Archive for category: Compliance

,

Reminder: Wisconsin Consumer Act Right to Cure Requirements

By Scott Birrenkott, WBA director – legal

Scott Birrenkott

While there have been no changes to Wisconsin’s right to cure provisions under the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA), recent litigation makes this a good time to provide a reminder of those requirements. In summary, the WCA requires specific notice and procedures before a bank may act against a covered loan in default. This article will provide a summary of those requirements, as well as recap recent litigation in this area, including preemption and the interplay between Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) notices and the WCA.

The WCA governs consumer loans and credit sales made primarily for personal, family, or household purposes where the amount financed is $25,000 or less and the loan is not secured by a first lien or first lien equivalent real estate mortgage. Note that the $25,000 threshold will increase to $50,000 as of January 1, 2027. See the March 2026 “WBA Compliance Journal” for more information.

Default for purposes of the WCA is defined as a loan with an outstanding amount greater than one full payment, which remains unpaid for more than 10 days, if the interval between scheduled payments is two months or less. It also includes a failure to pay the first payment or the last payment, within 40 days of its scheduled or deferred due date. For loans where an interval between scheduled payments is more than two months, default is defined when all or any part of one scheduled payment remains unpaid for more than 60 days after its scheduled or deferred due date. Or, if the transaction is scheduled to be repaid in a single payment, to have all or any part of the payment unpaid for more than 40 days after its scheduled or deferred due date. The amount outstanding shall not include any delinquency or deferral charges and shall be computed by applying each payment first to the installment most delinquent and then to subsequent installments in the order they come due.

Generally speaking, before a lender may take any action on the default, it must provide the customer a written notice of right to cure default. The specific notice must include the creditor’s name, address, and telephone number, a brief identification of the account, the nature of the alleged default, the total amount required to cure, with itemization of any delinquency charges, the exact date by which cure must occur, and contact information for where payment must be made. Notice is deemed given on the date of mailing.

Following notice, the customer has 15 days to cure the default by paying all past due installments plus any applicable charges. Curing the default restores the account to good standing as if no default occurred. Because a customer mailing payment on the fifteenth day satisfies the cure requirement, lenders should wait a reasonable period beyond the 15-day window before proceeding.

The WCA’s right to cure requirements are well-established, but recent litigation in this area is worth including with this reminder. In Bank of America, N.A. v. Jean-Pierre Riffard, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluded that the National Bank Act (NBA) does not preempt the WCA’s notice of right to cure default requirements. In this case, Bank of America filed small claims actions to collect on two defaulted credit card accounts, without first providing a WCA notice of right to cure. The borrower argued the complaints were barred as a result. The circuit court ruled in the bank’s favor, concluding that the NBA preempts the WCA. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, instead finding that the WCA applied. The decision means that nationally-chartered banks operating in Wisconsin must ensure they comply with the WCA notice requirements for covered consumer credit transactions, regardless of their federal charter. See the April 2025
“WBA Compliance Journal” for more information.

In a separate matter, the Court of Appeals addressed a WCA right to cure issue in Birges v. Simplicity Credit Union. There, a borrower challenged a credit union’s pre- and post-sale
repossession notices (a UCC requirement which provides model language), arguing they were legally insufficient because they did not incorporate the WCA’s fair market value standard for calculating deficiencies. The Court disagreed, affirming that the UCC’s statutory safe-harbor notice language is legally sufficient on its own, and that the WCA’s deficiency judgment provision does not alter or supplement the UCC’s notice requirements. This case upheld longstanding understanding and practices regarding use of the UCC model notice and language and its interplay with the WCA. See the October 2025 “WBA Compliance Journal” for more information.

In conclusion, while there has been no change to the WCA or UCC in terms of right to cure requirements, recent litigation serves as a good reminder for banks to ensure they are properly meeting right to cure notice requirements for covered loans, reviewing policies and procedures, and utilizing model language where appropriate.

/by
Executive Letter Thumbnail
,

Executive Letter: WCA Law Change

Read more
/by
Executive Letter Thumbnail
,

Executive Letter: WBA Guidance for Response to SBA Debanking Letter

From the Desk of Rose Oswald PoelsBy Rose Oswald Poels

As a follow-up to the complimentary live webinar hosted earlier this month with myself and Peter Wilder, attorney with Godfrey & Kahn, I requested Peter to prepare guidance for response to the SBA debanking letter we discussed in that webinar. The following is that prepared guidance.

