Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

State Law

Georgia Legislation Expands Consumer Financial Protections

By

What Happened?

On May 13 and 14, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law three measures that amend or expand existing consumer financial protections for Georgians, and impact mortgage lending and servicing as follows:

  • HB 240, effectively immediately upon approval on May 13, prohibits unfair and deceptive practices related to mortgage trigger leads.
  • HB 241, effective July 1, clarifies allowable convenience fees applicable to loans made under the Georgia Residential Mortgage Act (“GRMA”) (as well as laws applicable to installment loans, retail installment and home solicitation sales contracts, motor vehicle sales financing contracts, and insurance premium finance companies).
  • HB 15, effective July 1, in addition to certain licensing amendments, amends the GRMA to impose capital, net worth, liquidity and corporate governance obligation on mortgage lenders and servicers. Noteworthy, the measure requires mortgage lenders and brokers to prepare an annual risk assessment delivered to its board of directors and make it available to the regulators upon request.

Why Is It Important?

Taken together, these pieces of legislation signal Georgia’s intent to enhance consumer protections with respect to mortgage lending and servicing.

Trigger Lead Legislation: HB 240 amends the state’s unfair and deceptive trade law, called the Fair Business Practices Act (“FBPA”).  First, the measure specifies that use of a mortgage trigger lead to solicit a consumer who has applied for a loan with a different mortgage lender or broker (as those terms are defined in the GRMA) is considered unfair or deceptive when it (1) fails to clearly state in the solicitation that the solicitor is not affiliated with the mortgage lender or broker the consumer initially applied with; (2) fails to comply with state and federal requirements to make a firm offer of credit to the consumer; (3) uses the information of consumers who have opted out of being contacted; or (4) offers rates, terms, or costs with the knowledge that they will subsequently be changed to the detriment of the consumer.  For purposes of this provision, a “mortgage trigger lead,” in accordance with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, is defined as a “consumer report triggered by an inquiry made with a consumer reporting agency in response to an application for credit.” Second, the measure amends the GRMA to include a new paragraph prohibiting mortgage lenders and brokers form engaging in unfair or deceptive practices as outlined in Section 10-1-393.20 of the Georgia Code.

Banking and Finance Laws: HB 15 implements a variety of changes to Georgia’s banking and finance laws. The measure amends requirements for mortgage lenders related to licensing, reporting to the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and registry, quarterly and annual reporting obligations, and calculating liquidity and net worth. The measure also requires mortgage brokers and lenders to have a board of directors and outlines their responsibilities including designing governance frameworks, monitoring licensee compliance, accurately reporting, conducting internal audits, and establishing risk management programs. The measure creates two new sections of the GRMA of particular  relevance to mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers:

  • Section 7-1-1022 outlines capital, liquidity, and net worth requirements, to be reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If a licensed mortgage lender is a covered servicer (meaning that it has a servicing portfolio of 2,000 or more residential mortgages serviced or subserviced as reported in its most recent mortgage call report), it must maintain the requisite the capital, liquidity, and net worth outlined in the Federal Housing Finance Agency Eligibility Requirements for Enterprise Single-family Seller/Servicers. All other lenders must maintain a minimum net worth of $100,000 and evidence of $1 million of liquidity (which may include a warehouse line of credit).
  • Section 7-1-1023 mirrors the corporate governance requirements in the Model Capital, Liquidity and Risk Management Framework for non-bank lenders created by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. Every mortgage lender and broker must establish a board of directors responsible for establishing a written corporate governance framework, monitoring the licensee’s compliance with said framework, reporting regularly, developing internal audit requirements, creating risk management programs and assessments, and conducting formal reviews. The adoption of financial and corporate governance standards for servicers also follows similar legislation in other states (including Connecticut and Maryland, and Iowa) on which we have previously reported.

Convenience Fees: HB 241 revises the general provisions of Georgia contract law to amend requirements for merchants and lenders seeking to utilize convenience fees when processing electronic payments. The measure sets a floor for convenience fees, allowing merchants to charge whichever is greater — $5.00 or the average actual cost (defined as the amount paid by a lender to a third party or the amount incurred by a third party) of a specific type of payment made by electronic means. These provisions apply to banking and financial institutions, as well as lenders of retail installment loans, home solicitation sales contracts, vehicle financing contracts, and insurance premium finance agreements.

What To Do Now?

Licensed mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers should familiarize themselves with the requirements under the newly amended GRMA and FBPA, particularly the prohibitions on deceptive or unfair practices when using mortgage trigger leads or extending credit.

Mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers should also understand the newly updated licensing, reporting, governance, and liquidity requirements to ensure compliance with Georgia’s updated banking and finance regulations.

