Surveying Developments in Consumer Finance Regulation
A number of significant legislative changes occurred in 2009 related to consumer finance regulation.
The most significant potential change—the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act—is still in flux as it moves through the U.S. Senate. However, the version of the CFPA passed by the U.S. House contains several provisions of which every practitioner should be aware. New regulations governing credit card products and overdraft fees will also significantly impact consumer finance practice.
See a summary of recent developments in consumer finance regulation.
House Passes Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act
On December 11, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009,” H.R. 4173. This sweeping legislation—a combination of several bills, including a modified version of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act, formerly HR 3126—includes broad new regulation of derivatives, executive compensation, systemic risk, investor rights, mortgages, credit-rating agencies, hedge funds and private equity, insurance, and consumer financial protection.
Title IV of the Act (sections 4001 – 4901) provides for the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (section 4101 – 4703), a new, independent federal agency to oversee virtually every aspect of consumer financial services, including mortgages, credit cards, debit cards, car loans, gift cards, credit reporting agencies, debt collectors, and financial advisers. Certain merchants, such as auto dealers and pawnbrokers, would be exempted.
Continue Reading...Financial Regulatory Reform Moves Out of Committee
The House Financial Services Committee on Thursday voted to approve the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act, HR 3126.
The legislation is changing in significant ways as it moves through the legislative process. Among the revisions from the administration's original plan, the Committee's approved version would vest authority over the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency in a single director, as opposed to a 5-member board. The approved version of the legislation also includes a compromise on federal preemption, which permits the federal regulator to preempt state consumer financial protection laws only after a written finding that the state law “prevents or significantly interferes” with a federally regulated bank or thrift’s exercise of its powers.
Powers of the Proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency
Subpart F, sections 161 through 166, of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (HR 3126, July 8, 2009) provides for the transfer of broad areas of power to regulate consumer financial protection functions from a variety of federal agencies and the Federal Reserve to the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
In general, the CFPA would have the authority and accountability to supervise, examine, and enforce consumer financial protection laws, including mortgages, credit cards, student loans, auto loans, payday loans, and more. The Act would transfer functions and personnel to the new CFPA and provide for interim powers for the Secretary of Treasury pending the establishment of the CFPA and the completion of the transfer of powers and people.
Financial Regulatory Reform Moving Forward
Legislation for federal financial regulatory reform, introduced by the Obama administration in June, is moving forward through the legislative process. Treasury Secretary Geithner testified before the House Financial Services Committee on September 23.
The proposed financial regulatory reform legislation in the U.S. House is the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 in the House (HR 3126). The Financial Services Committee has issued a section-by-section summary of the proposed legislation as well as a September 25 discussion draft.
Track the progress of the legislation at the administration's Financial Stability website.
FTC Clarifies FDCPA-FACTA Conflict
In an Advisory Opinion, the Federal Trade Commission has clarified a statutory conflict between the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and its regulations implementing the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"), which added new sections to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
Specifically, the the FDCPA provides that "if a consumer has notified a debt collector in writing that 'the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate with the consumer with respect to such debt' (with some exceptions not applicable here)." 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c). Separately, FTC regulation implementing FACTA "requires furnishers of information to CRAs to report the results of a direct dispute to the consumer, 16 CFR § 660.4(e)(3), or notify the consumer if the furnisher determines the dispute is frivolous or irrelevant, 16 CFR § 660.4(f)(2)."
Continue Reading...Court of Appeal Rejects Litigation Privilege Under Rosenthal
In Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc., the First District California Court of Appeal considered several issues of first impression involving the California Robbins-Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Civil Code § 1788 et seq.
in Komarova, defendant sought to collect a debt from plaintiff that she did not owe; defendant had mistaken plaintiff for a credit cardholder with a different, but similarly spelled name. Defendant began collection calls to plaintiff's workplace in February 2005. In March 2005, defendant initiated arbitration proceedings against plaintiff. Defendant obtained a default award against plaintiff in June 2005, which defendant later sought to confirm in a judgment. Defendant's collection calls to plaintiff continued through January 2006.
Continue Reading...Tracking the Proposed Financial Regulatory Changes
Last week, President Obama announced sweeping proposed changes in federal financial regulation. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Director of the National Economic Council Lawrence Summers wrote an op-ed piece describing the new regulatory structure, called "A New Foundation: Rebuilding Financial Supervision and Regulation."
The Final Report of the proposed comprehensive plan has five stated goals: (1) to promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms; (2) to establish comprehensive supervision of financial markets; (3) to protect consumers and investors from financial abuse; (4) to provide the government tools to manage the financial crisis; and (5) to raise international regulatory standards and to improve international cooperation.
Continue Reading...California Holiday Statutes Preempted by OCC Regs
In Miller v. Bank of America, N.A. (USA), the Third District California Court of Appeal has held that California's holiday statutes, which extend the time to perform an act if the performance would fall on a holiday, does not extend the time for a credit card payment, because the holiday statutes are preempted by federal law.
