Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

State Law

Ohio Mortgage Rules Have Changed: Servicing Now Covered

By ,

What Happened?

Effective September 19, 2025, the Division of Financial Institutions (“Division”) of the Ohio Department of Commerce adopted amended rules (the “Amended Rules”) under the Ohio Residential Mortgage Lending Act (“RMLA”) to add and clarify obligations for mortgage servicers.

Why Does it Matter?

The Amended Rules are largely intended to provide clarity to mortgage servicers regarding the application of the RMLA to mortgage servicing businesses, and to implement procedures to prevent servicing problems. For entities licensed under the RMLA, the Amended Rules address registration of offices, unlicensed activity, recordkeeping, prohibited practices, servicing transfers, escrow payments, payment processing, error resolution, borrower requests for information, and a servicer’s obligations upon loss of license. The Amended Rules largely mirror the CFPB’s mortgage servicing rules (i.e., 12 C.F.R. Part 1024, Subpart C (Regulation X) and, to some extent, 12 C.F.R. Part 1026 (Regulation Z)).

Notably, an entity that violates the Amended Rules may be subject to penalties under the RMLA, which are up to $1,000 per day for each day a violation of law or rule is committed, repeated, or continued (and up to $2,000 a day of there is a pattern of repeated violations of law or rule).

Below, we highlight some of the most impactful provisions of the Amended Rules.

Amended Rules

  • Registration Requirements: The Division amended Section 1301:8-7-02 of the Ohio Administrative Code (the “OAC”) to require entities subject to the RMLA (mortgage brokers, lenders and servicers) to register each office location at which it transacts business.
  • Standards for Applications, License, and Registration: The Division amended Section 1301:8-7-03 of the OAC, to clarify that a mortgage broker, mortgage servicer, or loan originator cannot conduct business if they fail to renew their registration on or before December 31. (The Division indicated that it was amending the renewal date to correct a drafting error that incorrectly identified January 31 as the renewal date.)
  • Recordkeeping: The Division amended Section 1301:8-7-06 of the OAC, which relates to recordkeeping, to require a mortgage servicer to retain records that document actions taken with respect to a borrower’s account for four years following the date the loan is discharged or transferred to another servicer; and to maintain specified documents and data in a manner that facilitates compiling the documents and data into a servicing file within five days. (The rule does not expressly address maintenance of records of telephone calls with borrowers.) While the rule requires retention of the same records required under Regulation X (12 C.F.R. § 1024.38(c)), note that the retention period is much longer than Regulation X’s and does not exempt small servicers under Regulation X.
  • Prohibited Practices: The Division amended Section 1301:8-7-16 of the OAC, to add a list of actions specific to servicing that constitute improper, fraudulent, or dishonest dealings under Ohio Revised Code section 1322.40.  Specifically, the rule prohibits a servicer from, among other things:
    • assessing a borrower any premium or charge related to force-placed insurance unless the servicer: (i) has a reasonable basis to believe that the borrower has failed to comply with the residential mortgage loan contract’s requirement to maintain hazard insurance; and (ii) delivers or mails to the borrower a written notice at least 45 days before assessing such charge or fee;
    • misrepresenting or omitting any material information in connection with the servicing of a residential mortgage loan, including misrepresenting the amount, nature, or terms of any fee or payment due or claimed to be due on a residential mortgage loan, the terms and conditions of the servicing agreement, or the borrower’s obligations under the residential mortgage loan;
    • failing to apply payments in accordance with a servicing agreement or the terms of a note; (d) making payments in a manner that causes a policy of insurance to be canceled or causes property taxes or similar payments to become delinquent;
    • failing to credit a periodic payment to the borrower’s account as of the date of receipt, except when a delay in crediting does not result in any charge to the borrower or in the reporting of negative information to a consumer reporting agency (except where the servicer specifies in writing requirements for the borrower to follow in making payments, but accepts a payment that does not conform to the requirements, where the servicer has five days to credit the payment);
    • requiring any amount of money to be remitted by means which are more costly to the borrower than a bank or certified check or attorney’s check from an attorney’s account to be paid by the borrower;
    • charging a fee for handling a borrower dispute, facilitating routine borrower collection, arranging a forbearance or repayment plan, sending a borrower a notice of nonpayment, or updating records to reinstate a loan; or
    • pyramiding late fees.
  • Mortgage Servicing Definitions: The Division added Section 1301:8-7-35 to the OAC, which defines terms relevant for the provisions of other new sections (as discussed below), including: (a) “confirmed successor in interest,” “escrow account,” and “qualified written request,” which are consistent with Regulation X; and (b) “federal lending law” and “residential mortgage loan,” the latter of which is defined to limit the Amended Rules’ application to closed-end loans, consistent with Regulation X and Regulation Z.
  • Mortgage Servicing Transfers: The Division added Section 1301:8-7-36 to the OAC, to prohibit a transferee servicer from treating an on-time payment made to the old servicer within the 60-day period following the transfer of servicing. It also requires the old servicer to either forward the payment to the new servicer, or return it to the borrower and notify the borrower of the proper recipient. This rule generally mirrors 12 C.F.R. § 1024.33(c).
  • Escrow Accounts: The Division added Section 1301:8-7-37 to the OAC, which requires a mortgage servicer to: (i) make all required escrow payments in a timely manner, and (ii) timely return any payments due to the borrower. It also allows a servicer, if the borrower agrees, to credit any amount remaining in a borrower’s account to a new escrow account for a new loan. This rule generally mirrors 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.34 and 1024.17(k).
  • Error Resolution Procedures: The Division added Section 1301:8-7-38 to the OAC, which establishes error resolution procedures that mirror the requirements of the CFPB mortgage servicing rules (12 C.F.R. § 1024.35).
  • Requests for Information: The Division added Section 1301:8-7-39 to the OAC, which establishes information request procedures that mirror the requirements of the CFPB mortgage servicing rules (12 C.F.R. § 1024.34).
  • Mortgage Servicer Obligations upon Loss of License: Finally, the Division added Section 1301:8-7-40 to the OAC, which provides that the revocation, suspension, or failure of a servicer to obtain or maintain a license does not affect a servicer’s obligations under a preexisting contract with a lender or borrower.

