Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

State Law

New York Laws Require Forbearance for Private Mortgage Loans During COVID Emergency

By

A&B ABstract

On June 17, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law two measures, effective immediately, providing for mortgage forbearances for privately backed residential mortgage loans during the COVID-19 emergency. Senate Bill 8243 (2020 N. Y. Laws 112) amends the N. Y. Banking Law by adding new Section 9-x, “Mortgage Forbearance.”  Senate Bill 8428 (2020 N. Y. Laws 126) relates to state disaster emergency and, among other provisions, amends Section 9-x as added by Senate Bill 8243. These measures apply during the covered period, beginning on March 7, 2020 and ending when no Executive Order issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic relating to restricting public or private businesses or required postponement or cancellation of all non-essential gatherings of individuals apply in the county of the borrower’s residence.

Mortgage Forbearance

New Section 9-x of the Banking Law imposes new requirements on any New York regulated banking organization, including banks, trust companies, private bankers, savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and investment companies) and regulated mortgage servicers  (collectively, “regulated entities”)subject to supervision by the New York Department of Financial Services (the “Department”).

First, regulated entities must make applications for forbearance widely available to any qualified mortgagor who, during the covered period is in arrears or on a trial period plan or who has applied for loss mitigation. A qualified mortgagor is a natural person who (i) demonstrates financial hardship as result of COVID-19 during the covered period, (ii) whose loan is from or serviced by a regulated entity, and (iii) whose loan meets the following criteria: the loan is incurred for personal, family or household purposes, s secured by mortgage on a 1-4 family property located in New York, and is the borrower’s primary residence.  Forward and reverse mortgage as well as co-operative units are within scope.

Second, regulated entities must grant forbearance of all monthly payments due on a New York residential mortgage secured by a qualified mortgagor’s primary residence for up to 180 days with the option to extend the forbearance for up to an additional 180 days provided the borrower continues to demonstrate a financial hardship. Such forbearances may be backdated to March 7, 2020.

Third, any mortgage forbearance granted by a regulated entity to a qualified mortgagor as a result of a financial hardship pursuant to Executive Order 202.9 the regulation promulgated thereunder (3 NYCRR Part 119) or Section 9-x of the Banking Law subject to post forbearance repayment requirements. Specifically, the qualified mortgagor shall have the following four options:

  • Extend the term of the loan for the length of the period of forbearance with no additional interest or late fees or penalties incurred on the forborne payment
  • Have the arrears accumulated during the forbearance period payable on a monthly basis for the remaining term of the loan without being subject to penalties or late fees as a result of the forbearance
  • Negotiate a loan modification or any other option that meets the changed circumstances of the borrower, or
  • If the borrower and regulated entity cannot reasonably agree on a mutually acceptable loan modification, the regulated entity must offer to defer arrears accumulated during the forbearance period as a non-interest bearing balloon loan payable at the maturity of the loan, or at the time the loan is satisfied through a refinance or sale of the property.  Late fees accumulated as a result of the forbearance must be waived.

The measure prohibits a regulated entity from reporting negatively to any credit bureau that the borrower has exercised any of the four post forbearance options

Significantly, Section 9-x of the Banking Law does not apply to any mortgage loan made, insured, purchased or securitized by: (i) any agency or instrumentality of the United States (such as FHA, VA or USDA); (ii) any government sponsored enterprise  (such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac); (iii) a federal home loan bank;  (iv) a corporate governmental  agency of the state constituted as a political subdivision and public benefit corporation; or (iv) “the rights and obligations of any lender, issuer, servicer or trustee of such obligations, including servicers for” Ginnie Mae.

Privately backed mortgage loans are also subject to New York Executive Order 202.9, which modified Subdivision two of Section 39 of the Banking Law to provide that it is an unsafe and unsound business practice for any financial institution subject to the jurisdiction of the Department to, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, fail to grant a forbearance to any person or business who has a financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic for a period of ninety days. The Executive Order also directed the Superintendent of the Department to promulgate emergency regulations to require that the application for such forbearance be made widely available for consumers, and such application shall be granted in all reasonable and prudent circumstances solely for the period of such emergency. These regulations are set forth in new Part 119 to 3 NYCCR. The covered period of Executive Order 202.9 was extended by subsequent executive order to be valid through July 6, 2020, unless further extended.

