InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court grants MTD in CFPB, NY AG debt collector case
On October 27, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denied a motion to dismiss an action brought by the CFPB and the New York attorney general against the operators of a debt-collection scheme, rejecting the defendants’ argument that they did not have fraudulent intent and their actions were taken for legitimate reasons. As previously covered by InfoBytes in April, the CFPB and the AG filed a complaint against the defendants for allegedly transferring ownership of his $1.6 million home to his wife and daughter for $1 shortly after he received a civil investigative demand and learned that the Bureau and the AG were investigating his debt-collection activities. The complaint further alleged that the transfer of the property was a fraudulent transfer under the FDCPA and made with the intent to defraud (a violation of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law), and that the owner-defendant “removed and concealed assets in an effort to render the Judgment obtained by the Government Plaintiffs uncollectable.” In 2019 the Bureau and the AG settled with the debt collection operation to resolve allegations that the defendants established and operated a network of companies that harassed and/or deceived consumers into paying inflated debts or amounts they may not have owed (covered by InfoBytes here).
The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the CFPB and AG raised sufficient allegations that the debtor’s transfers and mortgage on his property were knowingly fraudulent. The court determined that fraudulent intent under the FDCPA may be determined by several factors, sometimes called “badges of fraud,” including whether “‘the transfer or obligation was to an insider,’ ‘the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer,’ ‘before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit,’ ‘the value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred,’ and ‘the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred.’” The court held it was reasonable to infer that the defendant was aware “that he would likely face civil prosecution” and judgments “would be beyond his ability to pay.” The court noted that the defendant engaged in transferring a personally significant asset—his $1.6 million residence—to two insiders for nominal consideration, which was considered to be “highly unusual.” Additionally, the defendant alleged that he continued to “’reside at and exercise control over’ the property and is now unwilling or unable to pay off the judgment,” which indicated the conveyance was also part of a sham divorce. Further, the court noted that “the complaint plausibly alleges that the mortgage ‘was not granted in good faith’ and was ‘made with the intent to make it appear that the Property was encumbered.’”
CSBS urges early NMLS licensing renewal
On October 28, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) issued a reminder to individuals and businesses operating in the mortgage, money transmission, debt collection and consumer financial services industry that they should begin renewing their licenses in the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS) on November 1 to avoid licensing delays. According to CSBS, early renewal is critical due to an increase in the number of licensees eligible for renewal. Renewal periods in most states run from November 1 to December 31, and licensees are encouraged to review state-specific renewal requirements early. State regulators may employ operational efficiencies to streamline the renewal process, CSBS stated, adding that it also plans to implement an online request process on November 1 for licensees to resolve and check in on NMLS access issues, including password reset/unlocking, changes in email addresses, and confirming renewal status. The online request process is available on the NMLS Call Center Information webpage, available here. As a reminder federally-registered mortgage loan originators and institutions are also required to renew their registrations through NMLS by December 31.
NYDFS issues proposed amendments to debt collection rules for third-parties
On October 29, NYDFS issued draft proposed amendments to 23 NYCRR 1, which regulates third-party debt collectors and debt buyers. Among on things, the proposed amendments:
- Define “communication” as “the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.”
- Amend the definition of a “debt collector” to include “as any creditor that, in collecting its own debts, uses any name other than its own that would suggest or indicate that someone other than such creditor is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.”
- Require collectors to clearly and conspicuously send written notification within five days after an initial communication with a consumer letting the consumer know specific information about the debt, including (i) the name of the creditor to which the debt was originally owed or alleged to be owed; (ii) account information associated with the debt; (iii) merchant/affinity/facility brand association; (iv) the name of the creditor to which the debt is currently owed; (v) the date of alleged default; (vi) the date the last payment (including any partial payment) was made; (vii) the statute of limitations, if applicable; (viii) an itemized accounting of the debt, including the amount currently due; and (ix) notice that the consumer “has the right to dispute the validity of the debt, in part or in whole, including instructions for how to dispute the validity of the debt.”
- State that disclosures may not be sent exclusively through an electronic communication, and that a formal pleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication.
- Prohibit collectors from communicating by telephone or other means of oral communication when attempting to collect on debts for which the statute of limitations has expired.
- Require collectors to provide consumer written substantiation of a debt within 30 days of receiving a written request via mail (consumers who consent to receiving electronic communications must still receive substantiation via mail).
- Limit collectors to three contact attempts via telephone in a seven-day period. Only one conversation with a consumer is permitted unless a consumer requests to be contacted.
- Permit collectors to communicate with consumers through electronic channels only if the consumer has voluntarily provided consent directly to the debt collector.
Comments on the proposal are due November 8.