What To Do Now?

The Amended Rules significantly expand the requirements applicable to mortgage servicers subject to the RMLA. While many of the Amended Rules mirror those under the CFPB’s mortgage servicing rules, certain provisions impose additional obligations on mortgage servicers and/or apply to servicers that may otherwise be exempt from certain requirements under the CFPB’s mortgage servicing rules (e.g., small servicers). Accordingly, mortgage servicers should carefully review the Amended Rules and ensure that their policies, procedures, and controls are updated as appropriate to ensure compliance. Alston & Bird’s Consumer Financial Services Team is actively engaged and monitoring these developments and can assist with any compliance concerns regarding the changes imposed by the Amended Rules.

New York’s FAIR Act: What Financial Services Compliance Teams Must Know

By

What Happened?

As we highlighted in March following its introduction, the New York’s Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices (“FAIR”) Act represents a fundamental transformation of the state’s consumer protection framework, expanding enforcement authority beyond “deceptive” practices to include “unfair” and “abusive” acts. The FAIR Act has passed the legislature and awaits the governor’s signature.  The Fair Act will take effect 60 days following its enactment.

Legislative Changes

The FAIR Act transforms the New York’s consumer protection framework by expanding General Business Law (“GBL”) Section 349 beyond “deceptive” practices to include “unfair” and “abusive” acts. The amendments include several critical changes:

Expanded Scope of Prohibited Conduct

The GBL will now include and define three categories of unlawful business practices:

  • Deceptive practices: Under the existing standard, deceptive practices include acts that involve misleading or false representations.
  • Unfair practices: Under the FAIR Act, unfair practices include acts or practices that cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, which is not reasonably avoidable and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
  • Abusive practices: Under the FAIR Act, abusive practices include acts or practices that materially interfere with a person’s understanding of terms or conditions or take unreasonable advantage of a person’s lack of understanding, inability to protect their interests, or reasonable reliance by a person on a person engaging in the act or practice to act in the relying person’s interests.

