This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
This constitutionality case was brought by representative groups of the payday loan industry, the Community FinancialServices Association of America and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas, alleging that the CFPB’s funding mechanism is unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause.
For example, “[a] mortgage servicing company is a debt collector under the FDCPA if it acquired the loan at issue while the loan was in default.” 9), which prohibits a person from attempting or threatening to enforce a debt it knows is not legitimate or asserting some other legalright it knows does not exist.
In the press release announcing the issuance of the report, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra stated, “[t]uition payment plans offered by schools may look like a good option, but this report shows student borrowers can end up paying high fees, be forced to sign away their legalrights, or even have their transcript withheld by their school.”
The first consideration that lenders (banks and credit unions alike) often face is when, and if, to conclude that the account owner does not intend to, or is not able to, clear the negative balance or loan deficiency. As a result, a loan that is charged off is written off and deemed a loss of principal and interest. See Caplinger v.
On November 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a blog post, exploring the potential impact of student loan payment reinstatement. The CFPB found that student loan borrowers are increasingly likely to struggle once their monthly student loan payments are reinstated.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 19,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content