U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Eighth Circuit Ruling that ECOA Does Not Apply to Spousal Guarantors

April 2016

On March 22, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, on a 4-4 split vote following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, let stand the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore, finding that the marital status protections under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) apply only to loan "applicants" and that spouse-guarantors are not "applicants." In administering ECOA, the Federal Reserve Board had issued Regulation B, which defined "applicant" to include guarantor. The Eighth Circuit had found no basis for the Regulation B application because the statute itself is clear that it applies only to applicants. Given Justice Scalia's adherence to the actual text of statutes, he likely would have voted to uphold the Eighth Circuit's decision in Hawkins as well, which would have provided nationwide guidance on the question. Instead, the current circuit split remains unaltered.

In upholding Hawkins, the Supreme Court issued no written opinion but merely a one-line decision. As a result of the tied vote, the Supreme Court's decision in Hawkins applies only to the Eighth Circuit states (Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota). Unfortunately, this leaves significant uncertainty for lenders that are located outside of these states, or even to lenders located in both the Eighth Circuit and other circuits.

In Hawkins, two wives who signed guarantees of business loans made to their husbands sued the Bank of Raymore, claiming that their guarantees violated the ECOA and that they should not have been required to sign a guaranty for their husbands to borrow money. The wives alleged that the bank discriminated against them on the basis of their marital status, and they sought to have their guarantees declared void. In effect, the wives argued that the loans should have been made with only the husbands' guarantees, and the wives were only asked to sign guaranties because they were married to the loan applicants. The Bank argued that ECOA's anti-discrimination provisions were never intended to apply to spouse-guarantors because they were not "applicants" for credit under ECOA and Regulation B. The Eighth Circuit held that "a person was not qualified as an applicant under the statute solely by virtue of executing a guaranty to secure the debt of another. The plain language of the ECOA unmistakably provides that the person is an applicant only if he/she requests credit. But a person does not by executing a guaranty, request credit."

In contrast, the Sixth Circuit, in RL BB Acquisition, LLC vs. Bridgemill Commons Development Group, held that Regulation B was entitled to deference, and the circuit court concluded that ECOA protected spouse-guarantors from discrimination as an applicant for credit. The Supreme Court's decision did not change the law in the Sixth Circuit, and courts outside the Eighth Circuit may still apply ECOA to prohibit a commercial lender from requesting a guaranty solely because the prospective guarantor is married to the borrower.

The Supreme Court's split vote is somewhat good news for banks located wholly within the Eighth Circuit, because ECOA protections now apply only to loan "applicants" and not to spousal guarantors. Unfortunately, for lenders outside the Eighth Circuit, or with branches inside and outside the Eighth Circuit, uncertainty remains. Wherever located, lenders should proceed with caution and obtain clear documentation of the process when requesting spousal guarantees. We suggest that banks with multiple locations use a venue clause in their loan documents that names any district court within the Eighth Circuit as the place where all litigation must be conducted.

Firm Highlights
Client Alert

DOL Publishes Cybersecurity Guidance for Benefits Plans

More
Client Alert

The Changing Workplace Following the Latest CDC Mask Guidance

More
Client Alert

Missouri Supreme Court Reverses Overtime Wages Judgment Resulting from Employer-Mandated Screenings Under the Portal-to-Portal Act

More
Client Alert

First-Issued Interim Final Rule Gives Guidance on No Surprises Act

More
Client Alert

Missouri Supreme Court Holds that Public Governmental Bodies May Not Charge for Attorney Review Time

More
Client Alert

EEOC Issues Updated Guidance on COVID Vaccination Policies

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Lewis Rice Launches “Next Level” Diversity and Inclusion Programs

More
Client Alert

The New Standard Contractual Clauses: Scope, Impact, and Next Steps

More
News

Lewis Rice Welcomes 2021 Summer Associates

More
News

Jeremy P. Brummond Presents at Webinar for Experienced Construction Attorneys

More
Client Alert

FTC Adds Teeth to the ‘Made in USA’ Rule

More
Client Alert

Colorado Joins the Bandwagon, Enacts Comprehensive Privacy Law

More
News

Claims Filed for Compensation in North Carolina Ecusta Trail Rail-to-Trail Case

More
News

Michael D. Mulligan, Mysun Charitable Foundation Recognized at Greensfelder Park Ribbon Cutting Ceremony

More
News

A Lawyer’s Guide to the Galaxy Podcast Named Among Best Copyright Law Podcasts for 2021 by Welp Magazine

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Limits Ability to Compel Access to Private Property Without Compensation

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast Hosts Ronald A. Norwood to Discuss Mentorship, Diversity & Inclusion in the Legal Industry, and the Importance of Equity for All

More
News

Jeannine Moentmann Becomes President of St. Louis Paralegal Association for 2021-2022

More
Client Alert

CROWN Act Legislation on the Verge of Passage in St. Louis City & County

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Hands Down Unanimous Decision Limiting FTC’s Ability to Seek Monetary Relief

More