The Washington state Capitol, one of the states where a new reverse mortgage bill has been introduced.
Last week, we discussed the proposed reverse mortgage bill in Arizona. Today, we would like to highlight three other states where bills regulating proprietary reverse mortgages have been introduced in the last month. The three bills differ dramatically from each other.
The California bill aims to protect seniors from being lied to and/or misinformed, including a lot of regulations surrounding impartial HUD counseling. Some highlights of the California Reverse Mortgage Elder Protection Act of 2009 include requiring lenders to provide prospective borrowers with a list of all approved HUD counselors in the state, requiring lenders to disclose any business relationships or potential conflicts of interest with the counseling agency to the prospective borrower, and allowing the borrower to cancel the reverse mortgage for any reason within the first 30 days. This bill apparently addresses the needs of the state, where seniors have been found to be misinformed or misled regarding reverse mortgages more often than in some of their neighbors.
Minnesota’s new bill addresses the issues of fraud and double dipping. It too seeks to ensure that lenders do not provide reverse mortgages to seniors who do not need them.
One of the key facets of the bill is that it prohibits cross selling involving reverse mortgages. The bill will also require mandatory counseling for proprietary reverse mortgages. There appears to be a lot of skepticism as to whether it is possible to ever really prohibit cross selling. However, it seems valuable to state that lenders cannot also sell annuities or insurance to the borrower if the payments will come from the reverse mortgage. Trust is a crucial aspect of the reverse mortgage program, and double dipping has the potential to undermine that trust.
The Washington bill protects both the lender and the consumer from eachother. The bill appears similar in some ways to the Arizona bill by mandating counseling. It requires basic protections, ensuring that there is a right of recession and that the payments go to the correct party. However, the bill is also notable because it adds provisions for the lender, helping to confirm that the lender can afford to make the payments in the reverse mortgage and that they are held accountable if they do not. The Washington bill appears to be designed to prevent court cases and help provide guidance to the courts in determining disputes. It also is likely to serve as an important step in protecting seniors in the proprietary reverse mortgage market–especially since one only needs to be 60 to qualify for a proprietary reverse mortgage in Washington State.
These bills continue to show the increased interest the states have been taking in regulating the proprietary reverse mortgage market during the recession. Reverse mortgages can help seniors and improve their lives. On the other hand, there also instances where getting a reverse mortgage may prove to not be the right thing for the senior and their family. Taking steps to protect the senior while helping to prevent lawsuits is a good thing. It is valuable that the states have gotten involved in regulating a market that is so at risk for fraud and manipulation.