In late August, the Small Business Administration issued a letter (Letter) to over 5,000 lenders in response to President Trump’s Executive Order 14331 called “Guaranteeing Fair Banking For All Americans”. The Letter directs lenders to identify and remediate instances of politicized or unlawful debanking actions by December 5, 2025, and also requires the submission of a detailed report to the SBA by January 5, 2026. The risks of noncompliance can be severe. In response to several inquiries, we have found that a general framework for a compliance process may be helpful for bank boards and management teams.

•  Internal Risk Assessment. The Letter is directed toward financial institutions “participating in the [SBA]’s loan guarantee programs”. We expect each bank to take a risk-based approach to the Letter’s directives based on its own unique circumstances. There is no “one size fits all” approach. For example, if a bank received the Letter but does not participate in the SBA’s loan guarantee programs, it may wish to limit its efforts to sending a reply letter to the SBA to that effect. If a bank received the Letter and engages in the SBA’s loan guarantee programs as part of its business, it will want to conduct a thorough, good-faith process to document its efforts to comply with the Letter’s directives and report any findings. The more heavily the bank relies on SBA loan programs for its business, the more robust its process and documentation should likely be.

•  Inform Your Board of Directors. Banks receiving the Letter will want to inform and educate their boards. The board should directly oversee compliance with the Letter.

•  Approve a Process. We expect boards to approve a process by which the bank will comply with the Letter. The process may include, for example: (a) appointment of a person (e.g. internal auditor or compliance officer) or a committee, who is responsible for investigating and reporting all findings to executive management and the board; (b) identification of all sources of information to be reviewed (e.g. loan policies, loan committee and board minutes, credit denials and adverse action notices, customer complaints, reports of examination, internal and external audit reports, and interviews with relevant department heads within the bank); (c) establishment of a “look-back” period of how far in the past the bank will investigate; (d) engagement of any outside professionals (e.g. accountant, lawyer, etc.); and (e) a timeline for completion.

•  Execute the Process. The individual or committee responsible for conducting the review should follow the process approved by the board. A preliminary report should be delivered to the board with enough time for the board to review it and require additional investigation—and with enough time to notify injured parties—prior to the December 5 deadline.

•  Board Reporting and Approval. The board should be presented with final findings and any necessary actions taken no later than December 5, 2025. Actions taken would include any required notices to injured parties, and any proposed updates to internal policies, practices, and procedures on a go-forward basis. Moreover, the board should approve the report to be submitted to the SBA prior to January 5, 2026. Review of the report by outside counsel prior to submission may be appropriate.

•  Submission of Report to SBA; Record Retention. A bank should submit its report to the SBA by the January 5, 2026 deadline. All records relating to the internal review, board action, and remediation efforts should be retained indefinitely.

I appreciate the information and time taken by Godfrey & Kahn for this guidance and for Peter to have joined in our webinar discussion with his insights. As mentioned previously in the webinar, I have posed several questions to SBA regarding their debanking letter and any clarifying information from SBA will be promptly shared with the membership.

Godfrey & Kahn is a WBA Gold Associate Member.

/by
,

CFPB Issues Interim Final Rule for Section 1071 Small Business Lending Data Collection

By Scott Birrenkott

On June 18, 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an interim final rule (IFR) amending the compliance deadlines for its Section 1071 small business lending data collection rule (1071). This latest development marks yet another chapter in the long and complex implementation process of Section 1071, which was first introduced under the Dodd-Frank Act more than a decade ago.

Because Section 1071 was enacted by Congress as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, CFPB is statutorily required to implement the provision through rulemaking. The 1071 rule is designed to increase transparency in small business lending by requiring financial institutions to collect and report data on credit applications from small businesses, including demographic information about the principal owners. The goal is to facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws and enable better policymaking. However, it also presents significant operational changes given the impact collection and reporting has on the business of lending.

Initially finalized in March 2023, the rule’s implementation was quickly met with legal challenges. In particular, the American Bankers Association and Texas Bankers Association filed suit in federal court, resulting in a preliminary injunction issued in July 2023. That injunction paused enforcement of the rule for the plaintiffs in the case and was later extended nationwide while the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding structure in a separate case. That constitutional question was resolved in CFPB’s favor in May 2025, clearing the way for 1071 to move forward.

