In its most recent amicus brief, filedwith the Fifth Circuit on April 9, 2015 in Billings v. Propel Financial Services, LLC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) argues thatentities who lend consumers money topay property tax delinquenciesare subject to the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) because they areextending “consumer credit.” 15 U.S.C. § 1602(g). The borrowers had filed a class action against Propel Financial Services, LLC (“Propel”), a property-tax lender,alleging various TILA violationsconcerning the borrowers’ Property Tax Payment Agreement and Tax Lien Contractwith Propel.

‎‎York cooperative apartment. This law (which former Governor Cuomo vetoed in 2019) ‎represents a ‎substantial expansion of the market for reverse mortgages in New York where a ‎significant portion of ‎the elderly population lives in cooperative apartment units. The new law ‎won’t take effect until May ‎‎30, 2022, and will be subject to small, agreed, legislative changes as ‎well as regulations promulgated ‎by the New York Department of Financial Services.Interaction with Federal RequirementsFederal Home Equity Conversion Mortgages insured by the Department of Housing and Urban ‎‎Developments continue to be restricted to loans secured by real property. 24 CFR 206.45(a). ‎Thus, ‎lenders wishing to take advantage of this expansion of reverse mortgages in New York ‎must do so ‎with a proprietary, non-federally insured, product.‎Unlike HUD’s regulations, the federal Truth-in-Lending Act defines reverse mortgage broadly to ‎‎include loans secured by an interest in a cooperative apartment. 15 USC § 1602(cc) (defining ‎reverse ‎mortgages as loan secured by “the consumer’s principal dwelling”); 15 USC § 1602(w) ‎‎(defining ‎dwelling to include “individual units of … cooperatives”). Thus, reverse mortgages ‎secured by ‎cooperatives will be treated as reverse mortgages under federal law.‎Unique Provisions of New LawThe new law has significant overlap with New York’s existing requirements for reverse mortgages ‎secured by real property, but it also has some unique provisions applicable only to loans secured by ‎co-ops. ‎Citations are to newly amended sections of the New York Banking Law and existing ‎provisions ‎of the New York Real Property Law and New York Administrative Code.‎Unique provisions of the new law (which do not change the existing requirements applicable to ‎‎reverse mortgages secured by real property) are as follows:‎‎Lenders may make reverse mortgages secured by shares or membership in a cooperative ‎‎apartment, subject to the restrictions in the law and forthcoming regulation

However, despite a considerable effort by the industry to educate CFPB on this chattel issue, thus far CFPB has not responded favorably to any request that the thresholds be raised. The good news is that bi-partisan bills are now working their way through Congress that would solve this problem by changing the HOEPA thresholds in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) to APOR plus 10% for transactions under $75,000. Known as the Preserving Access to Manufactured Housing Act (HR 650/S 682), this legislation would thereby protect the true value of an estimated 1.

(Hill v. StubHub, Inc., 727 S.E.2d 550 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) review denied, 366 N.C. 424, 736 S.E.2d 757 (2013); Porras v. StubHub, Inc., C 12-1225 MMC, 2012 WL 3835073 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2012); Fabozzi v. StubHub, Inc., C-11-4385 EMC, 2012 WL 506330 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2012)) Although StubHub Inc. was able to avoid trial by alleging it was only a “marketplace” for resellers of tickets, a festival or event ticket seller would not avail themselves of such a defense. (Hill v. StubHub, Inc., 727 S.E.2d 550, 564 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) review denied, 366 N.C. 424, 736 S.E.2d 757 (2013)) Another act that regulates layaway sales is TILA. (15 U.S.C.A. § 1601 (West)) Unlike FTCA, TILA only regulates those layaway plans that have four or more payments, or that charge a servicing fee. (15 U.S.C.A. § 1602 (West)) However, TILA is more likely to give rise to litigation given the fact that it provides for attorneys’ fees for the prevailing party. (15 U.S.C.A. § 1640 (West)) TILA requires those layaway merchants that meet the specified conditions to disclose: (a) any interest or finance charges, (b) the method of determining the finance charge and the balance upon which a finance charge will be imposed, (c) the total number of payments and amount of each payment, and (d) the due dates or periods of scheduled payments.

rate information, and failure to provide meaningful customer assistance. In addition to these inconveniences, the CFPB claims that financial institutions’ widespread deployment of chatbot systems can engender security and data privacy risks.Given these risks, the CFPB asserts that financial institutions “run the risk that when chatbots ingest customer communications and provide responses, the information chatbots provide may not be accurate, the technology may fail to recognize that a consumer is invoking their federal rights, or it may fail to protect their privacy and data,” making these institutions out of compliance with federal consumer financial laws.“The shift away from relationship banking and toward algorithmic banking,” notes the report, “will have a number of long-term implications that the CFPB will continue to monitor closely.”We will continue to monitor, analyze, and issue reports on these developments.Endnotes[1] Certain exceptions and inclusions apply. Please reference 15 U.S.C. 1602(dd)(2) for a complete definition of “mortgage originator” as used in the proposed CFPB rule.[View source.]

