National Consumer Law Center Advocates Urge HUD to Take Immediate Action to Reduce Foreclosures on Widows and Widowers of Reverse Mortgage Borrowers

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 27, 2018

National Consumer Law Center: Jan Kruse ([email protected]), (617) 542-8010

Washington, D.C. — Reverse mortgages are intended to help elders age in their homes. Yet, across the country, widows and widowers are losing their homes because of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s failure to prevent foreclosures on reverse mortgages that their now-deceased spouses previously obtained. Advocates at the National Consumer Law Center today issued a new report showing the harm that HUD’s practice causes to widows and widowers, and urging HUD to take immediate action to better inform reverse mortgage borrowers and their spouses about options to avoid foreclosure on a non-borrowing spouse, remove arbitrary and unrealistic deadlines for lenders to elect to participate in the program, and ensure that the program can work effectively to help non-borrowing spouses stay in their homes.

“Failing to take reasonable steps to protect widows and widowers from a foreclosure risk caused by HUD’s own unlawful regulation is not only unjust, it’s bad policy,” said Sarah Mancini, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. “A significant number of older homeowners now face the loss of their homes as well as their community support networks due to HUD’s harsh deadlines and a lack of information.”

Reverse mortgage loans are designed to make it easier for older homeowners to age in place by allowing them to borrow against the equity in the home without the risk of displacement. The proceeds of a reverse mortgage can be taken as a lump sum, a line of credit, or a stream of monthly payments. So long as the borrower continues to occupy the home as his or her principal residence, the borrower must pay property taxes and the homeowner’s insurance premium, but need not make payments of principal or interest on the loan. Unlike most mortgages, where the balance goes down over time, with a reverse mortgage the loan balance grows over time as the interest is added to the principal balance (hence the name “reverse” mortgage). The full loan balance becomes due and payable upon a triggering event – in most cases, the death of the last remaining borrower.

Congress specified that HUD could only insure loans that protected both the homeowner and any spouse from displacement. However, despite this requirement, HUD issued regulations that required lenders to use form loan documents that made the loans due and payable upon the death of the borrower – ignoring any spouse who was not included as a borrower on the loan. This created an incentive for some lenders and mortgage brokers to encourage married couples to leave the younger spouse off the loan. Most couples who opted to take out a reverse mortgage in the name of only one of the spouses had no idea that the non-borrowing spouse would face foreclosure and eviction because the loan would become due and payable upon the death of the borrowing spouse.

In response to litigation, HUD changed its regulations for new reverse mortgages issued after August 2014, but pre-2014 loans still go into foreclosure unless the surviving spouse can take critical steps within a very short time after the death of the borrowing spouse. The surviving spouses are often unaware of the significant substantive requirements and short deadlines, and may be overwhelmed by the many demands they face after losing a loved one.

“HUD should require servicers to regularly inform borrowers and their spouses of the proper procedures to remain in their homes,” said Mancini. “Right now, too many spouses have no idea that options exist until it is too late.”

NCLC attorneys recommend the following changes in order to make assistance for reverse mortgage borrowers more accessible and viable for non-borrowing spouses.

  • HUD should remove unnecessary deadlines for the program or, at a minimum, provide waivers of deadlines in appropriate cases.
  • HUD should require servicers to communicate clearly with borrowers and non-borrowing spouses about the program and steps needed to qualify for the program, beginning, even before the borrower’s death.
  • HUD should allow additional time for non-borrowing spouses to cure a default on property taxes or insurance when spouses are actively attempting to repay these charges or are eligible for help through an assistance program such as a Hardest Hit Funds program.
  • HUD should require servicers to communicate with non-borrowing spouses at every step of the process, and HUD’s Servicing Center should provide accurate, up to date information to any non-borrowing spouse who makes an inquiry about the status of an application for the program.
  • HUD should expand the program to include non-borrowing spouses who want to remain in the home when the borrowing spouse is still living but has moved out permanently, for example due to health reasons.

For a complete list of recommendations and for more information on reverse mortgages and HUD’s programs, view NCLC’s issue brief.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

February 9, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Unreasonable fees for proof of claim. $4,000 fee for private mortgagee’s proof of claim and objection to proposed plan was unreasonable, and creditor was denied recovery of $7,500 attorney fee for responding to debtor’s objection to proof of claim. The Court considered Fannie Mae’s guidelines for maximum fees related to proof of claim...
Members
ACH-headshot
February 19, 2023
Creditors may now be subject to more preference actions, especially for those cases filed in Indiana. The Seventh Circuit recently overturned long-standing precedent that the preference period on garnishment of attachment would no longer run from the date of service or knowledge of the attachment but when the funds were paid over. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Mark...
Members
February 10, 2019
Jan M. Sensenich graduated from Windham College in Putney, Vermont in 1978 and Vermont Law School in 1983. He served as Core Faculty Member and Director of the Woodbury College Legal Clinic from 1983 to 1987and from 1990 to 1992. Jan was an Associate with Jerome I. Meyers, P.C. from 1987 to 1990 when he opened his own practice concentrating...
November 3, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of TN (Nashville) A creditor may request an extension of time to file a claim under Rule 3002, F.R.B.P. only where the conditions of that rule have been fully satisfied; the filing of a defective list of creditors does not permit an extension of the time for...
Members
January 6, 2019
IRS issued the 2019 optional standard mileage rates used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving purposes. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2019, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (also vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be: 58 cents per mile driven for business use, up 3.5 cents from...
RHONDA HOLE 2016  COPYRIGHT
April 28, 2024
It is appropriate that the title of this article is based on the lyrics from Dire Straits’ biggest hit, since that is where many below-median debtors find themselves – in dire straits.
Members
moran_cathy
December 3, 2023
“We’re confronted with a dilemma: if we pay practitioners fairly,we price ourselves out of reach of the very individuals we hope to help.”
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
A person or entity need not physically prepare a bankruptcy petition for a pro se debtor in order to be a bankruptcy petition preparer, but a debtor must have paid some compensation for the “services” provided.
JamesDavis
December 8, 2024
The amendments to the Bankruptcy Rules that took effect on December 1, 2024, are primarily stylistic, but they do include a few substantive changes. More controversial changes are in the pipeline for December 2025, however, with significant changes to Rule 3002.1 proposed.
Members
ahern_larry_regular
June 11, 2023
Introduction This series reviews developments in bankruptcy procedure during the past year. One new rule and amendments to 16 rules took effect December 1, 2022. Many reflected changes necessitated by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA), and had been in place in the same or similar form on an interim basis since that legislation took effect.
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: