New York’s Department of Financial Services Issues Regulation for Financial Institutions to Provide Relief to Consumers Suffering Financial Hardship Resulting from COVID-19 Pandemic

Wayne StreibichDiana M. Eng, Andrea M. RobertsScott D. Samlin

On March 21, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.9, directing institutions regulated by New York’s Department of Financial Services (“NY DFS”) to provide financial relief to New York consumers experiencing financial hardship as a result of the pandemic. As a result, on March 24, 2020, NY DFS enacted Part 119 of Title 3 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (“NYCRR”) establishing standards and procedures that a “Regulated Institution” must follow in its review of requests for relief pursuant to Executive Order 202.9. Importantly, Section 119.2 defines a “Regulated Institution” as “any New York regulated banking organization as defined under New York Banking Law and any New York regulated mortgage servicer entity subject to the authority of the Department.” (Emphasis added).

Highlights of the NY DFS Regulation1

Section 119.3 directs the Regulated Institution to do the following for any individual who can demonstrate financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • In connection with a residential mortgage of a property located in NY: (i) make applications for forbearance of any payment due widely available to any individual who resides in NY and (ii) grant such forbearance for a period of 90 days (subject to the safety and soundness requirements of the Regulated Institution). This provision does not apply to, and does not affect mortgage loans “made, insured, or securitized by any agency or instrumentality of the United States, any Government Sponsored Enterprise, or a Federal Home Loan Bank, or the rights and obligations of any lender, issuer, servicer or trustee of such obligations, including servicers for the Government National Mortgage Association.”
  • With respect to banking organizations: (1) eliminate fees charged for the use of ATMs that are owned or operated by the regulated banking organization; (2) eliminate any overdraft fees; and (3) eliminate any credit card late payment fees. (Regulated Institutions are not limited to these three requirements and may take additional actions if they so desire.)

Within ten (10) business days of the implementation of this regulation, i.e., by April 7, 2020, the Regulated Institution shall e-mail, publish on their website, mass mail, or otherwise broadly communicate to its customers how to apply for relief. The criteria, developed by the Regulated Institution, “shall be clear, easy to understand, and reasonably tailored to the requirements of the [R]egulated [I]nstitution to assess whether it will provide, consistent with the goals of Executive Order 202.9 and this regulation, applicable state and federal law, and the principles of safe and sound business practices, COVID-19 relief.” 3 NYCRR § 119.3(d)(1).

In addition, Section 119.3(e) outlines the requirements for processing applications for relief, as follows:

  • The Regulated Institution must process and respond to the request for relief no later than ten (10) business days after receiving all the information it needs to process the application;
  • The Regulated Institution must process the application for relief expeditiously; the Regulated Institution is responsible for developing and implementing the procedures to do so; and
  • Decisions on the application for relief shall be made in writing and provide the consumers the next steps if they are approved or denied the request.

Finally, Section 119.39(4) modifies Section 39 of the New York Banking Law concerning unsafe and unsound business practices. Under the modified section, it is an “unsafe and unsound business practice” if any Regulated Institution does not “grant a forbearance of any payment due on a residential mortgage for a period of ninety (90) days to any individual who has applied for such forbearance and demonstrated a financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic as described herein.” NY DFS will consider, among other things, the adequacy of the process established by the Regulated Institution, the thoroughness of the review of the application, and the payment history, creditworthiness and financial resources of the borrower, in assessing whether a regulated institution has engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice. Regulated Institutions must also maintain copies of all files related to implementation of Part 119 for seven (7) years from March 24, 2020 (date of implementation of the regulation) and must make such files available for inspection at the NY DFS’ next examination of the Regulated Institution.

The standards and procedures set forth in Part 119 shall be in effect for ninety (90) days. After the expiration of the 90-day period, NY DFS will renew this emergency regulation, if necessary.