Broader Protected Classes

The FAIR Act extends protections under Section 349 of the GBL to “businesses and non-profits as well as individuals,” recognizing that “small business or non-profit” entities need protection equivalent to consumers.

Elimination of Court-Imposed Limitations

The FAIR Act makes any prohibited act or practice under Section 349 of the GLB “actionable by the attorney general regardless of whether or not that act or practice is consumer-oriented,” overturning decades of judicial precedent that limited enforcement to consumer-facing conduct.

Enhanced Enforcement Authority

The Attorney General also gains expanded powers to bring actions against any person conducting business in New York, with broader jurisdiction and streamlined enforcement procedures. The Attorney General has the power to enjoin and seek restitution from any person conducting any business, trade or commerce or furnishing a service in New York, “whether or not the person is without the state.”

Why Does it Matter?

Federal Enforcement Vacuum

The legislation emerges as federal consumer protection enforcement has recently taken a sharp turn towards less regulation and enforcement, with states working to fill the gap left by the federal pullback. As the CFPB undergoes significant transition, certain state financial regulators and attorneys general appear poised to step into the CFPB’s shoes. New York’s legislation represents the most comprehensive state-level response to this federal retreat, potentially serving as a model for other jurisdictions. It is also worth noting that in March 2024, the CFPB, under then-Director Rohit Chopra, issued a letter to New York Governor Hochul supporting amendments to New York’s consumer protection laws to address unfairness and abusiveness.

Business Impact and Compliance Challenges

The legislation creates significant new compliance obligations for businesses operating in New York:

  • The “unfair” and “abusive” standards adopt federal concepts but apply them more broadly, creating uncertainty about compliance boundaries.
  • The law creates liability for the first time for “unfair” and “abusive” acts and practices while abrogating case law limiting the scope of the statute to allegedly consumer-oriented deception.
  • Removal of the “consumer-oriented” limitation means B2B transactions, internal business practices, and commercial relationships now face potential enforcement actions.

What Do I Need to Do?

In reviewing customer-facing and business-to-business practices against the new “unfair” and “abusive” standards, industry participants should bear in mind that the broad definitions require analysis beyond traditional deceptive practice frameworks.

First, despite federal changes, consumer protection compliance remains crucial, particularly as state enforcement intensifies. Companies should:

  • Ensure compliance policies address the broader unfair and abusive practice definitions;
  • Train personnel on the expanded standards;
  • Enhance monitoring systems for the broader range of prohibited conduct; and
  • Review and ensure documentation protocols for business practice justifications. The “unfair” standard includes a balancing test considering “countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.” Companies should document legitimate business justifications for practices that might otherwise appear harmful.

Second, New York Attorney General Letitia James has been actively leading multistate coalitions on consumer protection issues, suggesting coordinated enforcement strategies. With CFPB enforcement curtailed, New York’s expanded authority makes the state a primary regulatory battleground. Financial institutions should expect heightened scrutiny of:

  • Fee structures and disclosure practices;
  • Lending practices and underwriting standards;
  • Customer communications and marketing materials; and
  • Digital platform interfaces and user experience design.

Third, the legislation’s focus on addressing “new and emerging technologies” suggests that companies should pay particular attention to:

  • Digital platforms and user interface design;
  • Data collection and usage practices;
  • Algorithmic decision-making processes; and
  • Subscription and recurring billing practices.

The FAIR Act represents a significant shift in the consumer protection landscape, with New York positioning itself as the primary regulatory authority as federal enforcement retreats. Businesses should assess their practices against these expanded standards while preparing for a more aggressive state enforcement environment. Other states are considering similar legislation, suggesting this may represent a broader trend requiring multi-state strategic planning. For example, California has introduced legislation to broaden its already robust and aggressive California Consumer Financial Protection Law to expand the authority of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to enforce consumer financial protection laws.

Companies operating in New York or considering New York operations must develop comprehensive compliance strategies that address not only the immediate requirements of the FAIR Act but also the evolving landscape of state-level consumer protection enforcement.

The elimination of traditional limitations on enforcement scope, combined with the broad definitions of unfair and abusive acts or practices, creates both compliance challenges and strategic opportunities for businesses that proactively adapt to this new regulatory environment.

