Suchergebnisse

In 2016, the Romanian Parliament voted on the final version of the datio in solutum law (Law No. 77/2016 on the datio in solutum of real estate in order to settle the obligations assumed by credits), allowing the borrowers to fully settle their liability by transferring to the banks the ownership right over mortgages used as collateral for loans. The final version of the law includes some important restrictions: the 'First Home' governmental program was excluded from the jurisdiction of the law, a ceiling amounting to the equivalent of 250,000 EUR on the size of the loan at time of origination was set and the law only applied for mortgages that qualify as dwellings and were contracted by 'consumers'. However, the law would apply to all existing contracts (retroactive applicability).1 This article analyzes datio in solutum from the Romanian perspective, a new approach in the national legal system that already made the object of the constitutional control by a number of decisions. We will also review the solutions of Spanish and French legal systems regarding these particular consumer protection problems.

Private student loan borrowers arguably have the fewest protections of any users of credit in the United States. In a scarcely debated amendment to federal bankruptcy law in 2005, private student lenders gained the same protections against discharge previously afforded to federal student lenders. Yet private student loan borrowers received none of the rights available to federal student loan borrowers. These include income-driven repayment, relief from repayment on disability, loan discharge for fraud or closed schools, and public service loan forgiveness. Private student loan borrowers thus have neither the bankruptcy protections afforded to nonstudent loan debtors nor the repayment and debt relief rights of student borrowers under the federal loan program. This lack of consumer protection has particular consequence when considering the plight of for-profit school students saddled with private student loans. Some of the worst abuses in the proliferation of higher education debt have been perpetrated against for-profit school attendees. The vast majority of private student loans are cosigned, typically by older family members. This combination of private student loans and for-profit school attendance impacts a much broader range of consumers than would a comparable number of federal student loans. We suggest two types of state legislation to protect these debtors. For prospective for-profit school private borrowers, we propose incorporating some of the protections of federal student loans through the use of a state equivalent to the Federal Trade Commission "Holder Rule." For all private student loans, we propose a requirement that private lenders engage in a mandatory settlement process, similar to those used by states during the recent foreclosure crisis, as a prerequisite to using state courts for debt collection.

Federal law allows students whose schools have defrauded or cheated them to have their loans discharged. Prior to 2016, there were few details in law or regulation about how borrowers could seek discharges or the U.S. Department of Educations (ED) process for adjudicating them. In 2016, the Obama Administration issued a rule to articulate clear processes for applying for and granting borrower defense discharges. Today, the Trump Administration released a new rule that will make it almost impossible for students to get relief. A joint fact sheet from TICAS, the Century Foundation, and National Consumer Law Center outlines the key differences between the rules. ; The Institute for College Access and Success ; The Century Foundation ; National Consumer Law Center

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Reverse mortgages--a type of loan against the borrower's home that is available to seniors--are growing in popularity. These mortgages allow seniors to convert their home equity into flexible cash advances while living in their homes. However, concerns have emerged about the adequacy of consumer protections for this product. Most reverse mortgages are made under the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program. HUD insures the mortgages, which are made by private lenders, and oversees the agencies that provide mandatory counseling to prospective HECM borrowers. GAO was asked to examine issues and federal activities related to (1) misleading HECM marketing, (2) the sale of potentially unsuitable products in conjunction with HECMs, and (3) the oversight of HECM counseling providers. This testimony is based on a GAO report being released today (GAO-09-606)."