LVNV Funding agrees to remittitur (reduction of damages awarded in judgment) by vacature of post-chargeoff interest and attorney fee award on appeal

Hendrix v LVNV Funding LLC, No. 13-17-00219-CV (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi, Oct 19, 2017)

In this somewhat unusual appeal from the judgment granted in a debt-buyer's favor, LVNV Funding LLC spared itself the trouble of filing an appellee's brief defending the judgment on a charged-off Chase credit card debt, and instead agreed to a reduction of damages. The court of appeals obliged by granting LVNV's unopposed motion for a voluntary remittitur, and affirmed the judgment as modified, with the prejudgment interest and attorney's fees deleted. 

In her briefing in this IFP appeal from a judgment granted on a debt dating from 2009, the attorney for the consumer-defendant had argued that LVNV was not entitled to recover post-chargeoff interest, and that the Plaintiff had offered no evidence to show proper presentment of the attorney's fee claim as a condition precedent for fee recovery under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. While appellant's brief averred that there was no evidence to support the underlying judgment as regards the attorney fees and prejudgment interest, she did not challenge the principal amount of the credit card debt and requested that the appellate court reduce the total award by subtracting out the award of attorney fees ($8,397.93) and prejudgment interest ($5,012.68) from the total, bringing down the final award to $28,579.01.

HOLLY M. HENDRIX, Appellant,
v.
LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Appellee.

No. 13-17-00219-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi, Edinburg.

(transferred from Third Court of Appeals in Austin, TX)

Delivered and filed October 19, 2017.

Amy Clark, for Holly M. Hendrix, Appellant.
Ricci Ann Crites, Michael J. Scott, Nicole Goldie-Terrill, for LVNV Funding, LLC, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, of Travis County, Texas (Judge Eric Shepperd) 

Trial Court Cause No. C-1-CV-12-008951

Style: Holly M. Hendrix v. LVNV Funding, LLC 

Panel: Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by Justice GINA M. BENAVIDES.

Appellant Holly M. Hendrix filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's final judgment rendered in favor of appellee LVNV Funding, LLC (LVNV) in trial court cause number C-1-CV-12-008951 in the County Court at Law No. 1 of Travis County, Texas. Her appeal was transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals by order of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.220(a) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (delineating the jurisdiction of appellate courts); TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (granting the supreme court the authority to transfer cases from one court of appeals to another at any time that there is "good cause" for the transfer).

Appellee LVNV brought suit against Hendrix for breach of a credit card agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of LVNV. The final judgment awarded LVNV $28,579.01 in actual damages, $5,012.68 in prejudgment interest, and $8,397.92 in attorney's fees. 

By two issues, Hendrix argues that the trial court erred in awarding LVNV prejudgment interest and attorney's fees, and she requests that we reverse these two awards. Hendrix does not otherwise attack the award of damages.

LVNV has now filed an unopposed motion for voluntary remittitur through which it suggests that we modify and affirm the final judgment to conform to Hendrix's requests:

As provided above, Appellee would respectfully ask that this Court consider Appellee's voluntary remittitur and modify and affirm the Final Judgment rendered in Case No. C-1-CV-12-008951 to conform with Appellant's prayer in its brief. Appellee remits that the Final Judgment should be modified as follows: the amount of prejudgment interest awarded should be modified from [$5,012.68] to $0.00; the amount of attorney's fees awarded should be modified from $8,397.92 to $0.00. Concurrent with the prayer of Appellant, Appellee would ask that the damage portion of the Final Judgment in the amount of $28,579.01 be unchanged and affirmed.

LVNV requests this remittitur "without any admissions or acceptance of Appellant's claims." LVNV nevertheless maintains that remittitur would be appropriate to resolve this case.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 46 delineates two means by which remittitur may be effectuated on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 46.3; Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 51 (Tex. 1998). First, the court of appeals may suggest a remittitur in lieu of ordering a new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 46.3; see Formosa Plastics Corp. USA, 960 S.W.2d at 51.

