A New HUD Rule for Reverse Mortgages, with Additional Rule Changes Proposed in Congress

This past month, Washington was busy with rule changes and proposed legislation that underscores the ongoing debate over the origination and foreclosure of reverse mortgages. First, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reduced the maximum amount a reverse mortgage applicant can borrow. Previously, the maximum amount was exclusively tied to the property's value (at either 60% or 70%). Under the new rule, HUD has tied that maximum amount to three criteria: applicant's age, loan rates and the value of the property. While it is unclear how these new criteria will impact the maximum amount, the Wall Street Journal reports that Lending Tree's chief sales officer anticipates that a typical applicant will now be able to borrow 58% on the property's value, down from an average of 64%. Second, HUD increased the upfront insurance premium charged on any reverse mortgage from between .5%-2.5% percent and depending on the amount borrowed to a flat 2%. Given the reduction in amount that an applicant can borrow and an increase in upfront insurance payments, HUD's new rules appear aimed at benefiting lenders. The new rules went into effect on October 2, 2017. More ›

U.S. Senate Joins The House To Eliminate The CFPB’s Final Rule Against Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Clauses; The President Is Expected To Sign

With Vice President Pence casting a dramatic tie-breaking vote just after 10 p.m. E.D.T. on October 24th, the U.S. Senate joined the U.S. House of Representatives to eliminate, based on their authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau's (CFPB) controversial Final Rule on arbitration agreements, which was issued in July. The CFPB's Final Rule would bar providers of consumer financial products and services from including mandatory class action waivers in the arbitration clauses of their agreements with consumers. More ›

Mortgage Foreclosure Alert: Attaching Promissory Note in Illinois Sufficient to Show Standing; but HUD Letters Require Proof of Dispatch

In a foreclosure action, the Illinois Appellate Court recently held that the foreclosing lender established its standing by attaching the blank-indorsed note to its complaint, but reversed judgment and remanded for the trial court to determine if a letter required by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") regulations was actually dispatched. More ›

Overshadowed and Contradicted: Third Circuit Rules Second Demand Letter Violated FDCPA's "Validation Notice" Requirement

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently reiterated how a debt collector may run afoul of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by sending a misleading follow-up, even if it served a compliant demand letter weeks earlier. More ›

Mortgages or milk - do you need to check your expiration date?

There are borrowers out there who believe that the Massachusetts Obsolete Mortgage Statute, M.G.L. c. 260 sec. 33, relieves them of their repayment obligations. This statute, amended back in 2006, provides that five years after a mortgage reaches its term (or 35 years after the time the mortgage is recorded where a maturity date is not specified) it will be discharged by operation of law absent the timely recording of an extension or affidavit. The 2006 amendment specifically applied to all existing mortgages. The law is supposed to provide clarity in conveyancing and protect borrowers if their mortgagee or servicer failed to issue a discharge of the mortgage after the mortgage reaches its term.

In Hayden v. HSBC Mortgage, the borrowers alleged that the statute should apply to their loan and the loan should be discharged by operation of law because five years had passed from the time the servicer had accelerated the loan. Mortgagees and servicers can rest easy, however, because the First Circuit rejected this theory outright. In a succinct and emphatic rejection, the court held that "[n]othing in the text of the statute supports the Haydens' assertion that the acceleration of the maturity date of a note affects the five-year limitations period for the related mortgage." Thus, a borrower's milk will undoubtedly expire well before his mortgage.

No Surrender: Massachusetts Appeals Court Preserves Foreclosure Challenges for Bankruptcy Petitioner

Like Bruce Springsteen, a Massachusetts bankruptcy debtor said "no surrender" when it came to his home. In EverBank v. Chacon, a panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued a non-binding decision that a debtor's "surrender" of real property in a bankruptcy petition does not waive defenses to an eventual foreclosure. EverBank had foreclosed on Mr. Chacon's home mortgage, acquired the property at the sale, and then sought to evict him through summary process action filed in Massachusetts state court. Mr. Chacon claimed that that EverBank did not comply with a HUD regulation that requires a face to face meeting prior to foreclosure rendering the foreclosure void. More ›

Take Note: Employers are Helping Pay Student Loans and Consumer Advocates are Watching Closely

A growing number of employers are offering student loan repayment assistance as a means of attracting and retaining talent. Industries like tech, financial services, and health services are among the early adopters, offering variations of the same general benefit:  the employer agrees to pay a certain amount—either a set figure or a percentage of salary—toward their employee’s student loan debt. Since student loan repayment benefits are relatively novel, the rules for both employers offering the benefit, and the student loan servicers administering it, are not yet explicit. More ›

Job Applicant Who Filed 562 Applications Then Alleged FCRA Violations Denied Standing by Seventh Circuit

We have another court decision relying on the Supreme Court's recent Spokeo decision that found a class action plaintiff did not meet the injury-in-fact requirement under Article III of the United States Constitution. In Groshek v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., the Seventh Circuit concluded that a plaintiff's claim of statutory violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") alone did not create an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish standing to sue. More ›

Illinois Federal Court Dismisses FDCPA Claims Focused on "Bounced Check" Language in Collection Letter

Recently, an Illinois federal court denied and dismissed two plaintiffs' Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claims after the plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to establish materiality. More ›

In a Bind about CFPB's Arbitration Rule?

Don't be. At least Republican lawmakers are certainly not. On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, 231-190, to eliminate the CFPB's final rule arbitration rule using a procedural mechanism called the Congressional Review Act.

The Congressional Review Act allows both houses of Congress to vote on resolutions of disapproval within 60 legislative days of a proposed rule being published in the Federal Register. Under the CRA, the resolution can be brought to the House floor without going to a committee vote, and does not need a filibuster-proof, 60 vote majority to pass in the Senate. If the President signs the resolution, the CFPB would be barred from developing a regulation that is substantially similar to the one disapproved unless Congress specifically authorizes it. More ›