CFPB resolves UDAAP allegations with debt collection company
On November 1, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ordered a Missouri-based company to pay a $30,000 civil money penalty to resolve allegations that it used district-attorney letterhead to threaten consumers with criminal prosecution. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint against the company claiming it allegedly engaged in deceptive and otherwise unlawful debt collection acts and practices in the course of operating “bad-check pretrial-diversion programs on behalf of more than 90 district attorneys’ offices throughout the United States.” The complaint claimed that the company not only failed to include required FDCPA disclosures in the letters it sent to consumers, it also failed to identify itself in the letters and did not inform consumers that it was a debt collector and not a district attorney. Moreover, in most cases the company did not refer cases for prosecution, even if the check writer failed to respond to the collection letter, did not pay the alleged outstanding debt and fees, or failed to complete the financial-education course. Under the terms of the settlement, the company is, among other things, permanently banned from engaging in debt collection activities and is prohibited from disclosing, using, or benefiting from customer information obtained before the order’s effective date in connection with a Pre-Trial Bad Check Diversion Program. Additionally, the company may not “attempt to collect, sell, assign, or otherwise transfer any right to collect payment from any consumer who purchased or agreed to purchase services or products in connection” with the company’s program. The company is ordered to pay more than $1.4 million in redress to harmed consumers; however, full payment of this amount is suspended upon satisfaction of certain obligations due to the company’s financial condition. The $30,000 penalty also reflects the company’s limited ability to pay.
CFPB reaches $850,000 settlement with debt collectors
On October 26, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a stipulated final judgment and order against defendants (a debt collection entity, its subsidiaries, and their owner) in an action alleging FCRA and FDCPA violations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau filed a complaint against the defendants in 2019 with alleged violations that included, among other things, the defendants’ failure to ensure accurate reporting to consumer-reporting agencies (CRAs), failure to conduct reasonable investigations and review relevant information when handling indirect disputes, and failure to conduct investigations into the accuracy of information after receiving identity theft reports before furnishing such information to CRAs. The Bureau separately alleged that the FCRA violations constitute violations of the CFPA, and that the defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on debts without a reasonable basis to believe that consumers owed those debts.
Under the terms of the order, the defendants—who neither admitted nor denied any of the allegations except as specified in the order—are required to, among other things, (i) update existing policies and procedures to ensure information is accurate before it is furnished to a CRA or before commencing collections on an account; (ii) ensure policies and procedures are designed to address trends in disputes; and (iii) hire an independent consultant, subject to the CFPB Enforcement Director’s non-objection, to conduct a review to ensure management-level oversight and FCRA and FDCPA compliance. The defendants must also submit a compliance plan and pay an $850,000 civil money penalty.
CFPB publishes Regulation F debt collection compliance guidance
On October 29, the CFPB released information on validation notices to help facilitate compliance with requirements in the Regulation F debt collection final rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2020 the CFPB issued its final rule (effective November 30) amending Regulation F, which implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, addressing debt collection communications and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices. The CFPB released guidance for debt collectors offering instructions on how to provide certain validation information, including using the “Itemization Table” in the model validation notice as well as examples of how the table might be completed for different types of debts. The guidance also provides, among other things, examples of itemization tables for the collection of multiple debt owned by the same consumer.
The Bureau also issued new FAQs related to Regulation F that address validation information generally and validation information related to residential mortgage debt. Among other things, the FAQs: (i) specify the validation information debt collectors must provide consumers who owe or allegedly owe a debt; (ii) clarify that while the use of the model validation notice provided in Appendix B of the final rule is not required, debt collectors must comply with the validation information content and format requirements in Regulation F; (iii) specify that a debt collector can make changes to the model validation notice and still obtain the validation information content and format safe harbor with certain limitations; (iv) state that a debt collector does not need to provide the itemization-related information in a validation notice provided the debt collector follows a special rule for certain residential mortgage debt; (v) outline validation information that may be omitted if using the Mortgage Special Rule, and clarify that generally if a debt collector uses the Mortgage Special Rule with the model validation notice, the debt collector may still receive a safe harbor as long as certain criteria is met; (vi) define “most recent periodic statement” for purposes of the Mortgage Special Rule; and (vii) clarify that under the Mortgage Special Rule, a debt collector “uses the date of the periodic statement provided under that Special Rule as the itemization date.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued FAQs last month discussing limited-content messages and the call frequency provisions under the Debt Collection Rule in Regulation F.
11th Circuit’s new opinion says plaintiff still has standing to sue in outsourced debt collection letter action
On October 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a split opinion in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Management Services, vacating its April 21 decision but still finding that the plaintiff had standing to sue. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last April the 11th Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims that the disclosure of medical debt to a mail vendor violated the FDCPA’s third-party disclosure provisions. The 11th Circuit originally held that transmitting a consumer’s private data to a commercial mail vendor to generate debt collection letters violates Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA because it is considered transmitting a consumer’s private data “in connection with the collection of any debt.” At the time, the appellate court determined that communicating debt-related personal information with the third-party mail vendor is a concrete injury under Article III. Even though the plaintiff did not allege a tangible injury, the appellate court held, in a matter of first impression, that under the circumstances, the plaintiff alleged a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” within the meaning of § 1692c(b).
