600,000 Reasons to Comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act

by Ward and Smith, P.A.
Contact

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit—which covers federal courts in North Carolina—recently affirmed a borrower’s victory against a loan servicer under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).  In Daugherty v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, David Daugherty alleged that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”) failed to investigate and to correct certain erroneous information on his credit report as required under the FCRA.  A jury found that Ocwen willfully had failed to perform a reasonable investigation regarding the true status of Daugherty’s account and awarded Daugherty $6,128.39 in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages. 

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury’s findings and compensatory damage award, but reversed the punitive damage award for being unconstitutionally excessive.  This was not a victory for Ocwen, however, because the Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to provide Daugherty the option of accepting a punitive damages award of $600,000 or proceeding to a new trial on punitive damages.  A problem that could have been resolved with modest effort by Ocwen now will cost them over half a million dollars. 

The facts of the underlying case are basic.  In 1999, the Daughertys financed a home purchase with a 15-year balloon note payable in July 2014.  In 2012, the Daughertys were $6,128.39 behind on the regular payments and Ocwen, who had become the mortgage servicer, commenced foreclosure, reporting accurately to certain consumer reporting agencies the delinquency and foreclosure proceeding.  Using retirement savings, the Daughertys brought the mortgage current and Ocwen stopped the foreclosure. 

During this time, Ocwen discovered that its predecessor had inaccurately reported the origination date of the note and submitted information to correct this error.  Equifax misinterpreted this as a separate account and created a new, duplicate trade line for Daugherty.  After curing the default, Ocwen notified Equifax of the current status of the note, but Equifax updated only one of the trade lines.  So Daugherty had only one account with Ocwen, but two account trade lines with Equifax, one of which continued to show that the account was in foreclosure.

In March 2013, the Daughertys began preparing to refinance their home and discovered the credit report error.  Daugherty requested a correction by Ocwen, but Ocwen responded that the trade line was accurate as of March 2012.  Daugherty then hired Aggressive Credit Repair, which sent numerous dispute letters to Equifax, which were then sent to Ocwen. 

Some disputes included a “001” code, meaning a dispute regarding ownership of the account.  Other disputes included a “007” code, which disputes the current or previous account status or the payment history or rating.  Ocwen continued to report the duplicate trade line as delinquent and in foreclosure, so Daugherty sued Ocwen and Equifax.  Equifax settled before trial.  Ocwen did not, but now probably wishes it had.

The FCRA requires a lender or servicer to conduct a reasonable investigation into disputed credit report information on each dispute verification request and to conduct a careful inquiry into its own records to resolve the dispute.  In affirming the jury’s finding that Ocwen willfully violated the FCRA, the Fourth Circuit held that the jury could have concluded that Ocwen had behaved recklessly in only reviewing ownership of the account (an “001” code dispute) and not investigating more fully the account status and payment history (an “007” code dispute).

The Fourth Circuit pointed to these factors to support the jury’s findings:  First, Ocwen possessed the information in its own records to correct the erroneous data identified by Equifax as disputed in its “007” verification requests.  Ocwen could have discovered the duplicate trade line mistake through a competent internal investigation.  Second, Ocwen was reckless in processing each dispute verification request independently, without consulting the context of prior correspondence from Daugherty, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or Equifax regarding the same account.  Ocwen assigned each dispute verification request to a different investigator, with no regard for the other dispute verification requests and investigations.  Over a 17-month period, Ocwen received 23 dispute verification requests concerning Daugherty’s account, eight of which contained “007” codes, and four of which contained “007” codes regarding erroneously reported information.  Ocwen never grasped the big picture, treating each dispute in isolation.  Finally, Ocwen lacked a procedure to correct erroneous reports that an account is currently past due or in foreclosure, when that account had been past due or in foreclosure but had been reinstated.

As to punitive damages, the Fourth Circuit handed Ocwen a small victory.  Punitive damages exact retribution against a wrongdoer and deter future misconduct.  In reviewing punitive damages awards, the Fourth Circuit considers these factors: 

  1. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct, based on physical or economic harm, indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others, financial vulnerability of the victim, repeated versus isolated actions, and accidental conduct or intentional malice, trickery, or deceit;
  2. The disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and,
  3. The difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.

The Fourth Circuit held that Ocwen’s repeated actions and failures were reprehensible because of the risk to the Daughertys of losing their home to foreclosure. 

Discussing the second factor, the disparity between the harm and the punitive damages award, the Fourth Circuit held that generally few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy the due process requirement.  But under the FCRA, where the compensable harm often is small, the ratio can be much greater.  The lack of any financial benefit to Ocwen related to its errors established that the $2.5 million award was unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate to the compensatory damages award of just over $6,000.  In setting the maximum punitive damage award on the evidence from the first trial, the Fourth Circuit applied an approximate 100 times multiplier to the compensatory damage award to set the punitive damage award at $600,000. 

This case should remind lenders that the FCRA’s obligations (and penalties) are real, and they give them short shrift at their peril.  If a customer continues to dispute a reporting error, you should not dismiss the report without understanding the issue in dispute and conducting a proper investigation.  From a practical standpoint, lenders should use a single point of contact to handle account disputes.  If that is impossible, it is critical that employees resolving disputes have access to account history and real-time information about contemporaneous disputes.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ward and Smith, P.A. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ward and Smith, P.A.
Contact
more
less

Ward and Smith, P.A. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.