Kristie D. Kully

Jan 16, 2025 | mondaq.com | Francis L. Doorley |Steven A. Kaplan |Kristie D. Kully |Joy N Tsai

On December 17, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau(CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule (Final Rule) applying certainresidential mortgage requirements to Property Assessed Clean Energy(PACE) financing. The CFPB issued the Final Rule in response to theEconomic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act(EGRRCPA), which required the CFPB to issue regulations applyingthe Truth in Lending Act's (TILA) ability to repay and civilliability provisions to PACE financing.

Sep 17, 2024 | mondaq.com | Jeffrey Taft |Kristie D. Kully

On August 2, 2024, New Hampshire enacted legislation that significantly revises its Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (the "Act"), effective July 1, 2024. Unfortunately, that effective date is not a typographical error. The New Hampshire Banking Department apparently tried, during the legislative process, to extend the effective date until January 1, 2025, but that extension did not make it into the enacted bill.

Sep 2, 2024 | mondaq.com | Jeffrey Taft |Kristie D. Kully

In response to the significant ambiguities raised by New Hampshire's recent amendments to its Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act — not to mention their immediate effectiveness and draconian liability provisions — the state's Banking Department has issued several nuggets of guidance.

Aug 28, 2024 | mondaq.com | Jeffrey Taft |Kristie D. Kully

On August 2, 2024, New Hampshire enacted legislation that significantly revises its Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act, effective July 1, 2024. Unfortunately, that effective date is not a typographical error. The New Hampshire Banking Department apparently tried during the legislative process to extend the effective date until January 1, 2025, but that extension did not make it into the enacted bill.

Jul 11, 2024 | mondaq.com | Kristie D. Kully

In opining on the scope of express preemption of state laws by the National Bank Act ("NBA"), the Supreme Court determined that Congress did not intend to establish a clear test. Instead, in enacting the relevant provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, Congress intended preemption to be analyzed in accordance with the Court's precedents on the issue dating back to the NBA's enactment. The Court's opinion in Cantero v.