AARP Calls for Withdrawal of Fed’s TILA Proposal Due to Reverse Mortgage Revisions

AARP is requesting the Federal Reserve withdraw a proposal and defer changes to the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) until next year due to revisions relating to reverse mortgages and the right of rescission.

“Not only would those two provisions greatly undermine existing consumer protections, they break with Congressional intent and exceed the authority given to the Board,” said David Certner, AARP Legislative Policy Director in a comment letter.

Earlier this year, the Fed proposed enhanced consumer protection and disclosure requirements for reverse mortgages that prohibit lenders from requiring the purchase of another financial or insurance product as a condition of obtaining the loan.


“Unfortunately, this prohibition includes a safe harbor provision that deems transactions to be in compliance if the purchase of such financial products occurs at least 10 calendar days after the reverse mortgage transaction has been completed. Allowing for such an exception essentially nullifies this important prohibition,” said Certner.

According to the letter, the safe harbor proposal also appears to be “contrary to the intent of provisions of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.”  As part of the law, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is required to conduct a study of reverse mortgages within one year of being established.

The agency can also issue regulations as necessary for “protecting borrowers with respect to obtaining reverse mortgage loans for the purpose of funding investments, annuities, and other investment products and the suitability of a borrower in obtaining a reverse mortgage for such purpose.”

For these reason, AARP is requesting the Fed to withdraw its proposal and defer discussion of changes to TILA until next year by the new CFPB.

Join the Conversation (2)

see all

This is a professional community. Please use discretion when posting a comment.

  • Where does AARP come up with the idea that 10 days is unreasonable? The Fed suggested 10 day period exceeds law; the Fed’s position is inappropriate and should be attacked with all vigor by the insurance and financial products industries. A purchase of any financial or insurance product should be permitted immediately following rescission; that is law.

    The arrogance of AARP exceeds all reason. If it wants a greater cooling off time, it should appeal to Senators McCaskill and Kohl immediately for the corrective legislative while the Democrats still enjoy a majority in the House and a 59 seat position in the Senate. I for one would support its position for a longer cooling off period.

    While I abhor cross selling and strongly believe it is a conflict of interest, the pompous demand of AARP is far worse. They are one of the largest lobbyist groups in DC and should not be permitted any special consideration other than being heard during legislative hearings. Their position is abominable and can hardly be described as democratic.

  • I usually agree with Critic, but not this time. I have been a member of AARP for 6 years. This is the first time I have seen them do anything for Seniors other than try to sell overpriced insurance. I agree with Critic’s point of law, but at least they tried.

string(126) ""

Share your opinion

[wpli_login_link redirect=""]