s are applicable only to AVMs used in connection with making credit decisions or covered securitizationdeterminations regarding a mortgage, for example, when determining a new value before originating, modifying, terminating a mortgage, or making other changes to a mortgage including a decision whether to extend new or additional credit or change the credit limit on a line of credit, or placing a loan in a securitization pool. Other uses, such as monitoring collateral value in mortgage-backed securitizations after they have already been issued over time or validating an already completed valuation of real estate, would not be subject to the proposed rule.Applicability 0f the Proposed RuleMortgage Originators and BrokersThe proposed rule would not apply to mortgage brokers if they do not engage in making covered credit decisions or securitization determinations. As proposed, the term “mortgage originator” would follow the same definition contained in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), at 15 U.S.C. § 1602(dd)(2). The term would generally include creditors, as defined in TILA, such as, any person who originates two or more high-cost mortgages in any 12-month period. Further, the term is also defined broadly to include mortgage brokers.Mortgage ServicersFollowing the exception in TILA, the proposed rule would also generally not cover mortgage servicers unless they perform any of the stated origination activities for any new extensions of credit, including a refinancing or an assumption. For example, the proposed rule would apply to a mortgage servicer that both uses covered AVMs to engage in credit decisions and performs any of the stated origination activities. According to the preamble, once the definition of “mortgage originator” is met, a mortgage servicer would be required to comply with the requirements of the proposed rule any time it uses an AVM to determine the collateral worth of a mortgage, including when such usage does not involve a new extension of credit such as a loan modificati

n overdraft line of credit. . .” as being covered by the offset provision “so long as there is some sort of credit card associated with the account.” Notably, Regulation Z broadly defines “credit card” as “any card, plate, or other single credit device that may be used from time to time to obtain credit.”10 and “credit” as “the right to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment.”11 Accordingly, given these two broad definitions, borrowers could have more leeway in arguing that arrangements similar to HELOCs, irrespective of a card component, are nevertheless accorded protection under Regulation Z.* Jared Goldstein, Law Clerk, co-authored this OnPoint.FootnotesSee 15 U.S.C. § 1601; see also Truth in Lending, Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/truth-in-lending-regulation-z-.See Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/respa.pdf.See Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A, 1:20-cv-02234-SAG, 5‒8 (D. Md. 2022); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1602(1) (noting that the term “credit card” refers to “any card, plate, coupon book or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money . . . on credit.”) (citation omitted).See Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A, 1:20-cv-02234-SAG, 6 (D. Md. 2022).Id.See 15 U.S.C. § 1647; 12 C.F.R. § 1026.6(a).See Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A, 1:20-cv-02234-SAG, 6 (D. Md. 2022). Notably, the Lyons court acknowledged the underlying policy implications making it “understandable why Congress might give financial institutions more leeway to allow withdrawals from depository accounts when there is outstanding debt on a HELOC if such action might preserve a customer’s home.” Id. In the alternative, “[n]o such loss of a basic necessity is associated with collections efforts on an unpaid credit card account.” Id.Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A, 1:20-cv-02234-SAG, 7 (D. Md. 2022) (citation omitted); see 12 U.S.C. § 2602(1)(A).See § 1026.2(a)(15)(ii) (“Credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan

Once collection resumes, debt collectors must allow consumers and small businesses to commence payments at the same amount and on the same schedule that was in effect prior to the disaster or emergency period. For debts without defined payment pay-off periods (open ended credit plans as defined in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) or other open credit plans), debt collectors must allow consumers and small businesses to repay the past-due balance in a manner that does not exceed the amounts permitted by the methods described in section 171(c) of the Truth in Lending Act 15 U.S.C. 1666i-1(c). Alternatively, the Bill contains a kind of catch-all provision, allowing debt collectors of debts with no defined payment period, to allow consumers and small businesses a reasonable time in which to repay the debt in affordable payments.

This option can provide about four to six months or longer before responding to the next deadline.Trademark ExtensionsSimilarly, trademark due dates falling between March 27, 2020 and April 30, 2020, will be extended 30 days from the “initial date it was due” for the following types of filings, provided they are accompanied by a statement that “The delay in filing or payment was due to the COVID-19 outbreak as defined in subsection (1)(b) of the USPTO Notice of Waiver of Patent-Related Timing Deadlines under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act”:Response to an Office Action, including a notice of appeal from a final refusal, under 15 U.S.C. §1602(b) and 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a) and 2.141(a);Statement of Use or Request for an Extension of Time to File a Statement of Use under 15 U.S.C. §1051(d) and 37 C.F.R. §§2.88(a) and 2.89(a);Notice of Opposition or Request for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under 15 U.S.C. §1603(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§2.101(c) and 2.102(a);Priority filing basis under 15 U.S.C. §1126(d)(1) and 37 C.F.R. §2.34(a)(4)(i);Priority filing basis under 15 U.S.C. §1141g and 37 C.F.R. §7.27(c);Transformation of an extension of protection to the United States into U.S. application under 15 U.S.C. §1141j(c) and 37 C.F.R. §7.31 (a);Affidavit of use or excusable nonuse under 15 U.S.C. §1058(a) and 37 C.F.R. §2.160(a);Renewal application under 15 U.S.C. §1059 (a) and 37 C.F.R. §2.182; orAffidavit of use or excusable nonuse under 15 U.S.C. §1141k(a) and 37 C.F.R. §7.36(b).In addition, for any deadlines that may have been missed resulting in an abandonment notice, applicants can petition to revive the application on

[5] 15 U.S.C. § 1610(a)(1).[6] 15 U.S.C. §§ 1602(c), (d), and 1612(b).[7] CA Fin. Code § 22101.