Capital and Liquidity

New Section 9-x of the Banking Law provides that the obligation to grant the forbearance relief required by Section 9-x is subject to the regulated entity “having sufficient capital and liquidity to meet its obligations and to operate in a safe and sound manner.” If a regulated entity determines it is not able to offer the forbearance to any qualified mortgagor, it must notify the Department within five business days of making such determination. Any such notice filed with the Department must include: (1) information about the mortgagor; (2) the reason the regulated entity determined that it was unable to offer any forbearance relief pursuant to Section 9-x; (3) information about the institution’s financial condition supporting the its determination; and (4) any other information required by the Department. Additionally, when such a notice is provided to the Department, the regulated entity must advise the mortgagor that the application for relief was denied and provide a statement that the applicant may file a complaint with the New York state department of financial services at 1-800-342-3736 or http://www.dfs.ny.gov if the applicant believes the application was wrongly denied.

Defense to Foreclosure

Section 9-x of the Banking Law, provides that adherence with Section 9-x is a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action stemming from missed payments which would have otherwise been subject to this section, and that a defendant may raise the violation of this section as a defense to such a foreclosure action commenced on the defendant’s property.

Takeaway

These New York measures provide protections to New York borrowers who aren’t otherwise covered by the CARES Act.  Servicers should take note of these provisions as well as similar ones in other states, such as the District of Columbia, Massachusetts and Oregon.  In the immediate term, servicers will need to quickly operationalize these new protections.  In the longer term, questions may be raised as to whether these types of measures infringe upon any private investors’ rights.

Misrepresentation and Deception: Government Enforcement Agencies Ready to Litigate

By ,

A&B ABstract:  The COVID-19 pandemic appears to be drafting the attention to consumer protection regulators to products that were active after the 2008 recession.

In the midst of the global pandemic, with unemployment rates surging to unprecedented levels, consumer protection regulators appear focused on areas where cash-strapped consumers may turn,  such as credit repair, payday loans, and mortgage and other debt relief.

Notably, these are the same areas that consumer protection regulators were active in during the post-2008 recession. For example, on May 22, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit alleging that defendants misrepresented that they can offer solutions that will or likely will substantially increase consumers’ credit scores despite not achieving those results.

In addition, on May 19, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was granted a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against a payday lending operation alleging that it deceptively overcharged consumers millions of dollars and withdrew money repeatedly from consumers’ bank accounts without their permission.

These lawsuits are just two of many efforts that government enforcement agencies have undertaken recently to combat fraud and protect consumers. Businesses should be aware that agencies are actively pursuing litigation as a means to remedy potential consumer harm.

CFPB and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Commonwealth Equity Group d/b/a Key Credit Repair and Nikitas Tsoukales

The CFPB and Massachusetts allege that Commonwealth Equity Group d/b/a Key Credit Repair (KCR) and its president, Nikitas Tsoukales violated §§ 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s (TSR) prohibition on deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices, and the Massachusetts Credit Services Organization Law. 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.3 & 310.4; M.G.L. c. 93, §§ 68A-E (MA-CSO). KCR markets to consumers a service for supposedly removing harmful information from the consumer’s credit history, credit record, or credit scores or ratings.  Since 2011, KCR has collected at least $23 million in fees from tens of thousands of consumers through its telemarketing services.

The Complaint

According to the complaint, consumers pay KCR a “first work fee” upon enrolling with the company and then charges an additional monthly fee. KCR allegedly collects these fees from consumers before performing any service. KCR markets to consumers that “on average it can raise a person’s credit score by 90 points in 90 days” and that clients start “seeing removals of bad credit history in 45 days.”  However, “consumers did not see credit scores with an average 90-point increase in 90 days,” nor did they see “removals on their credit reports within 45 days” of enrolling with KCR in many instances.