The newly issued IFR responds to the delay caused by the litigation. It provides a revised set of tiered compliance dates, offering additional time for lenders depending on their volume of covered originations. While the Bureau largely maintained the original structure of its implementation timeline, each compliance tier has been pushed back to account for the injunction period.

Notably, the IFR does not address other stakeholder concerns raised during the comment process or litigation. CFPB has indicated that it expects lenders to begin preparing for compliance based on the revised dates and existing rule framework. Still, the legal battle may not be over. On July 25, 2025, a coalition of community advocacy groups filed a new lawsuit seeking to force the CFPB to implement the rule more quickly, citing harm to small businesses from the continued delay. The outcome of this latest suit remains to be seen.

Most recently, on August 1, 2025, the CFPB filed a status report with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the pending litigation (Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB) outlining further steps the agency is taking. CFPB confirmed that its new leadership has formally directed staff to initiate a new Section 1071 rulemaking, signaling that changes to the 2023 rule may be on the horizon. Thus, the IFR extension creates somewhat of a limbo, where the industry is still waiting to see what action CFPB will take with respect to 1071. Given the change in the Administration, the litigation status, news and expectations of a new proposed Section 1071 rule, WBA’s recommendation at time of publication of this article is that banks should take a temporary pause pending forthcoming rulemaking.

For more specific details on the new timelines see the June 2025 WBA Compliance Journal.

Birrenkott is the WBA director – legal

/by
Executive Letter Thumbnail
, , ,

Executive Letter: President Trump’s Executive Order on Debanking

From the Desk of Rose Oswald PoelsBy Rose Oswald Poels

Earlier in August, President Trump issued Executive Order 14331 called “Guaranteeing Fair Banking For All Americans.” Among other identified purposes, the Order states that: “Bank regulators have used supervisory scrutiny and other influence over regulated banks to direct or otherwise encourage politicized or unlawful debanking activities.”

The Order defines “politicized or unlawful de-banking” as any act by a financial institution to directly or indirectly restrict access to, or modify the conditions of, accounts, loans, or other banking services on the basis of a customer’s political or religious beliefs, or based on lawful business activities disfavored by the institution for political reasons.

Fair lending and related laws have existed for decades, and bankers have followed those laws throughout time. As a result, my initial view of the Order was that it is codifying or clarifying current law.

The order directs federal banking regulatory agencies to take various actions to implement intent. Many agencies, including FRB, OCC, and FDIC, have taken initial steps with their recent removal of reputational risk from supervisory expectations.

Additionally, the SBA sent a letter last week to lenders of actions to be taken by early December. Banks must review past and current policies that could be interpreted as encouraging politicized or unlawful de-banking and prepare a compliance report by January 5, 2026. Lenders failing to comply may risk punitive measures and lose good standing with the SBA.

These recent developments have once again inspired national attention around debanking and important questions about how they intersect with existing fair lending and other banking laws. I’ve fielded questions and concerns from our members about how these changes will affect daily bank operations, compliance practices, and relationships with customers.

WBA is committed to ensuring our members have the most current information and clarity. I invite you to attend our complimentary live webinar this Thursday, September 4, from 9:00 to 10:00 am CT. I will be joined by Peter Wilder, attorney with Godfrey & Kahn, as we review the executive order, SBA directives, and the current legal framework that governs fair lending.

This webinar is held specifically to support WBA bank members and will not be recorded in order to allow for candid discussions. We encourage you to bring questions

and participate in the Q&A session.

Registration is free but required. Please register one attendee per planned webinar connection to help us ensure sufficient capacity.

I look forward to speaking with you all on Thursday as we break down what these changes mean for your bank and your customers

/by
,

Acceptable Forms of Customer ID for CIP Purposes

By Scott Birrenkott

While there have been no changes to Customer Identification Program (CIP) requirements, WBA legal is frequently asked: what forms of identification are acceptable for purposes of verifying a customer’s identity? The short answer is that it depends on bank policy. Meaning that theoretically, any form of ID could potentially be used to verify a customer’s identity, and meet CIP requirements.

