Great Oak Lending Remains Top Maryland Reverse Lender, Begins Expansion

NewImage.jpg1st Maryland Mortgage Corp (dba Great Oak Lending Partners) announced it has held onto the title of #1 reverse mortgage lender in Maryland for the fiscal 3rd quarter of 2010 according to data from Reverse Market Insight.

It’s the second consecutive quarter that the company has held the number one position as it begins to expand into other areas of the country.

“Over the last year, we have been re-investing Great Oak and working hard to grow our business – even as the real estate market struggled,” said Joshua Shein, president and CEO of Great Oak. “This ranking is a testament to the fact that those investments are paying off.”


Earlier this year, Great Oak merged with 1st Maryland Mortgage Corp. to help it transition to mortgage banker and obtain its full eagle.  According to the company, the merger allows it to fund up to $25 million in loans per month and provides it three offices in Maryland and operates in seven other states.

The company recently launched a local media campaign using the video below.


Join the Conversation (11)

see all

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

    • Good question, since they merged, Great oak shows up different on ReverseBase.

      At this time, we’re not merging companies, but hopefully next year I’ll figure out a good way to do it. Right now, it just reflects the data HUD gives us.

    • Reverse Market Insight maintains our database to include mergers and acquisitions validated by our lender partners, and edits to correct known issues with how some HUD data is mis-reported (typically because a wholesaler is getting origination credit for a broker’s loan).

      This results in a more accurate view of our industry in our opinion, by cross-referencing with multiple data sources and industry knowledge and experience.

      • 😉

        More than one way to skin this cat, but probably better to find a right
        answer together than have multiple different answers out there. The real
        message here is that multiple versions lead to confusion and less usefulness
        for everybody.

        One version of the truth.

      • Admin and John,

        Another version of truth…

        It is strange you do not say the same about the data issued by HUD and identified as applications when in fact they are most likely case number assignments as indicated in the latest HUD notice.

        Enjoy the holidays.

  • It is very troubling to see this lender promoting the idea that reverse mortgages are “tax-free” as the first item on their bullet points following their screen listing expenses. This means that other than persuading consumers that they provide cash to meet needs, this is THEIR biggest selling point on reverse mortgages. Great Oak is not by itself in that regard.

    This bears repeated warning. Those who insist on using this selling point must be prepared to face the consequences. Most advertising of this nature caveats in the same size print the need for the reader to see a tax advisor about how tax law may apply to them; this ad did not even have that. A small group of expert witnesses scoffs at the vast majority of those caveats as worthless due to the separation of the statement from the caveat.

    With the change in tax law which occurred in the just closed “lame duck” session of Congress, there may be no protection afforded estates regarding exposure to taxation from the cancellation (discharge or forgiveness) of any portion of the balance due on a reverse mortgage even the estates of those decedents who passed away in 2010 (or will pass in the remainder of 2010). When considering required payment application, as to HECMs there is no forgiveness that does not include loan proceeds. Most individual borrowers will find more protection in the Internal Revenue Code than estates regarding exposure to increased tax liability from taxable discharge on a nonrecourse mortgage against a principal residence, but not taxability itself.

    IRS provisions covering penalties do not apply to civil litigation or FTC rules related to false advertising. Even worse they do not apply to headline risk. The “wild west” claims about income tax matters thrown out by this industry must be reined in to avoid exposure to significant embarrassment and financial loss.

    Worse the statute of limitations rules may come into play exposing the issue to several years, if not indefinite, uncovering. Since 1989 there have been very few terminations of reverse mortgages. It is expected that a significant portion of the hundreds of thousands of reverse mortgages currently outstanding will terminate over the next decade and have some lender discharge associated with their termination; much of that is expected to be seen earlier rather than later in the decade.

    There is no tax law, regulation, ruling, or tax decision which protects the discharge of the balance due on a HECM from taxation despite FHA paying that discharge off. See the Allan Decision for more information [Allan et al versus Commissioner, 86 T.C. 655 (1986) affirmed 856 F.2d 1169 (8th Cir. 1988)]. This is one of the leading cases on the taxability of the forgiveness on nonrecourse debt; it also involves an FHA insured mortgage. As of yet there is no court case regarding borrowers (or their estates), reverse mortgages, and tax matters. It may be several years before those cases begin to appear

    • allreverse,


      But that seems to be more of a marketing battle between CEOs in Comments than the article itself. It is good RMI has a friendly competitor.

string(115) ""

Share your opinion