Residential Foreclosures: Reverse Mortgages Now Covered in New York
Jacob Inwald of Legal Services NYC writes: Important changes governing pre-foreclosure notices and settlement conferences for reverse mortgages were signed into law on April 20, 2017, requiring 90-day pre-foreclosure notices in all reverse mortgage foreclosures and requiring settlement conferences in many reverse mortgage cases.
July 25, 2017 at 06:57 PM
9 minute read
Important changes governing pre-foreclosure notices and settlement conferences for reverse mortgages were signed into law on April 20, 2017, requiring 90-day pre-foreclosure notices in all reverse mortgage foreclosures and requiring settlement conferences in many reverse mortgage cases. The amendments affecting reverse mortgage foreclosures, making changes to New York Real Property Law (RPAPL) 1304 and Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3408 appear in Part FF, 2017 Sess. Laws of N.Y., Ch. 58 (S. 2008C) (McKinneys). These changes supplemented the 2016 amendments to New York's residential foreclosure settlement conference law, detailed in a previous article. Jacob Inwald, “Residential Foreclosures: Legislative Changes to Settlement Conference Law,” N.Y.L.J., July 29, 2016. Significant changes to New York's pre-foreclosure notice law also went into effect at the end of 2016. (The legislation, signed into law on June 23, 2016, as part of an omnibus bill, Part Q of which contained the provisions applicable to residential foreclosures, became effective 180 days after enactment, i.e., on Dec. 20, 2016 pursuant to Chapter 73 of the Laws of New York.)
Reverse mortgages are loans that allow homeowners aged 62 and older to tap into their home equity while remaining in their homes, and can be an important resource for seniors who may have insufficient income to cover their living expenses. Instead of making a payment each month to cover principal and interest, the interest accrues against the borrower's home equity, and the loan (which most typically is insured by the Federal Housing Administration, known as a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or HECM) is not due and payable until the borrower's death. But borrowers are responsible for payment of taxes and insurance, known as property charges, and a failure to pay such charges can trigger a reverse mortgage “default” that can result in a foreclosure.
These most vulnerable homeowners are increasingly finding themselves in foreclosure as mortgage servicers move aggressively to foreclose without providing an opportunity for the borrower to resolve property charge defaults, or invoke other technical defaults that can trigger foreclosure, causing a substantial uptick in reverse mortgage foreclosures in recent years. The exclusion of reverse mortgages from New York's foreclosure consumer protections became an unacceptable anomaly, as New York's most vulnerable homeowners—the seniors to whom reverse mortgages are marketed—were deprived of statutory pre-foreclosure notices and mandatory settlement conferences at which foreclosure-avoiding solutions can be negotiated. The availability of improved notices and settlement conferences at which defaults can be resolved is a positive development for New York's senior homeowners.
Reverse Mortgage Changes
Prior to the recent amendment, RPAPL 1304, which requires a “90 Day Notice” to be served as a condition precedent to commencement of a foreclosure action on a “home loan,” specifically excluded reverse mortgages from the definition of a “home loan” to which the pre-foreclosure notice requirement applies. That exclusion has now been eliminated. Accordingly, the pre-foreclosure notice requirements discussed below now unequivocally apply to actions seeking foreclosure on reverse mortgage loans. The legislation, which was signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on April 20, 2017, specified that these provisions eliminating the exclusion of reverse mortgages from the “home loan” definition took effect along with the 2016 amendments signed into law on June 23, 2016, as part of an omnibus bill, Part Q, which became effective 180 days after enactment, i.e., on Dec. 20, 2016 pursuant to Chapter 73 of the Laws of New York. Part FF, 2017 Sess. Laws of N.Y., Ch. 58 (S. 2008C) (McKinneys), at §3.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThis Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest: Constructive Trust Claim; Succession Rights; Tenant ‘Blacklisting Law’
Here’s Looking at You, Starwood: A Piercing the Corporate Veil Story?
7 minute readMall of America Dealt Another Blow in Quest to End $10-Per-Year Lease With Sears
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250