InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court grants summary judgment to bank in discriminatory lending suit
On December 19, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of a national bank with respect to discriminatory lending allegations brought by the County of Cook in Illinois (County). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the County alleged that the bank’s lending practices were discriminatory and led to an increase in foreclosures among Black and Latino borrowers, causing the County to incur financial injury, including foreclosure-related and judicial proceeding costs and municipal expenses due to an increase in vacant properties. In 2021, the court denied the bank’s motion to dismiss the alleged Fair Housing Act violations after determining that all the County had to do was show a reasonable argument that the bank’s lending practices resulted in foreclosures, and that the bank failed to dispute that the County properly alleged a financial injury sufficient to support standing.
The court explained in its December 19 order, however, that two of the County’s expert witnesses did not make valid comparisons when measuring the denial rate for minority borrowers compared to white borrowers. According to the court, the expert witnesses failed to properly account for the financial conditions of the borrowers seeking mortgage modifications, leaving the County with “no other evidentiary basis to establish that [the bank] engaged in intentionally discriminatory servicing practices that caused minority borrowers to disproportionately suffer default and foreclosure.” The court found that, accordingly, the County cannot demonstrate “intentional discrimination against minority borrowers that proximately caused the County’s injuries, and its disparate treatment claim accordingly cannot survive summary judgment.” Additionally, the court found that the County failed to cite authority for its arguments that the bank can be liable for loans it purchased “and for which it did not commit any discriminatory acts in servicing” or for loans it originated but sold and never serviced.
District Court approves $2.8 million settlement in FDCPA convenience fee class action
On December 22, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted preliminary approval of a $2.8 million settlement in an FDCPA class-action suit resolving allegations that convenience fees were charged when consumers made payments on their mortgages over the phone or online. According to the suit, the plaintiffs claimed the defendant did not charge processing fees if borrowers made payments by check or signed up for automatic monthly debits from their bank accounts. The plaintiffs further argued that the processing fees were “illegal and improper because neither the mortgages themselves nor applicable statutes authorize such fees.” The parties agreed to mediation in April 2022, and a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement was filed in August. A coalition of state attorneys general from 32 states and the District of Columbia, led by the New York AG filed an amicus brief in the district court opposing the original proposed $13 million settlement in the suit (covered previously by InfoBytes here). The AGs outlined concerns with the proposed settlement, including that (i) the relief provided to class members violates various state laws, and that the defendant seeks to ratify fees in an “unwritten, mass amendment” that violates state laws and regulations; (ii) class members only receive an “inadequate” one-time payment, while the defendant may continue to charge excessive fees for the life of the loan; and (iii) low- and moderate-income borrowers are not treated equitably under the proposed settlement. Under the terms of the new settlement, members of the class who do not opt out of the settlement will receive a share of the $2.8 million. The settlement also reduces the fees class members will have to pay when making payments online or via the telephone for the next two years. The defendant also agreed to add additional disclosures to its website to increase borrower awareness of alternative payment methods that could have lower fees or no fees. Defendant’s representatives will also receive additional training to ensure they provide additional information and disclosures about convenience fees when speaking with customers.
On June 16, the court granted final approval of the settlement.
CFPB adjusts annual dollar amount thresholds under TILA, HMDA regulations
On December 21, the CFPB released a final rule revising the dollar amounts for provisions implementing TILA and its amendments that impact loans under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) and qualified mortgages (QM). The Bureau is required to make annual adjustments to dollar amounts in certain provisions in Regulation Z, and has based the adjustments on the annual percentage change reflected in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) in effect on June 1, 2022. The following thresholds are effective January 1, 2023:
- For open-end consumer credit plans under TILA, the threshold for disclosing an interest charge will remain unchanged at $1.00;
- For HOEPA loans, the adjusted total loan amount threshold for high-cost mortgages will be $24,866, and the adjusted points-and-fees dollar trigger for high-cost mortgages will be $1,243;
- For qualified mortgages under the General QM loan definition, the thresholds for the spread between the annual percentage rate and the average prime offer rate will be: “2.25 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction with a loan amount greater than or equal to $124,331; 3.5 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction with a loan amount greater than or equal to $74,599 but less than $124,331; 6.5 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction with a loan amount less than $74,599; 6.5 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction secured by a manufactured home with a loan amount less than $124,331; 3.5 or more percentage points for a subordinate-lien covered transaction with a loan amount greater than or equal to $74,599; or 6.5 or more percentage points for a subordinate-lien covered transaction with a loan amount less than $74,599”; and
- For all QM categories, the adjusted thresholds for total points and fees will be “3 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $124,331; $3,730 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $74,599 but less than $124,331; 5 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $24,866 but less than $74,599; $1,243 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $15,541 but less than $24,866; and 8 percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount less than $15,541.”
