An Act to amend and reenact § 6.2-1523 of the Code of Virginia, relating to consumer finance companies; additional charges.
HB1309 amends Virginia’s consumer finance law governing what additional charges a licensed consumer finance company may impose on a borrower. The bill keeps the general rule that, beyond interest, late fees, and the loan processing fee already allowed under § 6.2-1520, lenders may not charge or collect other amounts such as examination, brokerage, commission, fine, or notarial fees. It then lists specific exceptions that may be charged in connection with a loan.
The bill expressly permits charges for insurance premiums actually paid for borrower-protection insurance, guaranteed asset protection waivers, guaranteed asset protection insurance, the actual cost of recordation fees or related mortgage-recording insurance on loans over $100, and a handling fee of up to $25 for each returned check due to insufficient funds or no account. The measure is a targeted update to the consumer finance code rather than a broad restructuring of lending law.
HB1309 narrows and clarifies the fee structure for consumer finance companies by codifying which ancillary charges are allowed and which remain prohibited under § 6.2-1523 of the Code of Virginia. It affects licensed lenders and borrowers in consumer finance transactions by confirming permissible pass-through costs and limited service fees, while preserving the statute’s general ban on unauthorized extra charges. The bill also aligns the consumer finance provisions with existing insurance and guaranteed asset protection waiver law.
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or other debate, so there is no documented opposition or support to gauge from the legislative history provided. The bill’s enactment as Chapter 464 suggests it moved successfully through the process and was approved by the Governor. On its face, the measure appears technical and administrative, with a likely neutral-to-supportive reception because it clarifies permitted charges rather than introducing a new regulatory burden.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If there were concerns, they would most likely have centered on consumer protection versus lender flexibility: whether the listed exceptions could increase borrower costs, or whether the statute needed clearer limits on ancillary fees. The text itself indicates a compromise approach by allowing only enumerated charges and capping the returned-check handling fee.