Second, a party may voluntarily remit if a court of appeals reverses the trial court's judgment because of a legal error that affects only part of the damages awarded by the judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 46.5; see Formosa Plastics Corp. USA, 960 S.W.2d at 51. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 46 does not expressly authorize a party to voluntarily remit to the Court on its own motion prior to the Court's consideration of the appeal on the merits. We nevertheless conclude that it is appropriate under the circumstances present here.

Rule 46.5 states, "If the remittitur is timely filed and the court of appeals determines that the voluntary remittitur cures the reversible error, then the court must accept the remittitur and reform and affirm the trial court judgment in accordance with the remittitur." TEX. R. APP. P. 46.5. Here, LVNV has concurred with Hendrix's request that we modify and affirm the final judgment to omit the awards of prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. In this regard, we note that a request for remittitur need not concede error. See id.& cmt.; cf. id. R. 42.1(a)(2) (allowing an appellate court to render judgment effectuating the parties' agreement). 

A voluntary suggestion of remittitur may be construed as an acceptance of remittitur under the rules. See TEX. R. APP. P. 46.5; see also Melton v. State, No. 03-17-00096-CV, 2017 WL 2729897, at *2 (Tex. App.-Austin June 21, 2017, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (accepting a voluntary suggestion of remittitur while noting that the appellate court would "ordinarily" suggest a remittitur and construing the request as accepting a suggested remittitur); Maya Walnut, LLC v. Lopez-Rodriguez, No. 05-16-00750-CV, 2017 WL 1684679, at *7 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 3, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (construing appellee's request for reformation of the judgment regarding excessive damages as "accepting the suggested remittitur"); Mesquite Elks Lodge No. 2404 v. Shaikh, No. 05-08-01372-CV, 2011 WL 989037, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Mar. 22, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op. on reh'g) ("We conclude appellees' voluntary remittitur cures the reversible error, and we accept it. We . . . modify the trial court's judgment to reflect the remittitur . . . and affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.")

Accordingly, we grant LVNV's unopposed motion for voluntary remittitur. 

We modify the final judgment by (1) deleting the award of $5,012.68 in prejudgment interest and awarding instead $0.00 in prejudgment interest, and (2) deleting the award of $8,397.92 in attorney's fees and awarding instead $0.00 in attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment, as modified.

EXCERPT FROM APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

Brief for Consumer-Debtor by Amy Elizabeth Clark 

JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT

Judgment signed by Judge Eric M. Shepperd 

SELECTED DOCUMENT RELIED ON BY LVNV

TO MAKE ITS CASE IN THE TRIAL COURT

"Business Records Affidavit" of Taylor Howell for Debt Buyer LVNV

Final CHASE statement from 2009 with APR in excess of 30% 

See more documents for ---> Trial Court Cause No. C-1-CV-12-008951 LVNV Funding LLC v Holly M. Hendrix in Travis County Court at Law No. 1 by visiting the county clerk's website.

CFPB Summary of robosigning and other debt-collection violations by Chase Bank USA NA and Chase Bank Services, Inc. and terms of consent order

JUL 8 2015

CFPB, 47 States and D.C. Take Action Against JPMorgan Chase for Selling Bad Credit Card Debt and Robo-Signing Court Documents 

Chase Ordered to Overhaul Debt Sales and Halt Collections on 528,000 Consumers’ Accounts

  

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Attorneys General in 47 states and the District of Columbia took action against JPMorgan Chase for selling bad credit card debt and illegally robo-signing court documents. The CFPB and states found that Chase sold “zombie debts” to third-party debt buyers, which include accounts that were inaccurate, settled, discharged in bankruptcy, not owed, or otherwise not collectible. The order requires Chase to document and confirm debts before selling them to debt buyers or filing collections lawsuits. Chase must also prohibit debt buyers from reselling debt and is barred from selling certain debts. Chase is ordered to permanently stop all attempts to collect, enforce in court, or sell more than 528,000 consumers’ accounts. Chase will pay at least $50 million in consumer refunds, $136 million in penalties and payments to the CFPB and states, and a $30 million penalty to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in a related action.

