Skip to content
BOL Conferences Top Gun 23
Thread Options
#2073020 - 04/08/16 02:06 PM Section 232.8(e)
JC Offline
100 Club
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 147
Has anyone read the ABA Newbytes this morning? Thoughts?

Issue: Section 232.8(e) provides that it is unlawful if a creditor “uses a check or other method of access to a deposit, savings, or other account maintained by the covered borrower,” subject to certain exceptions. The regulation thus appears to prevent creditors from accessing accounts by accepting payments from covered borrowers by check or via an electronic fund transfer (as defined in Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. pt. 1005), including, for example, via ACH debits. We do not believe this result was intended because it will be harmful to covered borrowers, particularly those deployed overseas, who will not be able to use all available payment options.

Return to Top
Lending to Servicemembers (SCRA, JWNDAA), War, Terrorism
#2073048 - 04/08/16 03:10 PM Re: Section 232.8(e) JC
CloudShape Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 507
Edge of Sanity
That was my question when I first read the rule last year, because I read it the same way ABA did. I am glad they are trying to get clarification on it. While we don't have a large military presence in my area, I know it will affect other FIs and how they can offer repayment options on credit products.
'Never' is karma's doorbell.

Ding ding!

It's for you. . . .

Return to Top
#2073114 - 04/08/16 06:29 PM Re: Section 232.8(e) JC
elebra Offline
100 Club
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 106
I did read it and hope for clarification.

Return to Top
#2076072 - 04/27/16 09:25 PM Re: Section 232.8(e) JC
okcowgirl Offline
100 Club
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 102
Entities have gotten together and are trying to get clarification on several areas. The following site has details on sections that need clarification. I found this helpful.

Return to Top
#2085219 - 06/24/16 08:52 PM Re: Section 232.8(e) JC
TaraTLR Offline
100 Club
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 136
The federal register doesn't explain this at all. I can not seem to even find the proposed rule that explains what it means. It only states that it has accepted the rule as proposed. Do you think it has anything to do with the right of setoff? If a customer defaults can we access the customers accounts per the right of setoff verbiage on our promissory note. I am super confused about this.

Return to Top

Moderator:  Andy_Z