Georgia regulates the small loan industry with usury laws like the Payday Lending Act and Industrial Loan Act. But, as the Georgia Supreme Court recently held, these Acts can reach only as far as their texts allow.

In Ruth v. Cherokee Funding, LLC, the Georgia Supreme Court held money advanced by a litigation finance company is not a “loan” under either the PLA or the ILA where the litigant’s obligation to repay depends on the success of her lawsuit. The opinion comes in a state class action suit against litigation finance companies that advanced money to the plaintiffs while their personal injury lawsuits were pending. Under the financing agreements their attorney executed, the plaintiffs were required to repay the funds (plus various fees and interest at an annualized rate of 59.88%) only if they recovered proceeds from their lawsuits. When the litigation finance companies sought to recover the amounts owed under the agreements, the plaintiffs sued alleging, among other things, the agreements violated the PLA and ILA.


Continue Reading

If a mortgage servicer fails to comply with its obligations under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. 2601, et seq., or its implementing regulations, a borrower may recover “any actual damages . . . as a result of the failure.” 12 U.S.C. 2605(f)(1)(A). Thus, to prevail on a RESPA claim, a borrower must show “actual damages” sustained as a result of the failure to comply. What constitutes “actual damages” has been the subject of a litany of recent decisions involving RESPA claims. In Baez v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 4220292 (Sept. 22, 2017), the Eleventh Circuit provided more clarity on the scope of “actual damages” under the statute.

Jaki Baez took out a mortgage loan in 2005, and Specialized Loan Servicing (“SLS”) took over the servicing of the loan a few years later. In January 2015, Baez stopped paying her mortgage to see if she could qualify for a loan modification agreement. She retained a law firm to both help with any ensuing foreclosure and to achieve a loan modification. She agreed to pay the firm a flat fee of $400 per month in connection with those efforts. In September 2015, Baez, through her attorney, sent a written request for information under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36(a) (part of RESPA’s implementing Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. part 1024) to SLS, in which she asked for information about her mortgage loan. SLS acknowledged the letter and later submitted a packet of information in response, but Baez claimed that the packet was deficient because it did not contain a file with SLS’s communications with her. Soon after receiving SLS’s purportedly deficient response, Baez filed suit under RESPA. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of SLS, finding that Baez failed to show that she had been injured by SLS’s response to her request for information. Baez appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.


Continue Reading

The Eleventh Circuit recently clarified that sending periodic mortgage statements following a debtor’s bankruptcy discharge is not misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer.” In Helman v. Bank of America, 15-13672, 2017 WL 1350728 (11th Cir. April 12, 2017) Gayle Helman filed suit, alleging that Bank of America violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), and other state laws when it sent Ms. Helman periodic mortgage statements after her mortgage loan was discharged in bankruptcy.  She claimed that the statements unlawfully attempted to collect a discharged debt and that such communications would be misleading to the least sophisticated consumer because it suggested she remained liable for the debt.

Continue Reading

In an unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) and held that a debtor who allegedly did not receive certain disclosures required by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) suffered an injury-in-fact to her statutorily created right to receive such information, and therefore had standing to pursue an FDCPA claim against the entity attempting to collect the debt.

Continue Reading

Few issues involving the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) are more hotly contested than whether filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA. In bankruptcy, creditors have a right to file proofs of claim outlining the debt owed to them by the bankrupt debtor. In some instances, the statute of

With the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) now employing mystery shoppers, financial institutions must ensure that their branches are actually putting non-decimation policies into practice.  As we reported here on July 1, BancorpSouth, a Mississippi-based bank, recently entered into a $10.6M settlement with the CFPB regarding alleged redlining in the Memphis market.  That investigation was

In a case that demonstrates the scope of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB’s”) reach, the CFPB and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have entered into a settlement with BancorpSouth totaling almost $10,600,000 over alleged redlining.  Redlining is the practice of denying services or raising prices to residents of certain geographic areas based upon their racial

Balch recently authored an article for Law 360 regarding the conundrum the Telephone Consumer Protection Act poses for electric utilities. While their article does not involve the financial industry, it does shed insight on the many problems created by the TCPA. For example, electric utilities are often required by state law to call customers before

The CFPB is showing that its enforcement actions are not limited to larger companies and that it will file actions in federal courts across the country.  On May 11, 2016, it filed an enforcement action against Mississippi payday lender All American Check Cashing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.  In its complaint, the CFPB alleged that all American took steps to hide its fee from customers, going so far as to train its employees to “NEVER TELL THE CUSTOMER THE FEE.”  Further, the CFPB alleges that All American took steps to prevent customers who had changed their minds from cancelling transactions.  According to the CFPB, these actions would constitute “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts” under 12 U.S.C.A. ss 5531 and 5536, portions of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

Continue Reading