Comments on: Are States Now Listening to Reverse Mortgage Advocates?

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:39:15 +0000

Agreed.

By: jamesanelson

jamesanelson — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:02:47 +0000

It's truly sad that we must pass laws or regulations to protect Seniors against thieves. The FHA HECM is an outright blessing to help Seniors remain in their homes, instead of being forced into a nursing or assisted living facility. Sometimes Seniors even can justify an FHA HECM even when there is no immediate financial need–putting a line of credit or lump
sum in place to protect against the unknown. ( When one ages, anything can happen to one's health at any time; life can suddenly change immediately.) If loan originators would always treat their clients as if they were in the Client's shoes or the Client was one of their Parents or Granparents, perhaps there would be far less cross-selling (which hopefully
is disappearing), or other ploys to help the Senior spend his/her money.

By: edwinhoffmann

edwinhoffmann — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:30:14 +0000

Washington State approved it's Reverse Mortgage Act unanimously this past legislative session. It took effect July 26th, 2009. It includes many new and additional proctions for senior homeowners.
I wonder what Mr. Oswald finds objectionable with it.

By: James_E_Veale_CPA_MBT

James_E_Veale_CPA_MBT — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:37:10 +0000

Having looked into not only California Assembly Bill ("AB") 329 but also e the MBA reverse mortgage state model bill, the claims made by the MBA are overblown.

There are only four sections in AB 329. The first two are the naming of the Act and a preamble. Most of the Act is simply a reproduction of the old law with a few key changes and one substantial addition. The only area that might have been influenced to any extent by the MBA model bill are the provisions related to counseling but then only marginally so.

The MBA model bill on cross selling is all but a repetition of the California rules enacted in 2006 updated for HERA. The new California cross selling rules repeat the 2006 law expanded for HERA but with one big difference. It now provides an exception for compliance with HERA. The MBA model has no such exception.

The MBA model bill has a section for taxes and insurance set asides. Thank goodness, California did not follow suit. The California bill also has a disclosure requirement that exceeds anything reflected in the MBA model bill.

All in all, there are few provisions in the MBA reverse mortgage state model bill that are actually reflected in California AB 329. While I agree that uniformity among state laws related to reverse mortgages, the MBA reverse mortgage state model act should not be used for that purpose. .