AARP sues U.S. housing department over reverse-mortgage policy

“„

The case will have broad national implications, because the outcome will determine whether spouses will be able to stay in homes that are now “underwater” as a result of the housing downturn, a possibility that reverse mortgage borrowers have always paid insurance premiums to protect against.

“„

HUD rules in place since 1989 clearly state that a borrower or heirs would never owe more than the home was worth at the time of repayment. But at the end 2008, HUD abruptly changed the policy and said that an heir – including a surviving spouse who was not named on the mortgage – must pay the full mortgage balance to keep the home, even it if exceeds the value of the property. This does not just violate HUD rules; it violates existing contracts between reverse mortgage borrowers and lenders, and negates a key purpose for which borrowers had been paying insurance premiums.

“„

… One protection is that no borrower or his heirs can be liable for more than the value of the property. The lawsuit notes that HUD’s Handbook, in effect since 1994, as well as other information published by HUD on its website and elsewhere, affirmed this policy. Then, in December, 2008, HUD abandoned that interpretation and stated for the first time that spouses or heirs who wanted to retain the home were required to repay the full balance, even if it exceeded the property’s current value. Strangely, HUD’s current rule is that a stranger can purchase the property for its current appraised value, but a surviving spouse cannot.

“„

The three plaintiffs, all of modest means, were adversely affected by HUD’s illegal actions. Under HUD’s rules, they do not qualify as “homeowners” because they were not listed on the original reverse mortgage documents with their spouses. And they will suffer “substantial hardship” if forced to repay the original higher mortgage cost in order to retain their home, the lawsuit states.