Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

State Law

Arizona Seeks to Improve FinTech Sandbox with HB 2177

By

A&B ABstract: Arizona launched a first-in-the-nation FinTech Sandbox in August 2018, which has been a successful venture by the state. Arizona seeks to improve this program with the enactment of HB 2177 and the Arizona Attorney General Office’s involvement in the CFPB’s American Consumer Financial Innovation Network.

Arizona’s FinTech Sandbox

In August 2018, Arizona was the first state to launch its “FinTech Sandbox” to ease state regulatory burdens for persons offering innovative financial technologies. (The July 2019 Alston & Bird LLP Structured Finance Spectrum provides further details).  This program allows such persons to register with the Attorney General’s Office and conduct limited tests of their technologies under its supervision without otherwise complying with more burdensome licensing and regulatory requirements. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has touted the success of this program, stating that it is “the most active and successful regulatory sandbox in North America.”

House Bill 2177

To improve this program, Arizona enacted HB 2177, which:

  • Makes businesses that provide a “substantial component of a financial product or service” eligible to participate, which will (i) allow for tests of products that affect how financial services are provided in the marketplace even if the product itself is not regulated and (ii) enable regulatory technology (“RegTech”) products to now seek entry into the program as stand-alone participants;
  • Requires applicants to demonstrate the cybersecurity measures they will undertake as part of a sandbox test to ensure consumer data remains private and protected; and
  • No longer requires that sandbox tests involving payments involve the participation of Arizona residents, as long as the transaction occurs in Arizona.

In a recent announcement regarding HB 2177, Attorney General Brnovich also announced his office’s participation in the American Consumer Financial Innovation Network (“ACFIN”).  ACFIN is a new CFPB initiative that seeks to bring together state and federal financial services regulators to collaborate on innovation-fostering programs like the FinTech Sandbox.  Given his office’s experience administering the program, Brnvich is encouraged by the federal efforts evident in ACFIN.

Takeaway

In addition to Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Tennessee and Utah are members of ACFIN. We are keeping our eyes on ACFIN, as we believe this to be an important initiative, and look forward to what is to come.

South Carolina Revisiting Borrower Preference Requirements

By

A&B ABstract: The South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs  (“Department”) announced that it is soliciting comments on proposed Regulation 28-75, which would provide mortgage lenders with additional guidance on the state’s attorney and insurance agent borrower preference requirements.

Determination of Borrower Preferences

Section 37-10-102 of the South Carolina Consumer Protection Code requires a creditor to ascertain and comply with the consumer’s preference as to the legal counsel the consumer wants to hire to conduct the transaction. The requirement is not new – it was enacted in 1976 and amended in 1996 – but it is vigilantly enforced by state regulators.  Despite the Department’s issuance of numerous guidance documents (most recently in February 2017, as discussed in a previous client advisory), the requirement still presents compliance challenges to mortgage lenders.

According to regulators, satisfying Section 37-10-102 requires: (i) providing consumers the notice of the right to select an attorney and insurance agent within three days of an application; (ii) ascertaining these preferences before loan closing; and (iii) assuring that the borrower-chosen providers execute the loan closing. ‘

The Department recognizes a safe harbor, of sorts, if the lender provides the borrower with a form (based on Consumer Protection Code Administrative Interpretation 10.102(a)-8302) and the form is fully completed and signed and dated by the borrower.

The statute is designed to ensure that lenders do not improperly force or steer borrowers to an attorney. But what happens when a borrower states his or her preference to the lender, rather than including it on the form? Or if the borrower truly doesn’t have a preference?  Must a lender require a borrower to select an attorney when the borrower doesn’t have a choice?  The Department is poised to provide additional clarity to the industry. However, the Department’s announcement is light on details, merely noting that a future regulation may clarify creditors’ responsibilities and provide definitions.

Takeaway

Additional guidance from the Department is a welcome development.  Interested parties should submit written comments by 5 p.m. on October 29, 2019 to Kelly Rainsford, Deputy of Regulatory Enforcement, South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs, P.O. Box 5757, Columbia, SC 29250.

Massachusetts Settlement Agreements Highlight AG’s Compliance Expectations

By

A&B Abstract: In a series of 2019 settlement agreements, the Massachusetts Attorney General has publicly provided insights into her compliance expectations for residential mortgage servicers.  The settlements demonstrate a focus on compliance with the Commonwealth’s Act to Prevent Unlawful and Unnecessary Foreclosures, codified in part as M.G.L. Chapter 244, Section 35B (“Section 35B”) and its unfair and deceptive acts and practices law (the “UDAP law”), found in Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws.