“Chase sold bad credit card debt and robo-signed documents in violation of law,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today we are ordering Chase to permanently halt collections on more than 528,000 accounts and overhaul its debt-sales practices. We will continue to be vigilant in taking action against deceptive debt sales and collections practices that exploit consumers.”

Chase Bank, USA N.A. and its subsidiary Chase BankCard Services, Inc. are based in Newark, Del. and provide consumers with credit card accounts. From 2009 to 2013, when consumers defaulted on debts, Chase attempted to collect by contacting consumers, filing collections lawsuits, and selling accounts to third-party debt buyers. When Chase sold accounts, it provided debt buyers with an electronic sale file containing certain basic information about the debts from Chase’s internal databases, which the debt buyers used to collect on the debts. Chase was also responsible for preparing affidavits to verify debts when it or its debt buyers filed lawsuits to collect on defaulted credit card debts.

The CFPB found that Chase violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices. Chase sold faulty and false debts to third-party collectors, including accounts with unlawfully obtained judgments, inaccurate balances, and paid-off balances. Chase also sold debts that were owed by deceased borrowers. Chase also filed misleading debt-collections lawsuits against consumers using robo-signed and illegally sworn statements to obtain false or inaccurate judgments for unverified debts. Specifically, the CFPB and states found that Chase:

• Sold bad debts to third-party debt buyers: Chase sold certain accounts that had already been settled by agreement, paid in full, discharged in bankruptcy, identified as fraudulent and not owed by the debtor, subject to an agreed-upon payment plan, no longer owned by Chase, or that were otherwise no longer enforceable. Chase also sold debts with missing or erroneous information such as whether the debt had been paid and the amount owed.

• Assisted third-party debt buyers in deceptively collecting debt: By selling inaccurate or uncollectable debts, Chase subjected certain consumers to debt collection by its debt buyers on accounts that were not theirs, in amounts that were incorrect or uncollectable. Chase knew, or should have known, that third-party debt buyers would seek to collect these faulty debts. Therefore, by providing inadequate or incorrect information, Chase assisted debt buyers in deceptive collection activities.

• Robo-signed affidavits to sue consumers for unverified debt: Chase filed more than 528,000 debt collections lawsuits against consumers and provided more than 150,000 sworn statements to debt buyers for their collections lawsuits against consumers, often using robo-signed documents. In doing so, Chase systematically failed to prepare, review, and execute truthful statements as required by law. Chase also made calculation errors when filing debt collection lawsuits that sometimes resulted in judgments against consumers for incorrect amounts. Chase failed to notify consumers and the courts once it learned of these problems.

CFPB Press Release (snip from agency's website) 

Enforcement Action

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions or individuals engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices or that otherwise violate federal consumer financial laws. Chase suspended collections litigation in 2011 and stopped selling debts in 2013. The CFPB and state actions provide relief for injured consumers, prohibit Chase from reviving its unlawful practices, and impose penalties for Chase’s law violations. Specifically, the order requires Chase to:

• Cease collecting on 528,000 accounts: Chase cannot collect, enforce in court, sell, or transfer debts for consumers whose Chase credit card accounts were sent to collections litigation between January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2014. If Chase previously obtained a court judgment requiring consumers to pay the debt, Chase will notify the consumer that they will not try to collect, enforce, or sell the judgment. Chase will also contact the three major credit reporting companies to request that the judgments not be reported against consumers. These accounts had an original face value estimated at several billion dollars when Chase sent them to collections litigation. The actual market value is now estimated in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Debt relief of this kind permanently protects consumers from any further collections and judgments on these accounts.

• Pay at least $50 million in cash redress to consumers: Chase will pay cash refunds to consumers against whom collections litigation was pending between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, for amounts paid above what the consumer owed when the debt was referred for litigation, plus 25 percent of the excess amount paid.

• Prohibit debt buyers from reselling accounts: Chase must require by contract or agreement that debt buyers cannot resell debts purchased from Chase, unless to sell back to Chase.