In order to understand why, it helps to start with the basics of CIP. As part of compliance with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regulatory requirements, banks must have a written CIP policy. The more specific components are that a CIP policy must include risk-based procedures to verify the identity of each customer at account-opening. At a minimum, each program must obtain the name, date of birth, address, and identification number from each customer. This information must be verified, using documentary, non-documentary, or a combination of both methods, depending on bank’s procedures.

When relying upon documentary methods to verify a customer’s identity, a bank’s policy must specify which documents to obtain. Similarly, if procedures permit non-documentary methods, a bank’s procedures must specify which methods to use. A bank need not establish the accuracy of every element of identifying information obtained, but it must verify enough information to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the customer. For most customers who are individuals, banks typically review an unexpired government-issued form of identification evidencing a customer’s nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard. Non-documentary methods may include contacting a customer, or otherwise independently verifying the customer’s identity through other sources.

BSA requirements don’t get much more specific than that. Meaning, they don’t specify which forms of identification can or cannot be used. After all, banks can use documentary or non-documentary methods. A non-documentary method, for example, being the fact that a customer might be a neighbor of yours. Whether a bank can verify a customer’s identity based on the fact that they are an employee’s neighbor isn’t addressed by BSA directly – it’s addressed by bank policy. The same applies to documentary methods. Meaning, all forms of verification depend on bank policy, and thus which forms of identification are acceptable for CIP purposes fully depends on each bank’s CIP policy.

As described previously, perhaps the most common form of verification is a driver’s license. However, that’s not the only acceptable form of identification. Any form of identification which meets the considerations above and, ultimately, bank’s CIP policy is potentially an acceptable form of identification. In consideration of this, banks may encounter unique forms of identification. In addition to a state-issued driver’s license or other state-issued ID card, some examples include a passport or alien ID card. There are also a variety of forms issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. For example, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security may provide certain records to refugees or asylees, who may also possess identification documents through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. These, and other forms of identification may be acceptable for CIP purposes if bank policy permits. Lastly, don’t forget the possibility of non-documentary methods. The types of verification a bank uses will be tailored to its risk considerations and, likely, its customer base. For example, if a bank serves a community with an Amish population, it may encounter customers who don’t have any form of physical identification at all. In these situations, and others, consider what bank policy requires in order to properly identify and verify customers.

Birrenkott is the WBA director – legal

/by
, ,

Regulation CC Threshold Adjustments

By Scott Birrenkott

Every five years, the agencies amend Regulation CC to adjust for inflation dollar amounts relating to availability of funds. In May of 2024, FRB and CFPB issued a final rule amending Regulation CC with new adjustments. The effective date for the threshold adjustments is July 1, 2025. However, banks are permitted to implement those changes sooner if so desired.

To summarize the inflation adjustments:
• The first $225 becomes $275.
• Reg CC requires the first $100 of a deposit made by check be made available on the next business day. This “first $100” rule was adjusted to $200 in 2011, to $225 in 2020, and becomes $275 in 2025.
•  The $450 for non-next day items becomes $550.
• Reg CC provides that cash withdrawals from local and non-local checks need not be available for cash withdrawal until 5:00 p.m. on the day specified in the schedule, but at least $450 of the deposit must be made available for cash withdrawal before 5:00 p.m. This amount becomes $550.
• Note that this $550 is in addition to the $275 available pursuant to the requirements above.
•  The $5,525 of the “large deposit” exception hold, “new account” amount, and the repeatedly overdrawn threshold becomes $6,725.
• Reg CC permits an exception hold on large deposits in excess of $5,525 which becomes $6,725.
• Reg CC permits funds to be held for new accounts in excess of $5,525, which becomes $6,725.
• Reg CC permits when an account is repeatedly overdrawn for funds to be held in excess of $5,525 which becomes $6,725.
•  As of July 1, 2025, the amounts for civil liability in an individual action shall not be greater than $1,350 and $672,950 for class action.

Change in terms notification to customers will be required as well. Reg CC requires notice to customers at least 30 days before implementing a change to the bank’s availability policy regarding such accounts, except that a change that expedites the availability of funds may be disclosed not later than 30 days after implementation. Because the threshold adjustments mean that more funds are available to the customer sooner, the change will expedite availability. Thus, customers must be notified of the changes no later than July 31, 2025.
However, nothing is prohibiting a bank from sending a notice sooner if it chooses to do so.