The Complaint alleges that this scheme constitutes an abusive telemarking act because it is an improper advance fee to remove derogatory information from, or improve, a person’s credit history, credit record, or credit rating.

Further, the Complaint alleges that KCR’s conduct violates the CFPA because KCR allegedly misrepresented the material aspects of its services. Therefore, the CFPB and Massachusetts are seeking injunctive and monetary relief as well as civil monetary penalties.

FTC v. Lead Express, Inc., et al.

On May 11, 2020, the FTC filed an ex parte emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and sought other relief including an asset freeze against 11 payday lenders operating as a common enterprise through websites and telemarketing.  The FTC alleged that the entities were engaging in the deceptive, unfair, and unlawful marketing tactics in violation of the FTC Act, the TSR, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) , and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA).

The Complaint

According to the FTC’s complaint, despite claiming that consumers’ loans would be repaid after a fixed number of payments, the defendants typically initiated repeated finance-charge-only withdrawals without crediting the withdrawals to the consumers’ principal balances. Thus, consumers allegedly paid significantly more than what they were told they would pay. These misrepresentations violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) as well as the TSR (16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii)).  Additionally, the defendants allegedly made recurring withdrawals from consumers’ bank accounts without proper authorization which violates Section 907(a) of EFTA (15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a)) and illegally used remotely created checks, which under the TSR (16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(9)) are a prohibited form of payment in telemarketing.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants often failed to make required credit transaction disclosures in violation of Section 121 and 128 of TILA (15 U.S.C. §§ 1631 and 1638), and Sections 1026.17 and 1026.18 of Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. §§ 1026.17 and 1026.18).

The Court Order

On May 22, 2020, the District Court of Nevada granted an emergency motion for temporary restraining order against all eleven defendants. The order restrains the defendants from: (1) engaging in prohibited business activities in connection with advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering any loan or extension of credit, (2) releasing or using customer information, and (3) destroying, erasing falsifying documents relating to the business.  Furthermore, the defendants’ assets are frozen pending the show-cause hearing or further court order which will take place via videoconferencing on June 2, 2020.

Takeaway

With these two cases, government enforcement agencies support their statements that as the global pandemic continues, they are watching for deceptive or fraudulent practices in the financial services industry. Businesses should remain vigilant in their compliance with existing and new laws and regulations.

Virginia Enacts Student Loan Servicing Law

By

A&B ABstract:

On April 22, Virginia enacted a comprehensive new law imposing a licensing obligation on private student loan servicers and substantive restrictions on both private and federal student loan servicers.

Effective July 1, 2021, House Bill 10 and Senate Bill 77 (the “Law”) will require the licensing of and regulate student loan servicers.  Notably, the Law applies to both private servicers and those with contracts with the U.S. Department of Education (“USDOE”). Entities who will be subject to the Law’s licensure requirement may begin applying for a license March 1, 2021 through the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System.

A New Licensing Obligation

The Law provides that “[n]o person shall act as a qualified education loan servicer…without having first obtained a license under this chapter from the [State Corporation] Commission.”

Who is a Servicer?

A “qualified education loan servicer” (“Servicer”) means any person, wherever located that:

  • Receives any scheduled periodic payments from a qualified education loan borrower or notification of such payments or applies payments to the qualified education loan borrower’s account pursuant to the terms of the qualified education loan or the contract governing the servicing;
  • During a period when no payment is required on a qualified education loan, (i) maintains account records for the qualified education loan and (ii) communicates with the qualified education loan borrower regarding the qualified education loan, on behalf of the qualified education loan’s holder; or
  • Interacts with a qualified education loan borrower, which includes conducting activities to help prevent default on obligations arising from qualified education loans or to facilitate any activity described above.

The term does not include a wholly owned subsidiary of a depository institution, a financial institution subject to regulation under the farm credit system, or any public or private institution of higher education.

Other Terms

The term “qualified education loan borrower” (“Borrower”) means any current resident of Virginia who has received or agreed to pay a qualified education loan or any person who is a co-signer to a qualified education loan.