Alston & Bird’s Consumer Financial Services Team is actively engaged and monitoring these developments and can assist with any compliance concerns regarding these changes to New York law.

Pennsylvania: What is a Bona Fide Discount Point?

By

What Happened?

Effective August 29, 2025, Pennsylvania enacted House Bill 1103 (the “Bill”) impacting discount points on residential mortgage loans by making amendments to Pennsylvania’s usury code (the Loan Interest and Protection Law (“Law”)), and the Mortgage Licensing Act.  First, the Bill amends the Law by repealing the definition of discount points in section 101 and repealing all of section 402, which prohibits lenders from collecting discount points from sellers on non-government mortgages. Second, the Bill amends the Mortgage Licensing Act to permit licensed mortgage lenders of first and secondary mortgage loans to offer “discount points,”  which the measure defines as “fees knowingly paid by the consumer for the purpose of reducing, and which result in a bona fide reduction of, the interest rate or time-price differential applicable to the mortgage.”

Why is it Important?

The Legislative history states that the purpose of these amendments is to allow borrowers to buy down their interest rate and align with the majority of states that do not restrict lenders from charging discount points.  It is worth noting that the usury’s law restriction on discount points was very narrowly drafted to apply only to points paid by the seller with several exclusions and was arguably preempted for first-lien residential mortgage loans under the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. Moreover, in the context of residential mortgages the usury law applies only to residential mortgage loans with an original principal amount of the base figure or less (currently, $319,777 and adjusted annually for inflation).

As amended, mortgage lenders licensed under the Mortgage Licensing Act have the power to charge discount points on a “mortgage loan,” which includes both first or secondary mortgage loans, irrespective of the dollar amount, provided such discount points are for the purpose of reducing the rate and result in a “bona fide” reduction of rate.  The statute does not define “bona fide.”  While not dispositive, it is worth noting that the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) defines the term “bona fide” discount point in the context of high cost residential mortgage loans. More specifically, under TILA, “[t]he term bona fide discount point means an amount equal to 1 percent of the loan amount paid by the consumer that reduces the interest rate or time-price differential applicable to the transaction based on a calculation that is consistent with established industry practices for determining the amount of reduction in the interest rate or time-price differential appropriate for the amount of discount points paid by the consumer.”  Absent concrete guidance from the regulators, it is not clear what constitutes “bona fide” for purposes of Pennsylvania law.  With that said, Pennsylvania regulators have informally suggested that any actual reduction in rate would be deemed bona fide.

What to do now?

Given that violations of the Mortgage Licensing Act could result in fines of $10,000 per offense, licensed mortgage lenders should ensure that any discount points charged on first or secondary mortgage loans meet the Pennsylvania’s Department of Banking’s interpretation of “bona fide” and result in an actual reduction of the rate.

Operation Robocall Roundup: State AGs Target Voice Providers

By ,

What Happened?

In a nationwide push to combat illegal robocalls, 51 state and attorneys general—through the Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force— have launched Operation Robocall Roundup, targeting voice service providers that have allegedly failed to implement mandated Federal Communications Commission safeguards. The AGs allege that these companies have routed thousands of robocalls to consumers across the country, and that most robocalls were scams, with some impersonating utility, financial, or other companies.

The task force issued warning letters to 37 voice providers; each provider has 21 days to submit a detailed compliance plan aligned with both federal and state law. The task force also sent letters to a number of downstream companies that accept call traffic to notify them that they’re in business with “bad actors,” according to New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Why Is It Important?

Originating and/or transmitting illegal robocalls are violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Truth in Caller ID Act, as well as state consumer protection statutes. This coordinated, multi-state effort is designed to choke off robocall traffic at its source and create a unified compliance standard nationwide.

Failure to comply can lead to severe consequences, including significant fines, operational restrictions, and even license revocations across multiple jurisdictions. The risks extend beyond legal penalties—robocall traffic erodes customer trust, tarnishes brand reputation, and can cause business partners to sever ties. Conversely, demonstrating strong compliance not only satisfies regulators but also reinforces credibility with customers, strengthens market standing, and avoids costly enforcement actions.

