Have a good Holiday.

I am not after or against Mr. Cole. I am simply trying to reduce unnecessary provisions related to our industry here in California. For those of us subject to AB 260, we must meet the fiduciary standard of putting the economic interest of the customer in front of our own — as advocated by Mr. Cole. I agree with that standard.

The problem is not with what fiduciary standard AB 260 requires; the issue is to which mortgagees and mortgage transactions does AB 260 apply. Immediately following his comment, Mr. Cole determined that AB 260 applies in the way and to the parties that were presented at the NRMLA convention and in my comment. That is the important issue, agreement as to application.

I called Mr. Cole today and spoke with him for about an hour. We both agree that the same standard of care which is required in AB 260 should apply to all mortgage transactions in the state. In fact we agree on many fundamental issues related to our industry here in California. Mr. Cole and I are discussing other legislative issues; however, other than agreeing in principle as an individual, I will leave industry issues up to NRMLA.

We are picking up our conversation on Monday and will hopefully keep up the correspondence in the days and years to come. I believe it is important for senior advocates to understand our concerns, and we, theirs.

I appreciate your taking my call today. It is good we had a meeting of the minds and agree on the application of AB 260 as applying to California Financial Lenders and Residential Mortgage Lenders as well as those licensed by the California Department of Real Estate.

Like you, I would like to see this same standard applied to all California mortgages originated by all mortgagees. Putting the economic interests of the customer above that of the lender is important and a necessary standard.

I would like to correct a few things in the article. Mr. Cole is not a lobbyist as indicated in the second paragraph of the article, he is an advocate as Mr. Morse correctly pointed out in the first paragraph. Mr. Cole is also a California attorney.

Is Mr. Cole actually a California licensed attorney? Is he really a lobbyist here in the California state capitol advocating for the fiduciary standard you state?

California AB 260 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger less than 40 days ago and requires that all those licensed through the California Departments of Real Estate and Corporations provide the level of fiduciary care that Mr. Cole specifically advocates — on all mortgage transactions in the state of CALIFORNIA, period. Mr. Cole may counter that all lenders should be covered but where was he when AB 260 was working its way through the California Legislature and Senate?

While it is not as surprising you are not aware of AB 260, it is very surprising Mr. Cole is not. Mr. Cole should describe how the fiduciary responsibility he espoused above differs in one iota from that required under AB 260.

What is disgusting about the remarks of Mr. Cole is that he singles out the reverse mortgage industry as if our industry is the only part of the entire mortgage industry that deserves this level of fiduciary responsibility. It seems he has no cognizance of lenders taking far more advantage of seniors with other types of mortgages than has ever been done by our industry. Thank goodness for the wisdom of the California Legislature and Senate; they not only covered all mortgages but also mortgagors.

Please allow this California lobbyist/lawyer the time to read the California law (AB 260) and comment again. Everyone deserves a second chance.

[California AB 260 was covered by Mr. Clint Rockwell, an attorney, on Wednesday at the NRMLA Convention. Both Mr. Joel Schiffman, an attorney and partner of Mr. Jim Brodsky, and I also covered that same law on Friday morning as part of our NRMLA update on California laws.]