A “qualified education loan” is any loan primarily used to finance a postsecondary education and costs of attendance at a postsecondary public or private educational institution. The term also includes a refinancing of a qualified education loan.  However, the term does not include an extension of credit under an open-end credit plan, a reverse mortgage transaction, a residential mortgage transaction, or any other loan that is secured by real property or a dwelling.

Exemption

Notably, the Law provides for the automatic issuance of a license to any person under contract with the USDOE to service federal student loans; such entities must satisfy eligibility criteria for this exemption. Despite being exempt from licensing, federal student loan servicers remain subject to the Law’s substantive requirements.

The Law does not specifically address whether those servicing student loans in the secondary market are subject to licensing.

Duties of a Licensed Qualified Education Loan Servicer

The Law also imposes a series of duties on a licensed Servicer.

First, a Servicer must evaluate a Borrower for eligibility for an income-driven repayment program prior to placing the Borrower in forbearance or default, if an income-driven repayment program is available to the Borrower.

Second, a Servicer must respond to a written inquiry from a Borrower or the representative of a Borrower within 10 business days after the receipt of the request, and within 30 business days after receipt, provide information relating to the request, and if applicable, any action the Servicer will take to correct the account or an explanation that the account is correct. Such 30-day period may be extended for not more than 15 days if, before the end of the 30-day period, the Servicer notifies the Borrower, or the Borrower’s representative, as applicable, of the extension and the reasons for delay in responding.

Third, a Servicer must not furnish to a consumer reporting agency, during the 60 days following receipt of a written request related to a dispute on a Borrower’s payment on a qualified education loan, information regarding a payment that is the subject of the written request.

Fourth, except as provided in federal law or required by a qualified education loan agreement, a Servicer must inquire of a Borrower how to apply an overpayment to a qualified education loan. A Borrower’s direction on how to apply an overpayment to a qualified education loan shall remain in effect for any future overpayments during the term of a qualified education loan or until the Borrower provides different directions. (For purposes of that requirement, “overpayment” means a payment on a qualified education loan that exceeds the monthly amount due from a Borrower on the qualified education loan, which payment may be referred to as prepayment.)

Fifth, a Servicer must apply partial payments in a manner that minimizes late fees and negative credit reporting. If loans on a Borrower’s qualified education loan account have an equal level of delinquency, a Servicer shall apply partial payments to satisfy as many individual loan payments as possible on a Borrower’s account. As used in this subdivision, “partial payment” means a payment on a qualified education loan account that contains multiple individual loans in an amount less than the amount necessary to satisfy the outstanding payment due on all loans in the qualified education loan account, which payment may be referred to as an underpayment.

Sixth, a Servicer must require, as a condition of sale, an assignment, or any other transfer of the servicing of a qualified education loan, that the new loan servicer honor all benefits originally represented as available to a Borrower during the repayment of the qualified education loan and preserve the availability of the benefits, including any benefits for which the Borrower has not yet qualified. If a Servicer is not also the loan holder or is not acting on behalf of the loan holder, the Servicer satisfied this requirement of this subsection by providing the new loan servicer with information necessary for the new loan servicer to honor all benefits originally represented as available to a Borrower during the repayment of the qualified education loan and preserve the availability of the benefits, including any benefits for which the Borrower has not yet qualified.

Finally, in the event of a sale, assignment, or other transfer of the servicing of a qualified education loan that results in a change of identity of the person to whom a Borrower is required to send payments or direct any communication regarding the loan, a Servicer must:

  • Within 45 days after the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan, transfer to the new loan servicer all records regarding the Borrower, the account of the Borrower, and the qualified education loan of the Borrower;
  • Notify the affected Borrower of the sale, assignment, or transfer, and provide the Borrower a notice, at least seven days before the Borrower’s next payment, including: (i) the identity of the new qualified education loan servicer; (ii) the effective date of the transfer to the new servicer; (iii) the date on which the existing servicer will no longer accept payments; and (iv) the contract information for the new servicer; and
  • Implement policies and procedures to verify the new qualified education loan servicer has received all records regarding the Borrower, the account of the Borrower, and the loan of the Borrower, including the repayment states of the Borrower and any benefits associated with the qualified education loan of the Borrower.