Birrenkott is the WBA director – legal

/by
Executive Letter Thumbnail
, ,

Executive Letter: New Section 1071 Proposed Rule Expected Soon

From the Desk of Rose Oswald PoelsBy Rose Oswald Poels

In court filings last week involving the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection’s (CFPB) Section 1071 rule, the CFPB stated that staff have been instructed to initiate new rulemaking to possibly replace or change the current rule. While I do not know yet what specific changes CFPB has planned for its new rulemaking, I am very pleased to have learned of this news as WBA has been vocal in our objections and concerns of Section 1071 since it was first proposed in the fall of 2021. In addition, last week the House Financial Services Committee voted on April 2 to approve H.R. 976, which would repeal Section 1071 in its entirety.

The Dodd-Frank Act directed CFPB to adopt a regulation to require banks to collect certain lending data from small businesses. This provision of the Act, Section 1071, was first implemented in March 2023 through amendments to Regulation B which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The original effective date of the 2023 final rule was August 29, 2023, with rolling mandatory compliance dates ranging from October 1, 2024, to January 1, 2026, based upon loan origination activity.

Due to litigation by lenders challenging the rule, the mandatory compliance dates for the Section 1071 rule were extended by CFPB on June 25, 2024, through the issuance of an interim final rule. In February, the Fifth Circuit granted a stay in the ongoing litigation which further tolled the compliance dates for financial institutions that are also members of the trade associations involved in the lawsuit.

In the past, when I have been asked by members whether the bank should work to implement the requirements of Section 1071 despite the ongoing litigation and our industry efforts to rollback or eliminate the rule, my recommendation has been for banks to continue their efforts to meet the revised mandatory compliance dates for the rule. However, given the change in the Administration, the litigation status, last week’s movement of repeal legislation and news of a new proposed Section 1071 rule, I believe banks should take a temporary pause pending the outcome in one or more of these actions.

The industry has challenged the Section 1071 rule on all fronts over the years – through legislation, regulation, and judicial action. While a new proposed rule is not yet published, WBA will advocate for the elimination of a requirement to collect any data beyond that expressly provided for under the Dodd-Frant Act. WBA will also advocate for CFPB to revise the definitions of “covered financial institutions” and “small business” to raise both thresholds within. WBA is also continuing its legislative advocacy this week while we are in Washington D.C. with a banker delegation as part of ABA’s Washington Summit for the full repeal of Section 1071, encouraging continued support of H.R. 976.

WBA will continue to keep members apprised of these various changes regarding Section 1071 as they occur. If you have any questions regarding Section 1071, be sure to reach out to WBA Legal at wbalegal@wisbank.com

/by
,

May a Person Use the Name, Logo, or Symbol of a Bank in Marketing Material?

By Scott Birrenkott

Not if it is deceptive. More specifically, Wisconsin law provides, in summary, that no person may use the name, logo, or symbol of a bank, or such that is deceptively similar to that of a bank, in any marketing material provided to another person in a manner that a reasonable person may believe that the marketing material originated from the bank.

From time to time, potentially deceptive letters circulate among bank customers, causing frustration and confusion. WBA is aware that such deceptive letters have recently been circulating once more. These letters often take the form of mortgage relief offers, solicited by individuals unassociated with the bank. When these letters violate Wisconsin law, such as by misrepresenting their nature as being associated with a bank, WBA recommends reporting them to the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (DFI). DFI has enforcement authority over such letters, including the ability to issue cease and desist orders, and penalties. For this reason, banks that encounter such letters are encouraged to contact WBA and DFI.

Banks should also be mindful of the customer service aspect of such letters. Even when reporting letters, and even if a letter is not deceptive, banks will likely still receive complaints from their customers. In such situations, banks might consider discussing with their customers how and when it will issue correspondence. This way, customers can easily identify what originates from the bank. Additionally, banks might consider discussing this matter with their customers at time of loan closing so they can be better prepared to identify these letters as not originating from the bank. By preparing customers ahead of time, banks can potentially curb some confusion and frustration resulting from these letters. To assist with this matter, WBA’s Mortgage Lending Committee has prepared a sample letter which can be used for these purposes.