In Miller, a putative class action, plaintiffs were credit card customers of Bank of America, a national bank. Plaintiffs alleged that so-called holiday statutes in California and Arizona prohibited Bank of America from charging late fees or interest on payments posted after a holiday, where the payment would not have been late absent the holiday. Plaintiffs alleged three violations of California Business and Professions Code §17200, one violation for each holiday statute at issue: California Civil Code §§9 and 11; and Arizona revised statutes §1-303. The trial court sustained Bank of America's demurrer without leave to amend, holding the holiday statutes are preempted by federal law. Plaintiffs appealed.
Continue Reading...Fed Issues Final New Credit Card Rules
The Federal Reserve yesterday issued a press release and highlights detailing its final rules revising regulation AA, revising regulation DD, and revising regulation Z. The new rules significantly alter the current regulations governing card issuers' payment billing cycles, allocation of payments, interest rate increases, security deposits and fees, credit card holds, and firm offers of credit. The new rules also make significant changes to overdraft protection linked to deposit accounts, including imposing an opt-out provision, eliminating overdraft charges resulting from debit holds, and changing required overdraft fee disclosures.
The revised regulation AA and regulation Z take effect on July 1, 2010. The revised regulation DD takes effect on January 1, 2010. Separately, the Fed seeks public comment on proposed amendments to Regulation E governing electronic funds transfers.
The Office of Thrift Supervision also announced and detailed the similar new rules for its regulated entities, as did the National Credit Union Administration.
9th Circuit Confirms Limits to TILA Statutory Damages
The Ninth Circuit this week confirmed some limits to the recovery of statutory damages under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and Regulation Z. In McDonald v. Checks-N-Advance, Inc. (In Re Ferrell), the Ninth Circuit held that a consumer may not recover statutory damages for violations of the credit disclosure requirements in 15 U.S.C. 1638(b)(1) or 15 U.S.C. 1632(a).
In McDonald, consumer Bobby Ferrell, Jr., borrowed $300 from Checks-N-Advance in 2002. Ferrell defaulted on the loan, and filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2003. Chapter 13 Trustee Kathleen McDonald, not the creditor, filed a proof of claim for the unpaid loan, then initiated an adversary proceeding to deny the claim. The Trustee's complaint alleged violations of TILA credit disclosures, including 15 U.S.C. 1638(b) and 15 U.S.C. 1632(a), as well as violations of Nevada state consumer loan law.
Continue Reading..."Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights" Passes Committee
The "Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Act of 2008" (H.R. 5244), which would amend Truth in Lending Act to include new restrictions on billing and practices related to credit cards, has cleared the U.S. House Financial Services Committee and will move to the floor of the House.
As detailed in the summary, the bill's provisions would make significant amendments to existing law, including:
- requiring card issuers to give consumers 45 days notice of any interest rate increases;
- prohibiting card issuers from charging interest on debt that is paid during a grace period (so-called "double cycle billing);
- prohibiting card issuers from increasing rates retroactively on existing balances unrelated to a consumer's card account (so-called "universal default rate increase");
- requiring card issuers to mail billing statements 25 days before the due date and to consider timely any payment received before 5:00 p.m. on the due date;
- restricting terms that may be used in advertisements;
- requiring certain allocations of consumer payments; and
- limiting "over-the-limit" fees card issuers can charge consumers.
These proposed changes follow the Fed's proposed rule changes for credit card and overdraft regulations.
Fed Issues Revised Consumer Compliance Handbook
Your Scorecard For New Laws and Regulations
California law
• Mortgages: new foreclosure procedures are now law in Civil Code §§2923.5, 2923.6 and 2929.3 and Code of Civil Procedure §1161b.
Federal law
• Credit Cards: the 2008 Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act, now law, clairifies the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003;
• Credit Cards and Deposit Accounts: "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" are refined and redefined in revisions to Regulation AA, revisions to Regulation DD, and revisions to Regulation Z;
• Mortgages: Regulation X would get a makeover in HUD's proposed rule amending the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act;
• Arbitration: the proposed "Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007" would slice and dice the Federal Arbitration Act; the "Automobile Arbitration Fairness Act of 2008," would eviscerate pre-dispute arbitration provisions in auto sales or lease contracts.
9th Circuit Addresses FDCPA "Bona Fide Error" Defense
In Reichert, plaintiff debtor sued National Credit Systems ("NCS") in connection with its collection activities for debtor's former landlord. The debt that NCS attempted to collect included a $225 charge by the landlord's attorney for writing a letter to the debtor. The debtor alleged, among other things, that the inclusion of this charge, which was not specifically provided in the lease, violated FDCPA provision 15 U.S.C. §1692f(1). The district court granted summary judgment for the debtor. NCS appealed. Continue Reading...
9th Circuit Reviews Attorney's Fees Under FDCPA
In Comacho, plaintiff sued defendant Bridgeport in a putative class action alleging violation of the FDCPA. The parties settled the case shortly after the district court certified a statewide class with more than 7,000 members. As part of the settlement, Bridgeport agreed to pay "reasonable and necessary" attorney's fees to be determined by the district court if the parties could not agree (and they could not). The district court awarded plaintiff $77,069.36 of the $167,434.36 in attorney's fees she sought, and plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding: (1) the district court failed to identify the relevant community in awarding fees; (2) the district court failed to address or determine the prevailing market rate in awarding attorney's fees; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by awarding a flat $500 award without calculating the lodestar. Continue Reading...