The Law also provides additional requirements for Servicers relating to recordkeeping, and to reporting obligations to the Commission.

Prohibited Activities

The Law also prohibits Servicers from engaging in certain conduct. A Servicer must not:

  1. Directly or indirectly employ any scheme, device, or artifice to defraud or mislead Borrowers;
  2. Engage in any unfair or deceptive act or practice toward any person or misrepresent or omit any material information in connection with the servicing of a qualified education loan, including misrepresenting (i) the amount, nature, or terms of any fee or payment due or claimed to be due on a qualified education loan; (ii) the terms and conditions of the loan agreement; or (iii) the Borrower’s obligation under the loans;
  3. Obtain property by fraud or misrepresentation;
  4. Misapply qualified education loan payments to the outstanding balance of a qualified education loan;
  5. Provide inaccurate information to a naturally recognized consumer credit bureau;
  6. Fail to report both the favorable and unfavorable payment history of the Borrower to a nationally recognized consumer credit bureau at least annually if the Servicer regularly reports information to such a credit bureau;
  7. Make any false statement of a material fact or omit any material fact in connection with any information provided to the Commission or another governmental authority;
  8. Engage in any other prohibited activities identified in regulations adopted by the Commission pursuant to the Law; or
  9. Commit an abusive act or practice in connection with the servicing of a qualified education loan if the act or practice does either of the following:
    • Materially interferes with the ability of a Borrower to understand a term or condition of a qualified education loan; or
    • Takes unreasonable advantage of:
      • A lack of understanding on the part of a Borrower of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the qualified education loan;
      • The reasonable reliance by the Borrower on a person engaged in the servicing of a qualified education loan to act in the interests of the Borrower; or
      • The inability of a Borrower to protect the interests of the Borrower when selecting (i) a qualified education loan or (ii) a feature, term, or condition of a qualified education loan.

Penalties and Enforcement

The Law gives the Commission broad authority to act on violations of the Law. The Commission may enter cease and desist orders against any person found to violate the Law and may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for any violation. Each separate violation is subject to the penalty, and every day that an unlicensed person engages in the business of a Servicer constitutes a separate violation. In addition, any violation of the Law also constitutes a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and any violation is subject to any and all the enforcement provisions under that statute.

Private Right of Action

The Law allows any person who suffers damages as a result of the failure of a Servicer to comply with the law, and all applicable federal regulations, to bring a private cause of action. A person may recover actual damages, in an amount no less than $500, an order enjoining a Servicer from an offending method, act, or practice, restitution of property, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court deems proper. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, the court finds that a Servicer has engaged in conduct that substantially interferes with a Borrower’s right to an alternative payment arrangement, loan forgiveness, cancellation, or discharge, or any other financial benefit under the Higher Education Act of 1965, the court shall award treble damages in an amount no less than $1,5000 per violation.

Takeaway

Virginia’s decision to license private student loan servicers and to regulate student loan servicers more broadly comes at an interesting time, as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the USDOE work to coordinate the examination of student loan servicers at the federal level. There have been jurisdictional tensions between the federal government and state governments regarding oversight of federal student loan servicers, and Virginia’s regulation of student loan servicers continues to show that states are eager assert regulatory authority.

Delaware Governor Issues Order Restricting Residential Foreclosures and Evictions

By ,

A&B Abstract:

On March 24, 2020, Delaware Governor, John Carney, issued a Sixth Modification (the “Order”) to the Declaration of a State of Emergency (the “State of Emergency”) initially issued on March 12, 2020. The Order addresses a number of issues that impact residential mortgage loan servicers, including restrictions on residential foreclosures and evictions and certain fees or charges.

Restrictions on Late Fees and Excess Interest for Missed Payments

The Order provides that with respect to any missed payment on a residential mortgage occurring during the State of Emergency, no late fee or excess interest may be charged or accrue on the account for such residential mortgage during the State of Emergency.  One could interpret this language to mean that while no late fees or additional interest may be charged or accrued with respect to a missed payment, regularly scheduled interest due on the missed payment may be charged.  While not free from doubt, arguably this provision applies only to owner-occupied 1- to 4-family primary residential property, as this provision immediately follows the below restriction on the commencement of a foreclosure action, which is so limited.