• Confirm debt before selling to debt buyers: Chase cannot sell debts that have been paid, settled, discharged, or are otherwise uncollectable. Prior to sale, Chase must provide account-level documentation to debt buyers confirming that the debts are accurate and enforceable. For a minimum of three years after selling the debt, Chase must make certain additional account information available to debt buyers including agreements, statements, and dispute records.

• Notify consumers that their debt has been sold and make their account information available to them: Chase must notify consumers when their account is sold and reveal who purchased the account, the amount owed at the time of sale, and that consumers can request further information about their accounts at no charge.

• Not sell zombie debts and other specified debts: Chase may not sell debts that do not have the required documentation, have been charged off for over three years or where the consumer has not paid for three years, are in litigation, are owed by a servicemember, are owed by someone who is deceased, or where the debtor has a payment plan.

• Withdraw, dismiss, or terminate collections litigation: Chase will withdraw, dismiss, or terminate all pre-judgment collections litigation pending at any time after January 1, 2009.

• Stop robo-signing affidavits: Declarations must be signed by hand, must reflect the actual date of signing, and must be based on the direct knowledge of the person signing and their review of Chase’s business records. Supporting documents submitted for debt collection litigation must be actual records of the debt, verified to be accurate, and not created solely for litigation.

• Verify debts when filing a lawsuit: When filing collections lawsuits, Chase is required to submit specific information associated with the debt including the name of the creditor at the time of the last payment, the date of the last extension of credit, the date of the last payment, the amount of debt owed, and a breakdown of any post-charge-off interest and fees.

• Pay $30 million civil penalty: Chase will pay a fine for its unlawful debt sales and robo-signing practices.

Chase must also implement policies, procedures, systems, and controls to ensure compliance with federal consumer financial laws when selling and collecting debts.

The Bureau is joined by 47 states and the District of Columbia in today’s action. The Bureau also worked in coordination with the OCC, which entered into a related agreement with Chase in 2013. The total relief to consumers includes debt relief associated with halting collections on more than 528,000 consumers’ accounts and at least $50 million in refunds. The amount of penalties and payments to states includes a $30 million civil penalty paid to the CFPB, a $30 million civil penalty paid to the OCC on the related matter, and $106 million in payments to states.

A copy of the consent order can be found at:http://www.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order-chase-bank-usa-na-and-chase-bankcard-services-inc.pdf

###

Director of OCC on imposition of $30 mil fine on Chase Bank for robosigning and other shady debt collection practices

Text of Comptroller's Statement below. Click to read original on OCC's website here. 

Statement of Thomas J. Curry

Comptroller of the Currency

On Civil Money Penalties Assessed Against

JPMorgan Chase Bank

July 8, 2015

The civil money penalty we are assessing today follows an enforcement action that we
took against JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. and two of its affiliates in 2013. That action
focused on non-mortgage debt collection practices and Servicemember Civil Relief Act
compliance. At that time, we required corrective action to address the deficiencies plus
restitution for customers harmed by improper practices. To date, more than $50 million in
restitution has been paid by the bank to affected customers.

Compliance with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or SCRA, is a matter of great
concern to me and to the OCC. The men and women who serve in the uniformed military
not only put themselves at risk, but they give up the comforts of home and family, and
they sacrifice financially. Congress took note of their financial sacrifice in passing the
SCRA, and we recognized it in changes we made to our examination procedures in 2013.
At that time, we mandated that SCRA compliance be evaluated as part of every exam at
every institution we supervise. Each of those examinations must include a review of the
process the bank uses to comply with rate reduction requests from individuals who go on
active duty, as well as an evaluation of the bank’s foreclosure practices with respect to
servicemembers. Although these steps are not required by law, we felt they were
necessary to ensure that the men and women who serve our country receive the legal
protections they are entitled to.

With respect to debt collection, it was dismaying to find that documents being used in
litigation were being rushed through in a process that has come to be known as “robosigning.”
Our action in 2013 was aimed at ensuring that affidavits and other sworn
documents are accurate, based on the knowledge of the person signing the document, and
properly notarized.

Today, after having taken time to assess the full extent of the deficiencies, we are joining
with the CFPB and the states in assessing monetary penalties. These come on top of the
restitution required by our previous order, and they will help ensure that banks treat all
customers, including member of the armed services, fairly.

