Consumer Protection Litigation

Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an interim final rule supporting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) temporary eviction moratorium. The CDC’s temporary eviction moratorium has been extended through June 30, 2021 based on the current and projected epidemiological context of SARS-CoV-2 transmission throughout the United States. The CDC order generally prohibits landlords from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent if the tenant submits a written declaration that they are unable to afford full rental payments and would likely become homeless or have to move into a shared living setting. This prohibition applies to an agent or attorney acting as a debt collector on behalf of a landlord or owner of the residential property.
Continue Reading The CFPB Issues Interim Final Rule Clarifying that Tenants Can Hold Debt Collectors Accountable for Illegal Evictions

While the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly every industry last year, the consumer finance industry faced unique challenges in the wake of economic changes and government response. In this report Perkins Coie offers an analysis of the past year’s most noteworthy regulatory developments and litigation outcomes in the mortgage lending and servicing industry. We review the

CFPB Director nominee, Rohit Chopra, testifies about his potential regulatory and enforcement priorities in Senate Hearing. President Biden tapped Rohit Chopra, currently the FTC Commissioner, as his nominee to serve as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Director. During his nomination hearing in front of the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released two final rules amending the General Qualified Mortgage loan definition in Regulation Z and creating a new “Seasoned QM” loan category in Regulation Z. The General QM Final Rule replaces the current requirement for the General QM loans that the consumer’s debt-to-income ratio (DTI) not exceed 43 percent

In this episode of White Collar Briefly, Perkins Coie’s David Biderman, firmwide chair of the Consumer Products & Services Litigation group, sits down with Craig Lackey, general counsel of Rushmore Loan Management Services, a major servicer of residential mortgages nationwide. Their discussion covers topics such as the COVID-19-related downturn on the economy and mortgage servicer

Perkins Coie Partner, Barak Cohen was quoted in VIXIO PaymentsCompliance “CFPB Opens Gate To Regulated Open Banking In U.S.” regarding the new rule on third-party access to consumer financial data the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will begin developing in the United States.

Click here to read the full update.

Ben Purser, chief risk officer for mortgage lender, Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation, and Barak Cohen, partner in Perkins Coie’s White Collar & Investigations practice and lead for the firm’s Commercial Litigation in Washington, D.C., discuss the challenges of legal compliance and risk in an industry that has been directly affected by two global financial crises

The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is the leading debt collection practices act, serving as the lynchpin of federal consumer protections in the area of debt collection as well as serving as a model for numerous state enactments. Not surprisingly, litigation often focuses on the crucial questions of who is a “debt collector” and what is “debt collection” for purposes of the FDCPA. This area of law has received close scrutiny in recent years with published cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, the Supreme Court had to decide whether “one principally involved in ‘the enforcement of security interests’ is . . . a debt collector” for purposes of the FDCPA. Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029, 1031 (2019). The Court concluded that the statutory language of the FDCPA’s definition of “debt collector” places:


Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Clarifies Its Approach in FDCPA Cases Concerning Foreclosure

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, in response to the national emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Four key provisions of the CARES Act are likely to affect mortgage loan servicers: (1) credit protection; (2) a moratorium on foreclosures; (3) forbearance on mortgage payments; and (4) a moratorium on eviction filings. Compliance with the CARES Act may be straightforward for moratoriums but more challenging for credit reporting and regulatory compliance. This post provides an updated summary of salient portions of the CARES Act and identifies potential regulatory compliance pitfalls.
Continue Reading CARES Act Regulatory Considerations for Mortgage Servicers

Under California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), if a borrower obtains injunctive relief or is awarded damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 2924.12(h), the court may award the prevailing borrower reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

In cases where the court ultimately determines that the mortgage lender or servicer violated the provision of the HBOR outlined in Civ. Code Section 2924.12(a)(1) and (b), the borrower would undoubtedly be entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs.  However, HBOR does not make clear whether the borrower would be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in cases where the borrower applies for injunctive relief before the court makes an ultimate decision on the merits of the case. Specifically, the statute does not clarify when (i.e., in what phase of the litigation) the borrower is entitled to an award of fees and costs, nor does it distinguish between permanent and preliminary injunctions. And in the few iterations of the HBOR since it became effective in 2013, Civil Code Section 2924.12 has remained largely unaltered, substantively, on attorney fee and costs rewards for injunctive relief.
Continue Reading California’s Third District Court of Appeal Expands a Borrower’s Right to Attorney’s Fees Under the Homeowner Bill of Rights