Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect

A recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit could signal heightened exposure for lenders and servicers to state escrow-on-interest statutes, along with greater litigation risk.

In Westconnaug Recovery Co., LLC v. U.S. Bank N.A, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has continued to rule against redemption and in favor of strict application of the Rhode Island's Tax Title Act. Specifically, an interested party must assert a statutory right to redemption under § 44-9-29 even if initially contesting the validity of tax title under § 44-9-31 in response to a foreclosure proceeding.

In Montaquila v. Flagstar Bank, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected a borrower's attempt to expand the plain language of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) federal regulation requiring loan servicers of FHA-backed mortgages to conduct a face-to-face meeting or make a "reasonable effort" to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the borrower prior to foreclosing. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the regulation only requires a trip to the property to arrange a face-to-face meeting; the actual face-to-face meeting is not required at this visit.

In Laccinole v. MRS BPO, LLC, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied a frequent pro se plaintiff’s multiple lawsuit attempt at pursuing relief against the same company under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Christopher Laccinole filed three separate lawsuits against the same company arising from fourteen different contacts between February 22, 2022 and May 5, 2022, in which Laccinole claimed the company wrongfully sought collection of a debt he did not owe. According to the decision, Laccinole deliberately pursued three separate actions for different FDCPA violations against the same party to circumvent the FDCPA’s cap on damages at $1,000 per defendant. (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A)) The Court determined that Laccinole was claim-splitting by pursuing three separate lawsuits on additional calls: separate instances of the same course of conduct by one defendant.

In a case of first impression, the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded in Woel v. Christiana Trust that mortgage default notices sent to borrowers must strictly comply with the notice requirements included in a mortgage. The Court held that a lender's notice of default does not strictly comply with the terms of the standard Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage Paragraph 22, if the notice fails to inform the borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration.

An important resource for financial services compliance professionals just received a new update. The Third Edition of the 50 State Guide on Student Loan Servicing Regulations—a quick reference guide and resource for student loan servicers regarding the regulations specific to the industry, along with pending legislation, litigation, and court rulings—now also includes language of the rules implementing state student loan servicer laws.

Last year, we reported on a Massachusetts Land Court decision, which interpreted Uniform Commercial Code section 3-309 to conclude that a mortgagee cannot foreclose in reliance upon a lost note affidavit, because the 1990 version of UCC 3-309 requires the party seeking to enforce the note demonstrate possession prior to its loss. 32 states remain under the 1990 version, and recently the Rhode Island Supreme Court joined decisions that prohibit enforcement of a lost note under this outdated version of the UCC. In SMS Fin. v. Corsetti, SMS Financial sued to enforce default on a note that was lost by a prior transferee. Sovereign Bank had loaned the defendants $1 million in exchange for a promissory note and a mortgage on property located at 385 South Main Street in Providence, Rhode Island. Following default and foreclosure, the defendants issued to Sovereign a new promissory note to repay the $200,000 deficiency on the original loan. Sovereign subsequently assigned its interest in the loan to SMS Financial; but, Sovereign had lost the original note so it delivered to SMS a lost note affidavit and an allonge. SMS filed suit against the defendants to collect on breach of the note, but the Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants because SMS could not enforce the lost note.

The Rhode Island Senate recently approved a five-year extension of R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-27-3.2, which had established a mandatory mediation program any out-of-state mortgagee must follow before initiating foreclosure on owner-occupied, residential property. The current law is set to expire on July 1, 2018. If approved by the House, Senate Bill 2270 will extend the expiration date to July 1, 2023. Companion legislation, House Bill 7385, which sought to repeal the sunset clause thereby removing rather than extending the expiration date, has stalled. Rhode Island Banking Regulation 5, which clarifies mortgagees' duties under § 34-27-3.2 and the consequences of a mortgagee's failure to comply with the law and regulation, would likewise cease if the law expires.

A Rhode Island mortgage lender recently rescinded approval of a loan application because the prospective borrower reported income from his employment in Rhode Island's medical marijuana industry. The lender was aware of the borrower's source of income at the time it issued a pre-approval letter, but ultimately denied the loan because the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) will not purchase or invest in a loan where the borrower is employed by, or receives compensation related to, the marijuana industry. FHA's Single Family Housing Policy Handbook provides that a lender may only consider a borrower's income if it is legally derived. Since marijuana remains illegal under federal law, any income derived from the cannabis industry cannot be considered as effective income for purposes of underwriting a loan. The denial of the loan came days after the United States Attorney General rescinded the Cole Memorandum, an internal justice department policy enacted during the Obama administration, which directed federal prosecutors to limit enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that legalized and regulated cannabis.

In Dan-Harry v. PNC Bank, the Rhode Island federal court concluded that a mortgagor may bring a claim for damages and other remedies against a mortgagee on allegations of failure to conduct a pre-foreclosure face-to-face meeting required for breach of an FHA-insured mortgage. Dawari Dan-Harry obtained an FHA-insured mortgage loan to purchase property in Providence, Rhode Island, which included in Paragraph 9(d) the following provisions: "Regulations of HUD Secretary. In many circumstances regulations issued by the Secretary will limit Lender's rights, in the case of payment defaults, to require immediate payment in full, and foreclose if not paid. This Security Instrument does not authorize acceleration or foreclosure if not permitted by regulations of the Secretary." PNC Bank foreclosed on the mortgage and sold the property at auction to a third-party in January 2017. While continuing to occupy the property, Dan-Harry sued PNC for damages and to void the foreclosure sale on allegations that PNC failed to comply with HUD regulation 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(b), which requires a mortgagee to have a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting before the mortgage becomes three months delinquent in payments.