b'Congress did not specify that these disputes mustNinth Circuit Upholds that the Home Owners Loan be expressed in writing, the Court held that SectionAct of 1933 Preempts State Law1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA permits oral disputes.In September, the Ninth Circuit confirmed the OCCs view on preemption by holding that Californias law Fourth Circuit Finds Plaintiffs Lack Standing in Allegedrequiring the payment of interest on escrow accounts RESPA Claim Where No Concrete Injury Exists was preempted by the Home Owners Loan Act of In March, the Fourth Circuit in Baehrs v. The Creig1933 (HOLA), and its implementing regulations. In Northrop Team et al, No. 19-1024, held plaintiffsMcShannock, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, lacked standing to bring an action under RESPANo. 19-15899, the Court explained that through HOLA, where plaintiffs could not establish a concrete injury.Congress vested the Office of Thrift Supervision with The Court held that plaintiffs did not allege any harmbroad authority to shape the regulatory environment that Congress enacted RESPA to prevent. Instead offor federal savings associations. Because Californias alleging that they were harmed by exceedingly highinterest-on-escrow law imposed a requirement regarding costs of settlement services, plaintiffs alleged theyescrow accounts; affected the terms of sale, purchase, were harmed by being deprived of impartial and fairinvestment in, and participation in loans originated by competition between settlement service providers. Thissavings associations; and had more than an incidental was not a concrete injury under RESPA. Relying on theeffect on the lending operations of savings associations, Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No.the panel held that the claims were preempted by HOLA. 13-1339, the Fourth Circuit noted that a mere statutoryThe plaintiffs claims against the national bank defendant violation does not always create a concrete injury.were preempted even though the conduct giving rise to the complaint occurred after the bank had acquired Seventh Circuit Finds FDCPA Claim Failed Where Nothe loans in question from a federal savings association. Evidence of a Significant Fraction of the PopulationAlthough the Second Circuit has not yet decided this Would Find Collection Letter Misleading same issue, a pair of cases in the Eastern District of In June, the Seventh Circuit in Johnson v. EnhancedNew York have petitioned the Second Circuit to review Recovery Company, LLC, No. 19-1210, upheld thethe district courts decisions in ruling that the HOLA Northern District of Indianas granting of summarydoes not preempt nearly identical claims. This sets up judgment in favor of a debt collector. A debtor,the issue for a potential circuit split between the Ninth alleging that the debt collector had sent herand Second Circuits, depending on how the Second misleading collection letters in violation of theCircuit rules. FDCPA, could not provide evidence of confusing or misleading language in the letters. The collectionEleventh Circuit Strikes Incentive Awards for letter identified the creditor, three payment options,ClassPlaintiffsand noted that the letter serves as notification thatIn September, the Eleventh Circuit held in Johnson v. your delinquent account may be reported to theNPAS Solutions, LLC, No. 18-12344, that it is improper national credit bureaus. The Seventh Circuit, into provide incentive awards to a named plaintiff evaluating the language from the perspective of anto compensate that plaintiff for his time and/or for unsophisticated debtor, held that the collection letterparticipating in the lawsuit. The Eleventh Circuit held that was not misleading, stating that mere speculationthe District of Florida improperly awarded payment of by the plaintiff that a collection letter is misleadingan incentive award to the named plaintiff. The Eleventh is insufficient to survive a debt collectors motion forCircuit found that the incentive award was similar to summary judgment. The Court noted that while thethat of a salary and prohibited under Supreme Court FDCPA protects the unsophisticated debtor, it does notprecedent. Relying on Supreme Court case law from protect the irrational one. 53'