to the DOJ in 2016. The DOJ’s investigation concluded that the defendant repossessed the vehicle without obtaining a court order or confirming whether the servicemember was SCRA-protected. According to the DOJ’s complaint, its investigation revealed that the defendant allegedly failed to have policies or practices in place to verify borrowers’ military status before repossessing vehicles. As such, the DOJ believes that the defendant may have repossessed vehicles of other servicemembers without obtaining the necessary court others or verifying military status. The DOJ contends that the defendant’s conduct was “intentional, willful, and taken in disregard for the rights of servicemembers.” In addition to monetary damages, the DOJ seeks civil monetary penalties and injunctive relief.
CFPB Succession: CFPB drops payday lawsuit, new CRA measures introduced in Congress
On March 22, Senator Moran, R-Kan, with 15 GOP co-sponsors introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to block the CFPB’s Bulletin 2013-02 (Bulletin) on indirect auto lending and compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The resolution follows a December 2017 letter issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) stating that the Bulletin is a “general statement of policy and a rule” that is subject to override under the CRA, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
On the same day, Senator Graham, R-SC, introduced a resolution to overturn the CFPB’s final rule addressing payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other extensions of credit. A similar resolution was introduced in the House in December 2017 by a group of bipartisan lawmakers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, while acting Director Mick Mulvaney has suggested he would not seek his own repeal of the Bureau’s rule but may “reconsider” it, he has expressed his support for the Congressional measures to block the rule. Additionally, according to media reports, the CFPB has recently dropped a case against an online payday loan company and Mulvaney is currently reviewing whether to continue three other investigations into lenders of similar products.
DOJ settles SCRA lease termination allegations against motor vehicle finance company
On February 22, the DOJ announced a settlement agreement with a motor vehicle finance company regarding allegations that the company did not refund a portion of the capitalized cost reduction (CCR), after the motor vehicle leases were terminated early under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The DOJ took the position that the CCR was a prepayment subject to refund upon termination. Consistent with industry practice, the finance company treated the CCR as an amount comparable to a down payment in a finance agreement, not subject to refund, rather than a prepayment. Though not admitting any violation of law, the company agreed to refund certain portions of CCR pre-payments and update its policies and procedures, among other relief. Buckley Sandler attorneys John Redding and Sasha Leonhardt represented the company in this matter.
District judge rules financing contingency clause in retail installment contract does not violate TILA
On February 12, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held that a financing contingency clause in a retail installment contract (contract) did not violate the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The clause provided that the dealership (defendant) could cancel the contract if it could not assign it to a financial institution on terms acceptable to the seller. According to the opinion, the plaintiff signed the contract with the defendant to purchase a car after being told she was approved for financing; however, the defendant later contacted the plaintiff and informed her that it was unable to assign her loan to a third party bank and demanded that she “return to the dealership with a co-signor or surrender the [v]ehicle.” The plaintiff asserted that “she never received a written notice explaining why [the] defendant [had] revoked its extension of credit” or why it had cancelled the contract. Among other things, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s actions violated (i) TILA when it inserted a seller’s right to cancel provision in the contract, and (ii) a “breach of ‘good faith and fair dealing obligation.’” However, with respect to TILA, the judge found no violation, holding that while TILA requires certain disclosures for the purpose of avoiding the “uninformed use of credit,” it does not prohibit the inclusion of financing contingencies. Here, the contract included all required elements under TILA and the properly disclosed credit terms were not rendered meaningless or invalid just because the dealership reserved a unilateral right to rescind the contract. The judge further dismissed the breach of good faith claim, noting that the defendant was acting within the allowed terms of the right to cancel provision.