In its most recent opinion, the majority wrote that it was vacating its prior opinion “[u]pon consideration of the petition for rehearing, the amicus curiae briefs submitted in support of that petition, and the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez.” The appellate court first re-examined whether the plaintiff had standing to sue. Among other things, the majority held that while the plaintiff cannot demonstrate “a risk of real harm,” he was able to show standing “through an intangible injury resulting from a statutory violation.” Further, the majority determined that TransUnion reaffirmed its conclusion that the plaintiff “alleged a harm that bears a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been recognized in American courts.” (In TransUnion, the Court concluded, among other things, that “[i]n looking to whether a plaintiff’s asserted harm has a ‘close relationship’ to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts, we do not require an exact duplicate.”) The majority further concluded that Congress’s judgment also favors the plaintiff because Congress indicated that violations of § 1692c(b) constitute a concrete injury.
The appellate court next considered the merits of the case, with the majority concluding that the plaintiff adequately stated a claim that the transmittal of personal debt-related information to the vendor constituted a communication within the meaning of § 1692c(b)’s phrase “in communication with the collection of the debt.”
Judge Tjoflat dissented, arguing that the April decision was issued before TransUnion, and following the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the plaintiff did not have standing because he did not suffer a concrete injury, and that there is an important difference between a plaintiff’s statutory cause of action to sue over a violation of federal law and “a plaintiff’s suffering concrete harm because of the defendant’s violation of federal law.” Judge Tjoflat further added that a “simple transmission of information along a chain that involves one extra link because a company uses a mail vendor to send out the letters about debt is not a harm at which Congress was aiming.”
Creditor must pay fine for collecting debts under a different name
Recently, the Connecticut Department of Banking entered into a consent order with a North Carolina-based company resolving allegations that it violated Connecticut collection practices laws and regulations by allegedly using a name other than the company’s legal name when collecting unpaid debts without a Connecticut consumer collection agency license. The Department’s investigation stemmed from a newspaper article in which a Connecticut resident complained that he received bills from a company in an attempt to collect $314 for a Covid-19 test. The company responded to the Department’s inquiry by stating that a collection agency license was not required because the collections were made by an in-house division of the company, and not on behalf of a third party. The company also cited cases in which federal courts dismissed similar allegations under the federal FDCPA. After an investigation, the Department alleged that the company constituted as a “creditor” and by using a different name, was in violation of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, “which prohibits the use of any business, company or organization name other than the true name of the creditor’s organization.” The consent order requires that the company pay a civil money penalty of $10,000 and that the company cease and desist from using any name other than its true legal name to collect debts.
District Court denies MSJ in FDCPA case
On October 19, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a defendant’s motion for judgment without prejudice concerning allegations that it knowingly ignored cease-and-desist letters sent by an individual while the individual had a pending bankruptcy petition. The plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt that was placed with the defendant for collection. After, the plaintiff sought protection under the Bankruptcy Code. During the bankruptcy case, the defendant allegedly sent the plaintiff text messages to collect the debt, the plaintiff responded with a cease-and-desist letter, and then the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter. The plaintiff sent another cease and desist letter and the defendant sent four more collection letters. Based on the defendant’s post-petition actions, the plaintiff sued for FDCPA and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act violations. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to disclose this lawsuit in her bankruptcy case, which would result in the FDCPA case being dismissed on judicial estoppel grounds. However, the court found that while the plaintiff omitted the name and specific circumstances of her claims against the defendant, she “put the Bankruptcy Court, trustee, and creditors on notice she had a claim against a creditor and properly sought approval from the Bankruptcy Court before retaining counsel to pursue it.” The court went on to state that if the plaintiff “intended to deceive creditors or others in bankruptcy, filing the Application strayed from that intent,” and that “the filing mitigates any prejudice claimed by [the defendant].”
CFPB releases education ombudsman’s annual report
On October 26, the CFPB Private Education Loan Ombudsman published its annual report on consumer complaints submitted between September 1, 2020 and August 31, 2021. The report is based on approximately 5,300 complaints received by the Bureau regarding federal and private student loans. Of these complaints, roughly 900 were related to debt collection, while approximately 730 mentioned Covid-19. The Bureau’s press release noted that the overall decrease in both federal and private student loan complaints may be attributed to the CARES Act relief measures and administrative extensions that were extended through January 31, 2022. The Bureau stated, however, that the pandemic exacerbated socio-economic and racial disparities in the student lending space and caused heightened risk of borrower harm, particularly to vulnerable populations. Additionally, the Bureau warned that the risk of borrower harm may also increase as more than 32 million borrowers with federal loans resume payments in the first quarter of 2022, and, because four of nine federal student loan servicers have or will soon stop servicing federal student loans, over 16 million borrowers will transfer to different servicers. Findings in the report included topics related to student loan complaint trends, debt collection complaints, and supervisory findings related to student loan servicers, etc.
The report also advised policymakers to consider several recommendations, including: (i) considering metrics for sharing risks shouldered by borrowers with schools that fail to provide meaningful paths to repayment; (ii) accelerating efforts to incorporate qualitative and quantitative metrics to protect consumers into future federal student loan servicing contracts; (iii) requiring detailed disclosures provided with every student loan disbursement; (iv) considering various loan forgiveness programs; (v) examining return to repayment and servicer transitions; and (vi) identifying and prosecuting data aggregators and payment processors, as well as student loan debt relief scammers.