Conclusion

Regulated Institutions must implement processes and procedures to comply with Part 119 by April 7, 2020, including immediately setting up procedures to review applications for relief and taking the necessary steps to notify its customers of how to apply for such relief. Thus, Regulated Institutions should determine which of its loans, if any, are subject to this regulation and accept and review its customers for forbearance relief as described in the regulation.

Mr. Streibich would like to thank Diana M. Eng, Andrea M. Roberts, and Scott D. Samlin for their assistance in developing this alert.


1 This Alert provides the highlights of the regulation, which does not apply to any commercial mortgage or any other loans not described in the regulation. Please visit the NY DFS website for the complete regulation: dfs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/03/re_new_pt119_nycrr3_text.pdf.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Statute of Limitations for FDCPA Claim Runs One Year from Alleged Violation, Not Discovery

Wayne Streibich, Diana M. Eng, Jonathan M. Robbin, Scott E. Wortman, and William L. Purtell

The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) recently affirmed the Third Circuit’s decision holding Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations from the date of an alleged violation and rejecting the Fourth and Ninth Circuit’s adoption of a broad “discovery rule.” However, debt collectors should take note that equitable tolling principles may still apply in certain circumstances. 

On December 10, 2019, in Rotkiske v. Klemm, — S. Ct. — (2019), the Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that the one-year statute of limitations under the FDCPA accrues when a violation of the FDCPA occurs, not when that violation is discovered by the consumer. The Justices ruled 8-1 in the case, with Justice Thomas writing the opinion and Justice Sotomayor concurring. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissent, which would have remanded the case back to the district court to re-review the consumer’s separate allegations of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.

Summary of Facts

In 2009, respondent Klemm & Associates (“Klemm”) sued petitioner Kevin Rotkiske (“Rotkiske”) in state court to enforce a credit card debt, which was allegedly beyond Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for enforcement (“2009 Action”). Klemm issued service of process to an address where Rotkiske did not live, which Klemm allegedly had reason to know was inaccurate. An unknown individual accepted service on behalf of Rotkiske. Ultimately, Klemm obtained a default judgment against Rotkiske based on this return of service. Rotkiske was unaware of the default judgment against him until 2014, when his mortgage loan application was denied based on this default judgment.

Please click here to read the full client alert.

NY Appellate Court Holds Default Letter Stating Lender “Will Proceed to Automatically Accelerate” Did Not Accelerate the Debt and Thus Did Not Trigger the Statute of Limitations

Diana M. Eng and Alina Levi

In U.S. Bank N.A. v. Gordon, 176 A.D.3d 1006 (2d Dept. 2019), the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, held that a notice of default stating that if the loan was not made current, the lender “will automatically accelerate [the] loan,” was “merely an expression of future intent” and therefore did not accelerate the borrowers’ debt. As such, the Second Department held that the notice of default did not trigger the statute of limitations.

Summary of Facts and Background

On or about November 3, 2005, Steve and Ashia Gordon (“Defendants”) executed a note (“Note”), which was secured by a mortgage (“Mortgage”) against a property in Queens, New York. On or about July 1, 2011, Defendants defaulted on the loan. As a result, America’s Servicing Co. (“ASC”) sent a letter to Defendants, dated September 21, 2008 (“Notice of Default”), advising them that the loan was in default, and that, “[u]nless the payments on your loan can be brought current by October 21, 2008, it will become necessary to accelerate your Mortgage Note and pursue the remedies provided for in your Mortgage or Deed of Trust.” Moreover, the Notice of Default warned that “failure to pay this delinquency, plus additional payments and fees that may become due, will result in the acceleration of your Mortgage Note. Once acceleration has occurred, a foreclosure action . . . may be initiated.” In addition, the Notice of Default stated that “[t]o avoid the possibility of acceleration,” Defendants were required to make certain payments by a specific time, or ASC “will proceed to automatically accelerate your loan.” (Emphasis added).