When utilizing convenience fees, lenders and merchants should verify that such fees do not exceed the maximum amount and should implement the requisite payment processing options. The $5.00 minimum may allow changes in pricing structures for some lenders and merchants.

*We would like to thank Summer Associate Elise Hall for her contribution to this blog post.

Update on New Maryland Law Clarifying Exemptions for Certain Mortgage Trusts

By ,

What Happened?

As we previously advised you, in 2024, the Maryland Appellate Court in Estate of H. Gregory Brown v. Carrie M. Ward, et al., No. 1009, (App. Ct. Sept. Term 2023), ruled that a statutory trust that held a defaulted home equity line of credit (a “HELOC”) must be licensed as both an installment lender and a mortgage lender under Maryland law prior to proceeding to foreclosure on the HELOC.  The relevant parties did not appeal the decision.  Following this ruling, on January 10, 2025, the Maryland Office of Financial Regulation (the “OFR”) issued formal guidance on licensing requirements for mortgage trusts and a notice of emergency regulations to conform to the Brown decision. The guidance mandated that absent an exemption, all assignees of Maryland residential mortgage loans, including trusts, must be licensed as Maryland Installment Lenders or Maryland Mortgage Lenders.  While the formal guidance and emergency regulations took effect upon promulgation by the OFR on January 10, 2025, the OFR suspended enforcement of the emergency regulations until April 10, 2025 — later extended to July 6, 2025.

Why Does it Matter?

On April 22, 2025, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed into law the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025 (emergency measures HB 1516 and its companion SB 1026) with an immediate effective date. The legislation expressly excludes passive trusts from Maryland’s mortgage licensing requirements and defines a “passive trust” as a trust that: (1) acquires or is assigned mortgage loans in whole or in part; (2) does not make mortgage loans; (3) is not a mortgage broker or a mortgage servicer; and (4) is not engaged in the servicing of mortgage loans, which does not include the act of transmitting or directing payments received by a mortgage servicer.

On May 29, 2025, in response to the enactment of the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025, OFR rescinded its prior guidance issued on January 10, 2025, and all related advisories (issued on January 31, 2025, and February 18, 2025) and enforcement deadlines concerning licensing requirements for trusts holding mortgage loans. The OFR also formally withdrew the previous emergency and proposed regulations relating to the licensing of mortgage trusts.

The OFR also clarified that commercial lenders making loans exclusively for business purposes under Maryland’s installment loan statutes, as defined by Md. Code Ann., Fin. Inst. § 11-301, are not subject to OFR’s licensing requirements under mortgage lending and installment licensing provisions.

What to Do Now

Please be advised that the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025 and the OFR’s rescission of its prior guidance and previous emergency and proposed regulations applies only to residential mortgage loans, and does not address other loan categories such as consumer loans not secured by real estate.  

Secondary market purchasers of loans that do not use passive trusts to acquire or take assignment of residential mortgage loans in Maryland must become licensed as Maryland mortgage lenders by July 6, 2025. However, there can be no assurance that other states will not pass laws or issue regulations, or courts of law will require licensing, even retrospectively, which may adversely affect the Mortgage Loans.

Governor Moore Signs Legislation Exempting “Passive Trusts” from Licensure in Maryland

By

What Happened?

In a highly anticipated and welcome development, on April 22, 2025, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed into law the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025 (emergency measures HB 1516 and its companion SB 1026) with an immediate effective date.  The legislation is significant as it has the effect of modifying the formal guidance issued on January 10, 2025 by the Maryland Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) requiring assignees of residential mortgage loans, including passive trusts that acquire or take assignment of residential mortgage loans in Maryland, to become licensed in Maryland by April 10, 2025—later extended to July 6, 2025.  The OFR’s January licensing mandate, which derived from the OFR’s interpretation of a Maryland Appellate Court decision in Estate of Brown v. Ward, 251 Md. App. 385 (2024), would have created a logistical nightmare for, among others, passive trusts holding Maryland loans in residential mortgage-backed securitizations. By custom, passive trusts holding residential mortgage loans do not obtain licenses, and no state legislature has required such licensure for trusts holding these loans. The OFR’s January 10 formal guidance contravenes the plain language of the licensing requirements of the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law and the Maryland Installment Loan Law that do not apply to assignees.

Why Does it Matter?

The legislation addresses the OFR’s overreach by expressly excluding “passive trusts” from Maryland’s mortgage licensing requirements. The legislation defines a “passive trust” as a

trust that

(1) ACQUIRES OR IS ASSIGNED MORTGAGE LOANS IN WHOLE OR IN PART;

(2) DOES NOT MAKE MORTGAGE LOANS;

(3) IS NOT A MORTGAGE BROKER OR A MORTGAGE SERVICER; AND

(4) IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE SERVICING OF MORTGAGE LOANS, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ACT OF TRANSMITTING OR DIRECTING PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY A MORTGAGE SERVICER.