What To Do Now?

Voice service providers should take comprehensive steps to ensure compliance, including filing a certification and robocall mitigation plan to comply with FCC mandates, responding swiftly to traceback requests, and considering implementation of advanced authentication protocols to detect and block suspicious traffic. Thorough documentation of all compliance efforts is important in the event of regulatory review.

 

New York Legislation Impacts Investments in Single-Family Rental Properties

By

What Happened?

At both federal and state levels, there has been notable increased governmental scrutiny of institutional investment in the single-family rental market and concern about its impact on rising housing costs in the country.  For example, in October 2021 the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs held a hearing to discuss the impact institutional landlords have had on the housing market and tenants generally. Then, on July 11, 2023, the Stop Predatory Investing Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate, which aims to address the housing shortage by prohibiting investors who acquire 50 or more new single-family rental homes after the date of enactment from deducting interest or depreciation on those properties. Another version of this legislation was reintroduced in the Senate on March 11, 2025, and the revised bill would, among other things, also deny interest and depreciation deductions for taxpayers owning 50 or more single family properties.

New York State has now entered the fray. On May 9, 2025, Governor Hochul signed into law Assembly Bill A3009C that, notably, (i) imposes a 90-day waiting period on the purchase of one- and two-family residences for certain institutional investors, (ii) restricts the use of certain tax deductions for such investors, and (iii) requires the New York Secretary of State to provide public notice when creating cease and desist zones.

Why It Matters

The New York law is clearly aimed at institutional investors, known as “Covered Entities”, defined as those entities or combined groups that directly or indirectly (i) own ten or more single- or two-family residences, (ii) manage or receive funds pooled from investors and act as fiduciaries with respect to those investors, and (iii) have at least $30 million in net value or assets under management on any day during a given taxable year , and specifically impacts the purchase of single- and two-family residences in New York State.  Under the 90-day waiting period, Covered Entities may not “purchase, acquire, or offer to purchase or acquire” any interest in a single- or two-family residence unless that property has been “listed for sale to the general public” for 90 days. Further, when a Covered Entity offers to purchase a single- or two-family residence, it must provide notice of its status as a Covered Entity to the seller or the seller’s agent. The legislation contains three salient “subparts”.

Subpart A imposes a 90-day wait period before a “Covered Entity,” may make an offer to purchase or acquire a single-family or two-family residence, starting from the day the residence is listed for sale to the public. The 90-day period restarts if the seller changes the asking price. Finally, when making an offer to a seller, the covered entity must provide the seller with a signed statement declaring itself as a covered entity. Exact required language for this form is provided in the statute. A copy of this form must also be filed with the New York Department of Law within 3 days of the offer. However, Section 521 in Subpart A specifically lists July 1, 2025, as a starting date that Covered Entities must wait 90 days before offering to purchase single or two-family homes.

Subpart B adjusts what depreciation and interest may be deducted from the covered entity’s net income.

Subpart C requires the New York Secretary of State to post notice of an established cease and desist zone once annually in a locally circulated newspaper, on the Secretary’s website, and though any other method deemed necessary to maximize awareness of the cease-and-desist zone. Any homeowner in the zone who wishes not to be solicited may file a notice with the New York Secretary of State.

Failure to comply with these requirements could result in civil damages and penalties of up to $250,000 for violations of the waiting period and up to $10,000 for violations of the notice requirement for establishing cease and desist zones where real estate brokers and salespersons are excessively soliciting homeowners. Notably, however, failure to comply with the new law would not appear to expose holders of loans secured by properties not adhering to these new procedures to liability or impact the validity of the loans themselves.

This act takes effect on the one hundred twentieth day after it become law, but again the legislation designates July 1, 2025, as a starting date that Covered Entities must wait 90 days before offering to purchase single or two-family homes.

What to do now:

Other states are considering legislation that is similar to New York Assembly Bill A3009C, and the enactment of these laws along with the federal Stop Predatory Investing Act would significantly impact investments in single- family rental markets, not to mention the securitization of loans secured by these properties—with unintended consequences to these markets and the availability of single-family rental properties.