With respect to credit card annual adjustments, the Bureau noted that its 2023 annual adjustment analysis on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, did not result in an increase to the current minimum interest charge threshold (which requires “creditors to disclose any minimum interest charge exceeding $1.00 that could be imposed during a billing cycle”).
The Bureau also issued a final rule adjusting the asset-size threshold under HMDA (Regulation C). Under HMDA, institutions with assets below certain dollar thresholds are exempt from collection and reporting requirements. The final rule increases the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions from $50 million to $54 million, thereby exempting institutions with assets of $54 million or less as of December 31, 2022, from collecting HMDA data in 2023.
CFPB discusses mortgage financing risk options in current environment
On December 21, the CFPB reported that higher mortgage interest rates have led to increased monthly payments and higher debt-to-income ratios for borrowers. According to a recent Bureau analysis of quarterly HMDA data, some interest rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages have risen as high as seven percent and are at levels higher than what has been seen for nearly 20 years. The Bureau reported that in response to increasing interest rates, financial service providers are offering alternative financing options to provide opportunities for consumers to access lower rates, including adjustable-rate mortgages, temporary buydowns, home equity lines of credit and loans, and loan assumptions where a homebuyer assumes responsibility for the remaining balance of a home seller’s mortgage with the original loan terms. Explaining the various risks associated with these offerings, the Bureau warned consumers that they should understand the costs associated with cash-out refinances and risks related to alternative sales transactions (e.g., contract-for-deeds or land contracts, rent-to-own arrangements, and equity-sharing arrangements), which may sound appealing in a higher interest rate market but may “lack the protections of traditional mortgages, including the ability to build and access home equity, foreclosure protections, or even basic disclosures that allow for comparison shopping.”
Massachusetts reaches settlement in unfair debt collection and mortgage servicing matter
On December 22, the Massachusetts attorney general announced a settlement with a South Carolina mortgage servicer to resolve claims that it allegedly failed to assist homeowners avoid foreclosure and engaged in unfair debt collection and mortgage servicing practices. According to an assurance of discontinuance filed in Suffolk Superior Court, the servicer allegedly violated the Massachusetts’ Act to Prevent Unlawful and Unnecessary Foreclosures, which requires servicers to make a good faith effort to help borrowers with certain unfair loan terms avoid foreclosure. Among other things, the servicer allegedly failed to (i) properly review borrowers’ income, debts, and obligations when assessing affordable loan modifications; (ii) provide borrowers with the results of these assessments; or (iii) provide borrowers with notice of their right to present a counteroffer after being offered a loan modification. The servicer also allegedly violated the state’s debt collection regulations by failing to timely issue compliant debt validation notices, and calling borrowers more than twice in a seven-day period. While denying the allegations, the servicer agreed to pay $975,000 to the state and will undertake significant business practice changes and provide ongoing reporting to the AG to ensure compliance.
CFPB reports on consumers’ financial well-being
On December 21, the CFPB released a report discussing the results of its Making Ends Meet survey conducted from January through March 2022, which examined the financial health of U.S. households. Using the results from the survey as well as credit bureau data, the Bureau found that the average financial well-being of U.S. consumers returned to its pre-pandemic level, with increases in income variability and use of high-cost credit products, after a substantial drop in 2021, notwithstanding sharp decreases in average credit debt that generally remained through September 2022. The report also determined that approximately one-third of consumers experienced a “major” medical or dental expense in the preceding year, while similar numbers experienced a major vehicle repair or replacement, a major house or appliance repair, or a cell phone or computer repair or replacement. Additionally, a significant number of consumers experienced reductions in income most often due to unemployment or a drop in hours. The report cautioned that “should an increase in unemployment occur, many households are unprepared for even a relatively brief period of low income.”
CFPB, FTC say furnishers’ investigative duties extend to legal disputes
On December 16, the CFPB and FTC filed an amicus brief in a case on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concerning two related FCRA cases in support of plaintiffs-appellants and reversal of their suits involving a defendant hotel chain’s summary judgments. Both cases involve the same defendant company. In one case, the plaintiff entered into a timeshare agreement with the defendant for a property and made monthly payments for approximately three years. When the plaintiff stopped making payments, the plaintiff mailed the defendant letters that disputed the validity of, and purported to rescind, the agreement, while permitting the defendant to retain all prior payments as liquidated damages. The plaintiff obtained a copy of his credit report from a credit reporting agency (CRA), which stated that he had an open account with the defendant with a past-due balance. In three letters to the CRA, the plaintiff disputed the credit reporting. The letters stated that the plaintiff had terminated his agreement with the defendant and that he did not owe a balance. After the CRA communicated each dispute to the defendant, the defendant certified that the information for the defendant’s account was accurate. The plaintiff sued alleging the defendant violated the FCRA when it verified the accuracy of his credit report without conducting reasonable investigations following receipt of his indirect disputes. The defendant moved for summary judgment, alleging, among other things, that the plaintiff’s claim that he was not contractually obligated to make the payments to the defendant that are reported on his credit report as being due “is inherently a legal dispute and is not actionable under the FCRA.” The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiff appealed.
