ABA Banking Journal
No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
SUBSCRIBE
ABA Banking Journal
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
ADVERTISEMENT
Home Uncategorized

Compliance question of the month: For mortgage lender transfers, does new servicer provide E-SIGN disclosure again?

April 12, 2024
Reading Time: 2 mins read

Q If a mortgage lender transfers servicing to another party, does the new servicer need to provide the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN) disclosure and again obtain the consumer’s demonstrable consent to receive electronic disclosures?

A It is generally prudent for transferee servicers to obtain new E-SIGN Act consent following a servicing transfer. 15 USC §7001(c) states that prior to sending disclosures electronically, an institution must provide the consumer with the hardware and software requirements for accessing and retaining electronic records as well as the procedures for withdrawing consent, obtaining paper records, etc. Subsection (c)(1)(D) goes on to say that if the hardware or software requirements for accessing or retaining electronic records change, the institution must obtain a new consent.

In the case of a servicing transfer, these software and hardware requirements may (and often do) change, thereby requiring new consent. Even if the hardware and software requirements between the two institutions are the same, there is a strong argument that new consent is required because the new servicer will likely employ different procedures (e.g., different contact, telephone, mailing address, etc.) for withdrawing consent and/or obtaining paper copies of electronic records.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the initial E-SIGN disclosure must, among other things, “inform the consumer of whether the consent applies (I) only to the particular transaction which gave rise to the obligation to provide the record, or (II) to identified categories of records that may be provided or made available during the course of the parties relationship” (emphasis added). This verbiage seems to suggest an intent to limit the scope of consent to individual institutions.

In sum, it is generally prudent for transferee servicers to obtain new E-SIGN Act consent. In very limited instances, and, depending on the scope of the original consent and the technical requirements of the transferee servicer, it may be possible to argue new consent is not required but not obtaining new consent carries a fair amount of risk. (Response provided with assistance of the Bradley Law Firm) (1/2024.)

For more information, contact ABA’s Leslie Callaway.
Please note that this section is not a substitute for professional legal advice.

ADVERTISEMENT
Tags: Compliance
ShareTweetPin

Related Posts

ABA files coalition amicus brief urging Supreme Court to reject class certification for uninjured class members

Supreme Court declines to address class certification for uninjured members

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Labcorp’s appeal as “improvidently granted,” effectively letting stand the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that upheld class certification despite including uninjured members.

Capital One agrees to pay $425 million to resolve 360 Performance Savings Account allegations

Virginia federal court trims influencers lawsuit against Capital One

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

A Virginia federal court partially granted a motion to dismiss filed by a class of social media influencers alleging Capital One’s coupon-search browser extension stole from content creators.

First Circuit rules federal law does not preempt Puerto Rico’s credit card surcharge law

First Circuit rules federal law does not preempt Puerto Rico’s credit card surcharge law

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

In a unanimous decision, a First Circuit panel ruled that Puerto Rico’s Law 150 is not preempted by the Cash Discount Act or the Durbin Amendment.

U.S. Supreme Court grants petition to examine post-judgment relief in Hamas banking lawsuit

Supreme Court rejects Hamas victims’ attempt to revive bank lawsuit

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) applies only in “extraordinary circumstances,” even where the movant seeks to reopen a case to...

Seventh Circuit revives CFPB’s lender redlining lawsuit

Illinois federal court denies joint motion to vacate redlining settlement

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

An Illinois federal court denied the joint motion by the CFPB and Townstone to vacate the settlement in the bureau’s redlining lawsuit against the company.

U.S. Supreme Court vacates Ninth Circuit preemption decision

U.S. Supreme Court rules Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings

Uncategorized
July 1, 2025

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to a federal agency’s interpretation of the statute.

NEWSBYTES

ISM: Manufacturing sector contracted in June

July 1, 2025

Construction spending decreased 0.3% in May

July 1, 2025

ABA asks IRS to delay new reporting requirement

June 30, 2025

SPONSORED CONTENT

Navigating Disruption in Ag Lending – Why Tariffs Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Navigating Disruption in Ag Lending – Why Tariffs Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

July 1, 2025
AI Compliance and Regulation: What Financial Institutions Need to Know

Unlocking Deposit Growth: How Financial Institutions Can Activate Data for Precision Cross-Sell

June 1, 2025
Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

Choosing the Right Account Opening Platform: 10 Key Considerations for Long-Term Success

April 25, 2025
Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

Outsourcing: Getting to Go/No-Go

April 5, 2025

PODCASTS

Podcast: Inside ABA’s new Treasury Check Verification System API

June 25, 2025

Podcast: Staying close to clients amid tariff-driven volatility

June 18, 2025

Podcast: Old National’s Jim Ryan on the things that really matter

June 12, 2025
ADVERTISEMENT

American Bankers Association
1333 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036
1-800-BANKERS (800-226-5377)
www.aba.com
About ABA
Privacy Policy
Contact ABA

ABA Banking Journal
About ABA Banking Journal
Media Kit
Advertising
Subscribe

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Topics
    • Ag Banking
    • Commercial Lending
    • Community Banking
    • Compliance and Risk
    • Cybersecurity
    • Economy
    • Human Resources
    • Insurance
    • Legal
    • Mortgage
    • Mutual Funds
    • Payments
    • Policy
    • Retail and Marketing
    • Tax and Accounting
    • Technology
    • Wealth Management
  • Newsbytes
  • Podcasts
  • Magazine
    • Subscribe
    • Advertise
    • Magazine Archive
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Podcast Archive
    • Sponsored Content Archive

© 2025 American Bankers Association. All rights reserved.