
By
Mike Wiery, Esq. and
Darryl
Gormley, Esq.
ReimerLaw Co. *
USFN
Member (KY, OH, WV)
For some time, homeowners
with mortgages insured by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(“HUD”) have been utilizing HUD regulations as a defense to foreclosure
proceedings. While versions of the HUD model promissory note and mortgage may
differ slightly, many versions contain language imposing HUD regulation exceptions
to the lender’s remedies upon default.
Limiting Language in HUD Notes and
Mortgages:
Certain versions
of the HUD model note provide that "[i]f Borrower defaults by failing to
pay in full any monthly payment, then Lender may, except as limited by regulations
of the Secretary [of HUD] in the case of payment defaults, require
immediate payment in full of the principal balance remaining due and all accrued
interest.” These versions of the HUD note
typically state: “[i]n many circumstances regulations issued by the Secretary
will limit Lender's rights to require immediate payment in full in the case
of payment defaults” and that; “[t]his Note does not authorize acceleration when
not permitted by HUD regulations…”
A common provision
in HUD model mortgages, captioned "Grounds for Acceleration of
Debt[,]" often contains similar language to the model note: "Lender may, except as limited by
regulations issued by the Secretary, in the case of payment defaults, require
immediate payment in full . . . " and that "[i]n many circumstances regulations
issued by the Secretary will limit Lender's rights, in the case of payment
defaults, to require immediate payment in full and foreclosure if not paid.
This Security Instrument does not authorize acceleration or foreclosure if
not permitted by regulations of the Secretary."
Defenses Provided by Contract:
The HUD regulations
do not provide an independent private right of action to a borrower. However, Ohio
courts have held that HUD regulations do provide a defense to foreclosure when
incorporated into the default sections of the note and mortgage and a lender
fails to comply with these sections.[1] These
cases have found that it makes no difference whether HUD regulations are meant
to govern only the relationship between HUD and mortgagees.[2] Rather,
the focus is that the mortgagee and the
mortgagor agreed to limit the mortgagee's rights to accelerate and foreclose
based on applicable HUD regulations.[3] Thus,
by contract, the lender is required to comply with the HUD regulations governing
acceleration and foreclosure, and borrowers are entitled to use any failure to
do so as a shield in a subsequent foreclosure case.[4]
Commonly Litigated HUD Regulations
and Their Requirements:
Some Ohio courts
consider failure to comply with HUD regulations to be an affirmative defense to
foreclosure, though the majority of Ohio appellate districts consider HUD
regulatory compliance to be a condition precedent to the foreclosure action.[5] The
HUD regulations most commonly litigated in Ohio are the HUD face-to-face interview
requirement under 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 and the HUD delinquency notice requirement
under 24 C.F.R. § 203.602.[6]
Section 203.604
requires that a lender conduct a face-to-face interview with a borrower before
three full monthly payments are due and unpaid. This interview is required
unless one of the following exemptions applies:
- The mortgagor
does not reside in the mortgaged property.
- The mortgaged
property is not within 200 miles of the mortgagee, its servicer, or a branch
office of either.
- The mortgagor
has clearly indicated that they will not cooperate with an interview.
- A repayment plan
is entered into consistent with the mortgagor’s circumstances.
- A “reasonable
effort” to arrange a meeting is unsuccessful.
A “reasonable effort” is defined as:
- Minimum of one
letter sent to the mortgagor certified by the postal service as having been
dispatched.
- At least one
trip to see the mortgagor at the mortgaged property.
Section 203.602 requires
a mortgagee give notice to each mortgagor in default. This notice must be on a
form supplied by HUD or approved by HUD and be sent by the second month of any
delinquency in payments. If an account is reinstated and again becomes
delinquent, this notice must be sent to the mortgagor again, except that the mortgagee
is not required to send a second delinquency notice to the same mortgagor more
often than once each six months. The HUD 4000.1 Handbook currently sets forth
what information a HUD delinquency notice is required to provide, along with
what Informational Brochure must be enclosed. Currently, the mortgagee must send
a HUD “Save Your Home: Tips to Avoid Foreclosure”[7] brochure
with a cover letter that includes information concerning:
- Availability
of language access services for borrowers with limited English proficiency.