The legislation defines “trust” as “any trust established under the laws of the State or any other state.”  Hence, the “passive trust” must be an actual trust and not a non-trust corporate entity.

The legislation also includes a “Maryland Licensing Workshop” that is comprised of members of consumer groups, the banking and non-bank mortgage industry, and others appointed by the Governor to study Maryland’s licensing statutes and make recommendations regarding, among other things, whether expansion of the existing licensing requirements to persons not currently licensed is warranted. The legislation requires the working group to report its findings to the Governor by December 31, 2025.

What Do I Need to Do?

While the legislation spares passive trusts, including trusts in existing residential mortgage-backed securitizations, from having to become licensed in Maryland, secondary market purchasers of loans that do not utilize passive trusts to acquire or take assignment of residential mortgage loans in Maryland must become licensed as Maryland Mortgage Lenders by July 6, 2025.

Consumer Finance State Roundup

By ,

The latest edition of the Consumer Finance State Roundup highlights recently enacted measures of potential interest from three states:

Arkansas:

  • House Bill 1184, which we expect to take effect on or about August 8, amends the Fair Mortgage Lending Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 23-39-501 et seq., to address the use of mortgage trigger leads. Specifically, the measure amends Section 23-39-513 of the Arkansas Code to impose obligations on a loan officer using a mortgage trigger lead in any capacity (such as clearly and conspicuously stating in initial solicitations that the solicitation uses information purchased from a consumer reporting agency without the lender or broker’s knowledge or permission).

Idaho:

  • Effective July 1, House Bill 149 adds Section 26-31-221A to the Idaho Code, addressing consumer private in mortgage applications.  Specifically, the measure imposes obligations on an individual soliciting a consumer for a residential mortgage loan where a mortgage trigger lead is used in any capacity, to include (among other provisions): (a) clearly and conspicuously stating in initial solicitations that the solicitation uses information purchased from a consumer reporting agency without the lender or broker’s knowledge or permission; and (b) avoiding knowing or negligent use of information from a mortgage trigger lead where the consumer opted out of prescreened offers or placed his or her phone number on a federal or state “do-not-call” list.

Nebraska:

  • Effective March 12, Legislative Bill 251 amends surety bond provisions under the Residential Mortgage Licensing Act (“Act”). As amended, Section 45-724 of the Act requires a mortgage banker licensee to include its mortgage servicing portfolio (and not only its origination volume) in the calculation of its required surety bond.
  • Legislative Bill 21, which we expect to take effect on or about August 31, adopts the Uniform Unlawful Restriction in Land Records Act (“Act”). The Act will permit real property owners to unilaterally remove from any document related to the owner’s property “unlawful restrictions” (those that “purport[] to interfere with or restrict the transfer, use, or occupancy of real property”), and will prescribe the process by which an owner may amend a document to remove such restrictions.

New York State Proposes Consumer Protection Reforms through FAIR Business Practices Act

By

What Happened?

On March 13, New York state legislators introduced new legislation called the Fostering Affordability and Integrity Through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act.  The bill, supported by New York Attorney General Letitia James, aims to strengthen New York’s existing consumer protection law and would expand the law’s scope from only covering “deceptive” acts or practices to also include “unfair” and “abusive” practices.  It would apply in the consumer, as well as the small business context.

Why Is It Important?

The FAIR Act comes at a time when consumer protection at the federal level has stalled, particularly with respect to the activities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).   State attorneys general have promised to step in to address any resulting gaps in consumer protection.

The FAIR Act defines unfair and abusive acts and practices expansively, to reach conduct that could be considered unfair or abusive, but arguably not deceptive.  Additionally, it provides for enhanced civil penalties for unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices against “vulnerable persons,” including those under 18 or over 65, active duty servicemembers and veterans, physically or mentally impaired persons, and individuals with limited English proficiency.  The legislation provides for civil penalties of: (a)$5,000 per violation; or (b) for knowing or willful violations, the greater of $15,000 or three times the amount of restitution for each violation.

What To Do Now?

Businesses operating in New York can prepare for potential changes by reviewing current practices to identify those that might be considered unfair or abusive under the broader scope of the FAIR Act.  Additionally, they can:

  • Monitor the progress of this legislation and be prepared to adjust business practices accordingly, especially as state-level enforcement of consumer protection laws is likely to increase in response to reduced federal action​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​; and
  • Pay particular attention to practices that might affect “vulnerable persons” as defined in the legislation, as these could result in enhanced civil penalties.