Tangential to this matter, WBA has also become aware of many Wisconsin loan applicants receiving numerous unsolicited offers for credit and insurance after submitting a loan application. The volume of offers has greatly increased during the past couple years given the overall slowdown in mortgage loan activity due to rising interest rates and the low inventory of homes for sale. Customers become upset due to the number of offers received and because some believe the bank shared their nonpublic information. The WBA Mortgage Lending Committee has also created a customer awareness letter in this regard to alert loan
applicants upfront of the effect of prescreening under FCRA.

Both letters are available through WBA’s best practices library. If you need assistance accessing the WBA best practices library, or if you have any questions on this topic or other matters of compliance, contact WBA’s legal call program at 608-441-1200 or wbalegal@wisbank.com

Birrenkott is the WBA director – legal

/by
,

Contents Coverage for Purposes of Flood Insurance

By Scott Birrenkott

While there are no new requirements regarding flood insurance, examiners have been looking closely at portfolios for flood compliance lately. Specifically, WBA has become aware of some questions arising regarding contents coverage. This article will discuss what the flood rules require for purposes of insuring contents, as well as some important concepts to be aware of.

The requirement of “contents coverage” starts with the general requirement to purchase flood insurance for designated loans. That requirement being that a bank shall not make, increase, extend, or renew any designated loan unless the building or mobile home and any personal property securing the loan are covered by flood insurance for the term of the loan. “Personal property” in this context will be referred to as “contents” for the rest of this article. Meaning, a bank making a designated loan in a special flood hazard area (SFHA) must also ensure that any contents securing that loan are covered by flood insurance. The rule, in this context, leaves some unanswered questions. Fortunately, the agencies have provided clarification in the form of questions and answers.

In 2022, the agencies issued the revised Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Flood Insurance (Q&As). The Q&As clarify that when a building and its contents both secure a loan, and the building is located in a SFHA in which flood insurance is available, flood insurance is required for the building and any contents securing the loan. They also clarify that if contents securing the loan are stored in a building which does not secure the loan, then flood insurance is not required on those contents, regardless of whether the building is in a SFHA. The agencies also clarify that both contents and the building will be considered to have a sufficient amount of flood insurance coverage for regulatory purposes so long as some reasonable amount of insurance is allocated to each category. The Q&As provide an example which is helpful in this regard:

Lender A makes a loan for $200,000 that is secured by a warehouse with an insurable value of $150,000 and inventory in the warehouse worth $100,000. The Act and Regulation require that flood insurance coverage be obtained for the lesser of the outstanding principal balance of the loan or the maximum amount of flood insurance that is available. The maximum amount of insurance that is available for both building and contents is $500,000 for each category. In this situation, Federal flood insurance requirements could be satisfied by placing $150,000 worth of flood insurance coverage on the warehouse, thus insuring it to its insurable value, and $50,000 worth of contents flood insurance coverage on the inventory, thus providing total coverage in the amount of the outstanding principal balance of the loan. Note that this holds true even though the inventory is worth $100,000.

It is important to note that when contents coverage is required, a bank must always assign a “reasonable amount” to the contents. This is true even if the building’s value meets or exceeds the minimum flood insurance required. For example, if the facts of the above example were changed so that the insurable value of the warehouse was $200,000, the bank couldn’t assign $200,000 to the warehouse alone and leave the contents uninsured. It would need to be divided in a reasonable amount among both the warehouse and the contents.

In the commercial and agricultural setting, it is common within the industry for banks to take a security interest in property which includes contents. Because of this, it’s important to be aware of the language within a bank’s security agreements, and what it covers, so that the bank is able to meet flood insurance requirements. If a bank does not wish to take contents as collateral to avoid flood insurance implications, it could consider disclaiming the collateral. In this case, the bank should also consider the implications of disclaiming collateral from a loan policy standpoint, understanding that such decisions have broader implications on the security of the loan beyond just flood insurance rules. The Q&As can be found here: https://www.fdic.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/fil22020a.pdf

Birrenkott is the WBA director – legal

/by
Wisconsin Bankers Association logo

questions@wisbank.com

608-441-1200

4721 S Biltmore Ln.
Madison, WI 53718

Get our Newsletter!
Subscribe