Section 35B and Chapter 93A Expectations

Section 35B prohibits a creditor (defined to include a servicer) from causing publication of notice of a foreclosure sale upon “certain mortgage loans” unless it has first taken reasonable steps and made a good faith effort to avoid foreclosure.  To be considered to have taken reasonable steps and made a good faith effort to avoid foreclosure, a creditor must have provided a statutorily defined notice (“35B Notice”) at the time a borrower is in default.  Additionally, if certain criteria are met, a creditor must conduct a review to determine whether the borrowers are eligible for a loan modification prior to publishing a notice of foreclosure sale pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 244, Section 14. While the requirements may sound simple, they are complex and difficult to operationalize.

To avoid violations of Section 35B and the UDAP law, the Massachusetts Attorney General expects servicers to:

  • Accurately record, capture or note in the servicing system when borrowers exercise their right to pursue a loan modification under Section 35B by returning the mortgage modification options form (“MMO”), as required by 209 CMR 56.09;
  • Complete a timely review of borrowers’ loan modification applications, as required by Section 35B(c), and avoid causing undue delay in the loan modification review process;
  • Disclose to borrowers the servicer’s determination of the income, debts and obligations and the net present value assessment performed by the servicer in the review of the loan modification, as required by Section 35B(c);
  • Offer modifications, including short-term and interest-only modifications that reflect the borrower’s future ability to repay the modified mortgage loan according to its scheduled payments, as required by Section 35B(b);
  • Not deny loan modification applications on the basis that the borrower did not return sufficient documents to be reviewed, if the servicer did not adequately or timely communicate the requirements to the borrowers or identify when all such documents have in fact been submitted;
  • Provide borrowers with notice of their right to present a counter-offer after being offered a loan modification as part of a Section 35B review, as required by Section 35B(c);
  • Take reasonable steps and make a good faith effort to avoid foreclosure when a borrower requested a loan modification;
  • Not record affidavits pursuant to Section 35B(f) attesting compliance with the requirements of Section 35B where deficiencies exist  in the servicers’ Section 35B loan modification review process, including the failure to identify MMO forms returned by the borrower; and
  • Accurately and timely report accurate borrower response rates under Section 35B to the Massachusetts Division of Banks (“DOB”) as required by 35B(g).

Additional Chapter 93A Expectations

To avoid UDAP concerns, servicers should also:

  • Provide borrowers in default meaningful access to a single point of contact (“SPOC”), such that borrowers can (i) reach a person who can provide information about the modification application, foreclosure status or other account information, and (ii) adequately ensure accessibility to company representatives to ensure borrowers do not encounter connectivity issues, including busy signals, long hold times, and multiple transfers without reaching a live representative;
  • Provide successors-in-interest (“SIIs”) information about what documentation is required to access the account, provide SIIs accurate information as to the availability and requirements related to loss mitigation programs, and adequately note in borrower account files a confirmed SII, such that surviving spouses or other types of SIIs are not required to resubmit death certificates or other documentation, when a servicer already has  such documentation;
  • Proactively  communicate with limited English proficiency (“LEP”) borrowers in their native language to provide information related to the mortgage account, adequately notate in the borrower account files a borrowers LEP status such that LEP borrowers do not have to reestablish their language-access needs with each contact with a servicer, and do not make outgoing calls to previously confirmed LEP borrowers without first engaging reasonably available translation services, such that LEP borrowers (i) encounter an English-speaking representative, (ii) face unexplained holds while translation services are engaged, and (iii) become confused about the nature of the call and disconnect;
  • Allow borrowers to complete short sales by (i) approving, explicitly or implicitly, a listing price in connection with a short sale application only after confirming the loan’s investor would accept an offer received at that price, (ii) not countering or rejecting short sale offers that meet the approved listing price due to a failure to obtain investor proceeds requirements prior to explicitly or implicitly approving the listing price, (iii) having adequate processes to resolve disputes in valuation of a property, and (iv) having a standardized or consistent review process such that borrowers attempting to complete a short sale do not have to relist the property to meet the servicer’s requirements; and
  • For in-flight modifications, ensure that loss mitigation applications initiated by a prior servicer are continued and  identify and honor loan modifications offered by previous servicer.

Takeaway:  

These settlement agreements serve as a reminder that Massachusetts continues to be active in mortgage servicing issues and will use its broad and sometimes nebulous UDAP authority to enforce activities that aren’t specifically regulated under existing law.

 

CSBS’s State Examination System Coming Soon

By

A&B ABstract

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) revolutionized state licensing with the National Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) by providing a more uniform approach to state licensing of non-bank financial services companies.  CSBS will bring a similar transformation to supervising such companies.

The New State Examination System

CSBS designed the State Examination System (SES) to be an end-to-end system for scheduling a single or multi-state examination to completion; the system can also be used for investigations, enforcement actions and complaints.