In the other case, the plaintiff entered into a timeshare agreement with the defendant. She made a down payment and the first three installment payments, but did not make any additional payments. The plaintiff sent letters to the defendant disputing the validity of, and attempted to cancel, the agreement. The defendant reported the plaintiff’s delinquency to the CRA. In three letters to the CRA, the plaintiff disputed the credit reporting. After the CRA communicated the disputes to the defendant, the defendant determined there was no inaccuracy in the reporting. The plaintiff sued alleging the defendant violated the FCRA when it verified the accuracy of her credit report without conducting reasonable investigations following receipt of her indirect disputes about credit reporting inaccuracies. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiff appealed.
The CFPB and FTC argued in favor of the plaintiffs-appellants. According to the agencies, furnishers’ duty under the FCRA to reasonably investigate applies not only to factual disputes, but also to disputes that can be labeled as legal in nature. The agencies made three arguments to support their contention. First, a reasonable investigation is required under the FCRA to comport with its goal to “protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them.” The agencies argued that reasonableness is case specific, but it can “be evaluated by how thoroughly the furnisher investigated the dispute (e.g., how well its conclusion is supported by the information it considered or reasonably could have considered).”
Second, the agencies argued that Congress did not intend to exclude disputes that involve legal questions. The FCRA describes the types of indirect disputes that furnishers need to investigate, which are “those that dispute ‘the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file.’” The agencies said nothing suggests that Congress intended to exclude information that is inaccurate on account of legal issues. Furthermore, the agencies noted that a lot of “inaccuracies in consumer reports could be characterized as legal, which would create an exception that would swallow the rule.” Consumer reports generally include information regarding an individual’s debt obligations, which are generally creatures of contract. Therefore, “many inaccurate representations pertaining to an individual’s debt obligations arguably could be characterized as legal inaccuracies, given that determining the truth or falsity of the representation could require the reading of a contract.”
Lastly, the agencies argued that an “atextual exception for legal inaccuracies would create a loophole that could swallow the reasonable investigation rule.” The agencies urged that “[g]iven the difficulty in distinguishing ‘legal’ from ‘factual’ disputes,” the court “should hold that there is no exemption in the FCRA’s reasonable investigation requirement for legal questions” because it would “curtail the reach of the FCRA’s investigation requirement in a way that runs counter to the purpose of the provision to require meaningful investigation to ensure accuracy on credit reports.”
Bank to pay $2 million in collection call suit
On December 14, a Superior Court of California granted a stipulated final judgment resolving claims that a national bank (defendant) violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RDCPA) and the FDCPA by making “harassing and annoying” debt collection calls to its customers. According to the stipulated final judgment, since at least March 2015, the defendant allegedly violated California and federal law by making phone calls with “unreasonably excessive frequency,” while also persisting in calling wrong numbers in attempts to collect on unpaid debts. The defendant, which did not admit any liability or wrongdoing, agreed to, among other things: (i) adopt or maintain policies and procedures to avoid such harassing calls; (ii) limit the number of calls it will make as part of its future debt collection efforts; and (iii) cease calling those who ask orally or in writing that they not be contacted. Under the terms of the stipulated final judgment, the defendant must pay $1.45 million in civil penalties, $300,000 in investigative costs, and $250,000 in restitution.
CFPB says remittance provider violated EFTA
On December 22, the CFPB announced a consent order against an international remittance company for multiple alleged violations of the requirements governing electronic money transfers. According to the Bureau, the company allegedly failed to comply with many requirements of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, including failing to provide refunds to customers after the company made money transfer errors. The Bureau also alleged that the company violated the Remittance Rule by failing to develop and maintain required written policies and procedures for error resolution, and claimed the company violated Regulation E by failing to retain evidence demonstrating compliance with the Remittance Rule’s error-resolution requirements. Under the terms of the consent order, the company is required to provide consumer redress of approximately $30,000 to harmed customers and pay a $700,000 civil money penalty to the Bureau. The company is also required to update disclosure and key transfer information that is provided to customers, as well as its error-resolution policies and procedures.
FHA extends some pandemic-related waivers
On December 20, FHA published FHA INFO 2022-107, which extends temporary regulatory and Single Family Housing Policy Handbook 4000.1 waivers, and permits mortgagees to use alternative methods for conducting face-to-face interviews with borrowers in accordance with FHA’s early default intervention requirements. FHA initially published temporary partial waivers of these requirements on March 13, 2020, and previously extended them through December 31, 2022, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. FHA is further extending the waivers due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the spread of the Respiratory Syncytial Virus and seasonal flu, and current staffing and resource constraints affecting mortgage servicers. The waivers are now effective through December 31, 2023.