- In regard to
the delinquent mortgage: the number of late payments, total amount of any late
charges incurred, the month of each late payment, and the original due
date of each late payment.
- The mortgagee’s
mailing address and toll-free telephone numbers for borrowers needing to
contact the mortgagee’s assigned loss mitigation and/or customer assistance
personnel.
- A request for
current borrower financial information necessary for loss mitigation analysis.
- Toll-free
telephone numbers for borrowers needing to contact the mortgagee’s loss
mitigation and/or customer assistance personnel; and
- Toll-free
telephone numbers for borrowers seeking information on HUD-approved
housing counseling agencies, toll-free Federal Information Relay Service
number for borrowers who may need to utilize a Telecommunication Device for
the Deaf (TDD) to call the housing counseling line.
Consequences of Non-Compliance:
Failure to comply
with a condition precedent prior to filing a foreclosure complaint warrants dismissal
of the foreclosure case under Ohio law. Following a dismissal for failure to satisfy
conditions precedent, a lender may fulfill the HUD regulations and re-file the foreclosure
action. While §203.604 requires that a
lender conduct the face-to-face interview or make a reasonable effort to
arrange such a meeting “before three full monthly payments are due and unpaid,”
Ohio courts have not strictly enforced this requirement against lenders. The
courts have held that, under their reading of the regulations, the specific
time deadlines of §203.604 are aspirational, whereas the obligation to perform
those conditions (i.e., the requirement to actually have a face-to-face
meeting, absent one of the stated exceptions), is mandatory.[8]
HUD’s Changes to their Notes and Mortgages
Likely to Bring Different Results:
In September 2014,
HUD removed from the default provisions of its model mortgage all language which
limited a lender’s right to accelerate or foreclose in the case of payment defaults. In January 2015, HUD also removed this language
from the default provisions of its model note. While these changes to the HUD model
note and mortgage occurred several years ago, they are “recent” in that case
law has not been developed on these changes. Additionally, little public information
is available concerning the intent of HUD in making these changes. It is possible that HUD made these changes
because it was never HUD’s intention that they be used by borrowers as a
defense to foreclosure. HUD went so far as to add an additional section to its
model mortgage wherein borrowers agree they are “not entitled to enforce any
agreement between Lender and the Secretary, unless explicitly authorized to do
so by Applicable Law.” The model mortgage
defines “Applicable Law” to include all applicable, final, non-appealable
judicial opinions. In Ohio, as explained
herein, a borrower’s ability to use HUD regulations in defense of foreclosure is
based on the express language of the HUD note and mortgage. Therefore, as HUD
has removed the contract language that once served as the platform for HUD
regulation defenses, it follows that courts should decide future cases
involving these defenses differently.
COVID-19 Partial Waiver of HUD’s Face-to-Face
Requirement:
Temporary changes to
HUD’s requirement that lenders comply with §203.604 went into effect on March
13, 2020. On that date, the Federal
Housing Administration (“FHA”) published partial waivers of the HUD face-to-face
interview requirement in response to public health concerns due to the COVID-19
pandemic. The FHA face-to-face interview waiver allowed mortgagees to utilize
alternative methods such as phone interviews, email, and video conferencing
services in lieu of conducting actual face-to-face interviews with borrowers. The
partial waivers were extended and currently remain effective through December
31, 2022. The waivers provide a counter argument to any borrower defenses alleging
the lender failed to comply with a face-to-face interview during the applicable
period.
With the passage
of time, the number of HUD notes and mortgages containing language limiting a lender
by the HUD regulations will decrease. Conversely, loans with the current model note
and mortgage will increase, and most likely change the litigation landscape regarding
foreclosure of HUD loans. As HUD has changed language in their notes and mortgages
in the past, so are they likely to change it in the future. Accordingly, lenders
(and their counsel) who remain alert to the specific language contained in the default
provisions of HUD notes and mortgages will be well prepared to address future HUD
regulation defenses.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5]
U. S. Bank, N.A. v. Detweiler, 191 Ohio App.3d 464,
2010-Ohio-6408, 946 N.E.2d 777, ¶ 53 (5th Dist.)
[6]
Id..
[7]
HUD-2008-5-FHA
[8]
PNC Mtge. v. Garland, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 12 MA 222,
2014-Ohio-1173, ¶ 30
Copyright @2022
USFN Summer Report