Within the SES, regulators will be able to access an agency library of resources, track examination time and expenses, prepare and send information requests, and engage in collaborative scheduling.  Compliance and examination support staff within companies will be able to schedule examinations, receive and respond to information requests, and receive completed examination reports.  Further, such staff also will be able to access the licensee’s company NMLS record, which should decrease regulator requests for additional information throughout the course of an examination. How the system will work outside the examination context is yet to be seen.

CSBS has announced a pilot of the SES system with 11 agencies and nine mortgage or money servicer examinations.  The pilot is scheduled to run from October 1 to December 31, 2019.  Assuming that the pilot program runs smoothly, CSBS expects to make SES available nationwide early in 2020.

Takeaways

The CSBS should be commended for taking this initiative to modernize the supervision process and make it less burdensome for non-bank financial institutions and regulators alike.  Companies should keep an eye out for training on this new system in the not-so-distant future.

New York Proposes Student Loan Servicing Rules

By

A&B ABstract

Amid growing concerns over the federal government’s “hands off” approach to regulating the student loan business, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo released 3 NYCRR 409, a proposed regulation aimed at providing significant consumer protections for New York student loan borrowers, to the public for comment. The deadline for comment on the regulation is September 29.

Proposal of Part 409

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo released for public comment a new regulation (“Part 409”) aimed at providing significant consumer protections for New York student loan borrowers. The proposed rules, promulgated pursuant to Section 718 of the New York Banking Law (effective October 9, 2019), are of little surprise, given that Governor Cuomo and the Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”), Linda Lacewell, have been quite outspoken about their increasing concerns about the state of the student loan market in New York.

Activities within the Scope of Part 409

To further the NYDFS’ mission, Part 409 provides that, except as otherwise provided in New York laws and regulations, “every person engaged in the business of servicing student loans owed must be licensed by the [NYDFS] as a student loan servicer.”

For purposes of Part 409, “student loan servicer” means “a person engaged in the business of servicing student loans owed by one or more borrowers.” Further, Part 409 defines the term “student loan” as “any loan to a borrower to finance postsecondary education or expenses related to postsecondary education.”

An entity is deemed to be “servicing” if it is:

  • receiving any payment from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any student loan;
  • applying any payment to the borrower’s account pursuant to the terms of a student loan or the contract governing the servicing of any such loan;
  • during a period where a borrower is not required to make a payment on a student loan, maintaining account records for the student loan and communicating with the borrower regarding the student loan on behalf of the owner of the student loan promissory note; or
  • in conjunction with the activities described [above] (a) providing any notification of amounts owed on a student loan by or on account of any borrower; (b) performing other administrative services with respect to a borrower’s student loan; or (c) interacting with a borrower with respect to or regarding any attempt to avoid default on the borrower’s student loan and facilitating the [receipt or application of payments].

Notably, “servicing” excludes “collecting, or attempting to collect, on a defaulted student loan for which no payment has been received for 270 days or more.”

Other Requirements and Restrictions

Part 409 requires entities that “service” New York student loans to:

  • Provide clear and complete information concerning fees, payments due, and terms and conditions of loans;
  • Apply payments in borrowers’ best interest, rather than in ways that maximize servicer fees;
  • Inform borrowers of income-based repayment and loan forgiveness options;
  • Maintain and provide to consumers a detailed history of their account;
  • When a borrower’s loan is transferred to a new servicer, ensure that all necessary servicing information is transferred with the loan so the borrower’s repayment is not disrupted;
  • Provide accurate information to credit reporting agencies;
  • Provide timely and substantive responses to consumer complaints; and
  • Refrain from defrauding or misleading borrowers, engaging in any unfair, deceptive, abusive or predatory act or practice, or misapplying borrowers’ payments.

What’s Next?

Part 409 is open for comment until September 29, 2019. Given the messaging from Governor Cuomo and the NYDFS surrounding the regulation of the New York student loan market and the fact that the NYDFS made its New York Student Loan Servicer license application available to entities engaging in “student loan servicing” through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System & Registry on August 1, 2019, this may only be New York’s first step into regulating student loan servicers.

UPDATE: As a complement to its regulatory efforts, the DFS is also increasing its staffing on student loan servicing issues.  Since our initial post, Superintendent Lacewell has announced: the appointment of Mr. Winston Berkman-Breen as the DFS’s first-ever Student Advocate and Director of Consumer Advocacy; and (2) the formation of the Student Debt Advisory Board. Both appointments, part of the DFS “Step Up for Students” initiative, highlight that safeguarding student loan borrowers is a priority for both Governor Cuomo and Superintendent Lacewell.