New regulations under the federal Military Lending Act (“MLA”) that become effective next week will prohibit consumer loans to covered US Service members if those loans have a “military annual percentage rate” (“MAPR”) greater than 36 percent. The Defense Department’s regulations will impose that MAPR limit on additional types of consumer credit transactions (beyond just
Several of Mayer Brown’s Consumer Financial Services partners will be featured at this month’s Regulatory Compliance Conference in Washington, DC, sponsored by the Mortgage Bankers Association.
On Sunday, September 18th, Kris Kully will participate in the Compliance Essentials Workshop outlining how the Dodd Frank Act changed the regulatory framework for mortgages. This panel will…
Until recently, Florida courts had not determined what happens to liens placed on a property between the time of final judgment of foreclosure and sale. On August 24, 2016, Florida’s Fourth Appellate District decided Ober v. Town of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, which resolved the issue, holding that liens placed on the property after the final judgment of foreclosure but prior to judicial sale are not discharged by Florida’s lis pendens statute.
Continue Reading Florida Appeals Court Holds That Post-Foreclosure Judgment Liens Are Not Discharged At Sale
The Texas Constitution is strict about protecting the homestead. In fact, until 1997, the Texas Constitution did not permit home-equity loans to be secured by borrowers’ homesteads. Even now, home-equity liens are allowed only under certain conditions, among which is the requirement that a home-equity loan be made on the condition that the lender or holder will forfeit principal and interest if the loan is constitutionally noncompliant and the lender fails to cure particular issues, using one of six listed corrective actions, within 60 days of receiving notice of the violation from the homeowner. On May 20, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court announced two decisions (Garofolo and Wood) that will significantly affect home-equity lending in Texas.
Continue Reading Recent Texas Supreme Court Decisions Affect Home-Equity Lending in Texas
The controversial decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, was “incorrect” and “reflects an unduly crabbed conception of [National Bank Act] preemption,” said the Solicitor General and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) in the amicus brief filed with the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday. Still, the Solicitor General and the OCC advised the Court not to review the decision of the Second Circuit in Madden. They concluded that this just isn’t the right case for the Court to resolve the important questions of whether and under what circumstances the National Bank Act preempts state usury laws for assignees of loans made by national banks.
Continue Reading Madden Update: Solicitor General Says the Second Circuit Got it Wrong—But that the Decision Should Still Stand for Now
Today, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. In a win for the business community, the Court held that plaintiffs can’t satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement for standing to sue in federal court by merely alleging the violation of a statute, without any accompanying real-world injury. For more details…
On May 12, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) published annotated model forms (“TILA Mapping Forms”) for the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure. The CFPB intends those annotations to indicate the statutory requirements in Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) on which it relied in implementing specific portions of those forms. Unfortunately, the Mapping Forms are subject to such extensive disclaimers that the CFPB might as well have issued them over Snapchat – this “guidance” could disappear at any time.
The TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure/Know Before You Owe Rule (“TRID”) implements portions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), TILA, and the Dodd-Frank Act. Civil liability for violations of TRID is governed by the underlying statutes. To the extent the CFPB promulgated a particular TRID requirement solely under RESPA or the Dodd-Frank Act, a consumer generally would not have a private right of action for a violation of the requirement. However, a creditor – and in some circumstances, an assignee – is more likely to be subject to liability when a TRID violation involves a requirement the CFPB promulgated in whole or in part to implement Chapter 2 of TILA (also sometimes referred to as Part B of TILA).
The TRID Rule and its Commentary do not, however, address the extent to which a creditor or assignee may be held civilly liable for any particular TRID violation. In the rule’s preamble, the CFPB briefly mentions the statutory authority on which it relied in connection with each TRID requirement, but that preamble discussion is often ambiguous, difficult to parse, and occasionally even contradictory. The CFPB apparently published the TILA Mapping Forms yesterday in response to industry requests for clearer guidance. While the Mapping Forms are helpful, they do not resolve all of the complicated TRID liability issues that creditors and assignees continue to face. Perhaps most importantly, the Mapping Forms are subject to a general disclaimer that they do not represent the CFPB’s legal interpretation, guidance, or advice. They also do not purport to bind the agency or create any enforceable rights, benefits, or defenses that can be asserted by any party, in any manner. The CFPB declined to state what the Forms do represent, if anything.
Continue Reading Guidance by Snapchat? CFPB Issues TRID Forms with Mapping Citations
The oral argument before the DC Circuit in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) case against PHH Corporation has garnered a fair amount of coverage in light of the panel’s apparent interest in arguments about the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure. One of the key issues raised in PHH that has received relatively less notice…
A key question in enforcing arbitration agreements in class actions is whether arbitration will proceed on an individual or class basis. But who will answer that question – the court or the arbitrator? The Fourth Circuit recently held that, absent clear and unmistakable language in the arbitration agreement to the contrary, that threshold question about…