CONSENT ORDER FOR A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY

[To view the original pdf document click --> here]

The Comptroller of the Currency of the United States of America (“Comptroller”),
through his national bank examiners and other staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (“OCC”), has conducted an examination of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Columbus,
Ohio, JPMorgan Bank and Trust Company, N.A., San Francisco, California, and Chase Bank
USA, N.A., Wilmington, Delaware (collectively referred to as “Bank”). The OCC has identified
unsafe or unsound practices in connection with (i) the Bank’s sworn document and collections
litigation practices and (ii) the Bank’s efforts to comply with the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act (“SCRA”). The OCC has informed the Bank of the findings resulting from the examination.
These unsafe or unsound practices were addressed by a Consent Cease and Desist Order issued
by the OCC against the Bank on September 18, 2013. The 2013 Consent Cease and Desist
Order, in part, required the Bank to undertake remedial and corrective actions, including
restitution, with respect to its sworn document, collections litigation, and SCRA compliance
practices.

The Bank, by and through its duly elected and acting Boards of Directors (collectively
referred to as “Board”), has executed a Stipulation and Consent to the Issuance of an Order for a
Civil Money Penalty, dated July 8, 2015, that is accepted by the Comptroller (“Stipulation”). By
this Stipulation, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Bank has consented to the
issuance of this Consent Order for a Civil Money Penalty (“Order”) by the Comptroller. The
Bank has begun corrective action, and is committed to taking all necessary and appropriate steps
to remedy the deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices identified by the OCC, and to
enhance the Bank’s sworn document, collections litigation, and SCRA compliance practices.

ARTICLE I
COMPTROLLER’S FINDINGS

The Comptroller finds, and the Bank neither admits nor denies, the following:

(1) For purposes of this Order, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Accounts” refers to accounts for an extension of credit in all lines of
business, except home lending, regardless of whether they are in
Collections Litigation.
(b) “Collections Litigation” refers to attempts by the Bank (or a third party
acting on its behalf), through legal proceedings in the United States, to (i)
collect, or establish liability for, debts or liabilities in connection with
Accounts in all lines of business, except home lending, or (ii) establish the
Bank’s right, title, and interest in and to collateral and/or realize on and
liquidate collateral in connection with such Accounts.

(2) The Comptroller incorporates this paragraph from Article I of the September 18,
2013 Consent Cease and Desist Order. In connection with the Bank’s sworn document and
Collections Litigation processes, and the Bank’s efforts to comply with the SCRA, the Bank:

(a) Filed or caused to be filed in courts affidavits executed by its employees
or employees of third-party service providers making various assertions in
which the affiant represented that the assertions in the affidavit were made
based on personal knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the
relevant books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based on
such personal knowledge or review of the relevant books and records;
(b) In some instances, filed or caused to be filed in courts inaccurate sworn
documents that resulted in obtaining judgments with financial errors in
favor of the Bank;
(c) Filed or caused to be filed in courts numerous affidavits that were not
properly notarized, including those not signed or affirmed in the presence
of a notary, where required;
(d) Failed to have in place effective policies and procedures across the Bank
to ensure compliance with the SCRA;
(e) Failed to devote sufficient financial, staffing and managerial resources to
ensure proper administration of its sworn document and Collections
Litigation processes;
(f) Failed to devote to its sworn document and Collections Litigation
processes adequate internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance
risk management, internal audit, third party management, and training; and
(g) Failed to sufficiently oversee outside counsel and other third-party
providers handling sworn document and Collections Litigation services.

(3) The unsafe or unsound practices identified by the OCC were most prevalent in the
Bank’s consumer and community banking lines of business, including credit card services, auto
lending, and student lending.

(4) By reason of the conduct set forth above, the Bank recklessly engaged in unsafe
or unsound banking practices, which were part of a pattern of misconduct.