On June 29, 2017, plaintiff U.S. Bank N.A. (“U.S. Bank”) commenced a foreclosure action to enforce the Defendants’ Mortgage in the Queens County Supreme (the “Lower Court”). Defendants moved to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) alleging that the statute of limitations to foreclose had expired. Specifically, Defendants argued that the entire debt was accelerated on September 21, 2008, based on the Notice of Default. Continue reading

CFPB Proposes Regulations to Clarify, Modernize, and Implement the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Wayne Streibich, Diana M. Eng, Jonathan M. Robbin, Nicole R. Topper, Scott E. Wortman, and Paul Messina Jr.

Financial institutions and debt collectors should take note of, and provide comments on, the CFPB’s recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which attempts to provide consumers with “clear protections against harassment by debt collectors and straightforward options to address or dispute debts.”      

On May 7, 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) released its long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), aiming to clarify and modernize the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The over 500-page NPRM marks the CFPB’s latest half-decade long effort to issue the first set of substantive rules interpreting the FDCPA since its passage in 1977.

Background

Seeking to curb abuses in the debt collection industry, Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977. However, with the passage of time and the creation of new technologies, ambiguities and uncertainties in the industry developed. Without any federal agency delegated authority to write substantive rules interpreting the FDCPA, the courts were left with the sole burden of doing so. That changed in 2010, when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) delegating authority to the CFPB.

Citing the ongoing and abundance of consumer complaints, as well as the need to adapt the FDCPA for modern technologies, the CFPB called for public input on potential new regulations in 2013, and again in 2016, releasing an outline of proposals under consideration. This week’s NPRM incorporates many of those ideas with some adjustments. The NPRM will be open for 90 days for public comment following its publication in the Federal Register.

Please click here for the full client alert. 

Second Circuit Holds No Need to Identify Components of Debt Where Collection Letter Provides Exact Amount Owed and Reaffirms Use of Safe Harbor in Holding Debt Collector’s Letter Did Not Violate the FDCPA

Jonathan M. Robbin, Diana M. Eng, and Namrata Loomba

In Kolbasyuk v. Capital Management Services, LP, No. 18-1260 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit recently held that a debt collector’s letters informing a consumer of the total present amount of debt owed satisfies Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) requirements. The Second Circuit’s decision clarified that, under the FDCPA, collection letters are not required to inform consumers of the debt’s constituent components, or the rates by which the debt may later increase.

Summary of Facts and Background

In July 27, 2017, Capital Management Services, LP (“CMS”) sent Plaintiff a collection letter stating “[a]s of the date of this letter, you owe $5918.69.” The letter further stated, “[b]ecause of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater.” Continue reading

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Foreclosure Firms Conducting Nonjudicial Foreclosures Are Not Debt Collectors Under the FDCPA

By: Wayne Streibich, Diana M. Eng, Cheryl S. Chang, Jonathan M. Robbin, and Namrata Loomba

The United States Supreme Court holds businesses conducting nonjudicial foreclosures are not “debt collectors” under the FDCPA, but lenders and foreclosure firms should take note that the Court specifically chose to leave open the question of whether businesses that conduct judicial foreclosures are “debt collectors” under the statute. 

On March 20, 2019, in Obduskey v. McCarthy, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion holding businesses conducting nonjudicial foreclosures are not “debt collectors” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The Supreme Court limited its decision to nonjudicial foreclosures.1 The Justices ruled 9-0 in the case, with Justice Breyer writing the opinion and Justice Sotomayor concurring.

Please click here for the full client alert. 

