Posts Tagged ‘reverse mortgage legislation’

Debate about Contents of New Reverse Mortgage Legislation

Friday, July 24th, 2009

As the House continues to debate their appropriations bill, much recent reverse mortgage news has covered speculated and proposed changes in the bill, including questions as to whether the increased property value limit ($625,500) will be extended, and how the FHA will avoid the $798 million taxpayer subsidy requested for the program.  The bill approved by the House Appropriations committee on last week instructs HUD to reduce the principal amounts borrowers can receive through the program.

However, the most important point at this time in the bill’s process is that nothing has been finalized. The bill must be approved by the House, then the Senate, then a Conference Committee made up of members from both houses of Congress meets to reconcile changes in the bill, and then the President must sign it for it to become law.  This whole process will likely not be completed until well into the fall.   I therefore think that at this time, the best course of action is not to panic or react to proposed changes before they become a reality. Obviously lobbying has its place in the legislative process, but at an early draft stage, it seems to be unnecessary for the industry to sit on pins and needles reacting to every change (or proposed change) to the bill before it is in front of the whole Congressional body.  And even if a change passes the House or the Senate that is unfavorable, it is still likely that it might not pass through a conference committee in tact. Let’s give the complexity of the legislative process its due.

Minnesota Governor Vetoes Reverse Mortgage Legislation

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

 

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed the SF 489 on Thursday, the Reverse Mortgage legislation that was being debated in the state legislature there.  Pawlenty wrote that while he agreed with the goal of the legislation, it might have the unintended consequence of making reverse mortgages less available in the state of Minnesota and increasing the costs.  Governor Pawlenty also felt that the suitability criteria as defined in the bill was too vague, and asked the bill’s authors for greater specification in order to avoid unnecessary litigation.

The vetoing of the bill is a positive step, avoiding vague legislation, and helping to ensure that the goal of protecting consumers does not prevent the product from being available or accessible.  In addition, Governor Pawlenty’s acknowledgement of the many benefits of a reverse mortgage and support of the product are other positive signs for the reverse mortgage industry.