 Foreclosure Restrictions

The Order imposes restrictions on a mortgage servicer’s ability to initiate or complete a foreclosure action or sale and to charge certain fees or interest.  Specifically, until the State of Emergency is terminated and the public health emergency is rescinded, the provisions of the Delaware Code relating to residential mortgage foreclosures, including Subchapter XI, Chapter 49 of Title 10, are modified in the following respects:

  • A servicer may not commence a residential mortgage foreclosure action with respect to any owner-occupied 1- to 4-family primary residential property that is subject to a mortgage; the Order excludes from this restriction any mortgage that is held by the seller of the subject property who does not hold more than five such mortgages;
  • For any residential mortgage foreclosure action initiated prior to the declaration of the State of Emergency, all deadlines in that action, including those related to the Automatic Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program established pursuant to § 5062C of Title 10 of the Delaware Code, are extended until 31 days following the termination of the State of Emergency and the rescission of the public health emergency and no late fees or interest may be charged to or accrued on the balance due on the mortgage that is the subject of the residential mortgage foreclosure action during this time period;
  • No residential property that is the subject of a residential mortgage foreclosure action, for which a judgment of foreclosure was issued prior to the declaration of the State of Emergency, may proceed to sheriff’s sale until 31 days following the termination of the State of Emergency and the rescission of the public health emergency; and
  • No residential property that was the subject of a residential mortgage foreclosure action, and which was sold at sheriff’s sale, may be subject to action of ejectment or writ of possession until 31 days following the termination of the State of Emergency and the rescission of the public health emergency.

Except as otherwise provided above, nothing in the Order is intended to relieve any individual of the obligation to make mortgage payments or to comply with any other obligation that an individual may have under a residential mortgage.  Note that Delaware is a judicial foreclosure state requiring a notice of intent to foreclose be sent to the borrower 45 days prior to the commencing foreclosure.  One could read the Order as prohibiting a servicer from sending such notices during the State of Emergency.

Restrictions on Evictions

Similarly, with respect to evictions, the Order provides that, until the State of Emergency is terminated and the public health emergency is rescinded, the provisions of Chapter 57, Title 25 of the Delaware Code (governing summary possession of residential rental units) are modified in the following respects:

  • No action for summary possession may be brought with respect to any residential rental unit located within Delaware;
  • With respect to any past due balance for a residential rental unit, no late fee or interest may be charged or accrue on the account for the residential rental unit during the State of Emergency;
  • For any action for summary possession for a residential rental unit located within Delaware, commenced prior to the declaration of the State of Emergency, all deadlines in that action are extended until at least 31 days after the termination of the State of Emergency and the rescission of the public health emergency;
  • No late fee or interest may be charged or accrue on the balance due on the account for the residential rental unit that is the subject of the action for summary possession during this time period; and
  • For any residential rental unit that was the subject of an action for summary possession, for which a final judgment was issued prior to the declaration of the State of Emergency, no writ of possession may be executed until the seventh day following the termination of the State of Emergency and the rescission of the public health emergency.

The foregoing restrictions do not apply to actions for summary possession based upon a claim that continued tenancy will cause or is threatened to cause irreparable harm to person or property.  Moreover, except as modified above, all other provisions of the Landlord Tenant Code (Chapters 51-59 of Title 25 of the Delaware Code) remain in effect in accordance with their terms and nothing in the Order is to be construed as relieving any individual of the obligation to pay rent or to comply with any other obligation that an individual may have under their tenancy.

Takeaway

As discussed above, the Order imposes a number of restrictions that impact a residential mortgage loan servicer’s ability to initiate or complete foreclosure actions and eviction proceedings as well as limitation on certain fees and charges.  Accordingly, mortgage servicers should carefully review the Order to determine their obligations with respect to impacted borrowers.