New York Appellate Court Rejects Usage of a Mortgage’s Reinstatement Provision as a Defense to the Expiration of the Statute of Limitations

By: Wayne Streibich, Diana M. Eng, Jonathan M. Robbin, and Diana M. Eng

On March 13, 2019, in a case of first impression, New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department (“Second Department”) issued a decision holding the reinstatement provision of a mortgage does not prevent the acceleration of the loan prior to entry of a foreclosure judgment. In Bank of New York Mellon v. Dieudonne, 2019 WL 1141973 (2d Dept. Mar. 13, 2019), the Second Department affirmed the Kings County Supreme Court’s decision granting defendant Dieudonne’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) because the foreclosure action was barred by the expiration of the statute of limitations. Specifically, the Second Department held that “the extinguishment of the defendant’s contractual right to de-accelerate the maturity of the debt pursuant to the reinstatement provision of paragraph 19 of the mortgage was not a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s acceleration of the mortgage” and, therefore, acceleration occurred upon commencement of the prior foreclosure action.

Please click here for the full client alert. 

Third Circuit Broadens Definition of “Debt Collector” under FDCPA to Include Entities That Acquire Debt but Outsource Collection of That Debt

By: Jonathan M. Robbin, Diana M. Eng, and Maria K. Vigilante

In Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC et al., a recent precedential decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held an entity whose business is the purchasing of defaulted debts for the purpose of collecting on them falls squarely within the “principal purpose” definition of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a), even where the entity does not collect the debt and a third party is retained to do so. No. 18-1042, __ F.3d __ (3d Cir. 2019).

Specifically, Barbato expanded the Supreme Court’s holding in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, 137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017) and rejected the defendant’s argument that Henson renders it a creditor rather than a debt collector because “its principal purpose is the acquisition—not the collection” of debt. Thus, the Barbato court held that where an entity meets the “principal purpose” definition, it cannot avoid the FDCPA’s requirements by retaining a third party to collect the debt.

Please click here for the full client alert. 

Ninth Circuit Holds That Fannie Mae Is Not a Consumer Reporting Agency under FCRA

By: Wayne StreibichCheryl S. Chang, Diana M. Eng, and Christine Lee

On January 9, 2019, a divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, was not a “consumer reporting agency” within the meaning of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). In Zabriskie v. Federal National Mortgage Association, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Arizona District Court’s holding that Fannie Mae acts as a consumer reporting agency when it licenses its proprietary software, Desktop Underwriter (“DU”), to lenders and that it is therefore subject to the FCRA. Zabriskie v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, Nos. 17-15807, 17-16000, 2019 WL 137931 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019).

The FCRA defines a “consumer reporting agency” as “any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f). In reaching its conclusion, the Ninth Circuit specifically examined whether Fannie Mae’s licensing of its DU software constituted: (1) regularly engaging in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information and (2) for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.

Please click here for the full client alert.

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Foreign Company’s Dual Citizenship Status but Leaves Room for Further Debate

By: Jonathan M. Robbin and Anthony Richard Yanez

A drunken tumble on a cruise ship may lead to resolving how alienage/jurisdiction is determined in the Eleventh Circuit. In Caron v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., — F.3d —, 2018 WL 6539178 (11th Cir. Dec. 13, 2018), the Eleventh Circuit, for the first time, held an alien corporation has dual citizenship, but limited its holding. Specifically, Caron held there is no diversity jurisdiction in a suit between a foreign incorporated corporation with its principal place of business in Florida and a citizen of Canada. Unfortunately, despite guidance from sister courts, Caron left unresolved the question of whether a domestic incorporated corporation with a principal place of business abroad can invoke alienage-dual citizenship diversity in a suit against an alien following the 2012 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).

Background

On July 14, 2016, Canadian citizen Olivier Caron sued Norwegian Cruise Lines (“NCL”) after he sustained personal injuries by falling down an escape hatch on a ship while he was inebriated. Mr. Caron filed suit in the Southern District of Florida asserting diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and admiralty jurisdiction.[1]

Caron argued that the alienage-diversity provision, governing suits between aliens and citizens of a State, applies, and the district court properly entertained jurisdiction under this provision. Caron is a Canadian citizen and NCL is a Bermuda corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. Thus, Caron argued that NCL is a Florida citizen for alienage-diversity jurisdiction purposes. Continue reading