ARTICLE II
ORDER FOR A CIVIL MONEY PENALTY

Pursuant to the authority vested in him by the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C.
§ 1818(i), the Comptroller orders, and the Bank consents to the following:

(1) The Bank shall jointly and severally make payment of a civil money penalty in
the total amount of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000), which shall be paid upon the execution
of this Order:
(a) If a check is the selected method of payment, the check shall be made
payable to the Treasurer of the United States and shall be delivered to:
Comptroller of the Currency, P.O. Box 979012, St. Louis, Missouri
63197-9000.
(b) If a wire transfer is the selected method of payment, it shall be sent in
accordance with instructions provided by the Comptroller.
(c) The docket number of this case (AA-EC-2014-64) shall be entered on the
payment document or wire confirmation and a photocopy of the payment
document or confirmation of the wire transfer shall be sent immediately,
by overnight delivery, to the Director of Enforcement and Compliance,
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20219.

(2) This Order shall be enforceable to the same extent and in the same manner as an
effective and outstanding order that has been issued and has become final pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
§ 1818(h) and (i).

ARTICLE III
OTHER PROVISIONS

(1) This Order is intended to be, and shall be construed to be, a final order issued
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(2), and expressly does not form, and may not be construed to
form, a contract binding on the Comptroller or the United States.

(2) This Order constitutes a settlement of the civil money penalty proceeding against
the Bank contemplated by the Comptroller, based on the unsafe or unsound practices described
in the Comptroller’s Findings set forth in Article I of this Order. The Comptroller releases and
discharges the Bank and its subsidiaries from all potential liability for a civil money penalty that
has been or might have been asserted by the Comptroller based on the practices described in the
Comptroller’s Findings set forth in Article I of this Order, to the extent known to the Comptroller
as of the effective date of this Order. Provided, however, that (i) except as otherwise specified in
this paragraph, nothing in the Stipulation or this Order shall prevent the Comptroller from
instituting other enforcement actions against the Bank and its subsidiaries or any of its
institution-affiliated parties based on the findings set forth in this Order, or any other findings,
(ii) the practices described in Article I of this Order may be utilized by the Comptroller in other
future enforcement actions against the Bank or its institution-affiliated parties to establish a
pattern or the continuation of a pattern, and (iii) nothing in the Stipulation or this Order shall
preclude or affect any right of the Comptroller to determine and ensure compliance with the
terms and provisions of the Stipulation or this Order.

(3) The terms of this Order, including this paragraph, are not subject to amendment or
modification by any extraneous expression, prior agreements, or prior arrangements between the
parties, whether oral or written.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of July 2015.

___/s/________________________________
Maryann H. Kennedy
Deputy Comptroller
Large Bank Supervision

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

OCC PRESS RELEASE

ON REGULATORY ACTION AGAINST CHASE BANK

AND 30 MILLION DOLLAR FINE  

NR 2015-98

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 8, 2015

Contact: Robert M. Garsson
(202) 649-6870

OCC Fines JPMorgan Chase $30 Million for Deficiencies in Debt Collection Practices and Servicemembers Civil Relief Act Compliance

WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today assessed a $30 million civil money penalty against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; JPMorgan Bank and Trust Company, N.A.; and Chase Bank USA, N.A. for unsafe or unsound practices related to the non-home loan debt collection litigation practices and to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) compliance practices.

The unsafe or unsound practices involved deficiencies in the bank’s practices and procedures related to the preparation and notarization of affidavits and other sworn documents used in the bank’s debt collection litigation and deficiencies in its SCRA compliance program.

The penalty, paid to the U.S. Treasury, follows the enforcement action issued by the OCC on September 18, 2013. That order required the bank to provide remediation to affected consumers and to correct deficiencies in the bank’s practices and procedures.

As of June 2015, consumers have received more than $50 million as a result of the OCC’s 2013 orders. Bank management continues to identify impacted consumers and servicemembers as required under the OCC Consent Order, and will pay additional restitution to affected consumers as necessary.

OCC national bank examiners continue to monitor the bank’s compliance with the order.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) along with 47 states and the District of Columbia, are taking separate actions, which were also announced today.

Related Links

• Consent Order for the Assessment of a Civil Money Penalty (PDF)
• Statement of Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry (PDF)