By Brian Liebo, Esq.

Liebo, Weingarden, Dobie & Barbee, PLLP
USFN Member (MN)

Just over a year ago, the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a subordinate lien held by the U.S. cannot be extinguished by a non-judicial foreclosure sale in its Show Me State Premium Homes v. McDonnell decision, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2410(c).  However, that same statutory framework also gives U.S. agencies the authority to release their liens.

In a highly anticipated development, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2024-17 providing for a work around following the Show Me State decision. HUD, recognizing the adverse impacts of proceeding with judicial foreclosures in states where non-judicial foreclosures are the preferred method of foreclosure, has now established a process where mortgagees can seek releases of subordinate Secretary-held liens.  Specifically, HUD established an optional, interim procedure where mortgagees may request releases of subordinate Secretary-held liens, but only in those instances where the nonjudicial foreclosure sale resulted in no surplus funds. HUD defines surplus funds as any amount included in the winning bid in excess of the amount required to complete the foreclosure sale, before additional proceeds are applied to any subordinate lien.

Mortgage servicers must utilize HUD’s SMART Integrated Portal to request these releases. The releases are available for multiple, subordinate HUD mortgages beyond just partial claim mortgages.

The USDA previously went further than HUD by issuing an announcement in July encouraging servicers to use the less expensive non-judicial foreclosure method where available. It also put in place a process for mortgage servicers to obtain releases regardless of whether there are surplus funds after the foreclosure sale. Hopefully, HUD will soon follow the USDA by also allowing releases in cases where there are surplus funds in its final procedures for non-judicial foreclosures with Secretary-held liens.

Regardless, this change by HUD is a step in the right direction to help mortgage servicers avoid the significant time and expense associated with judicial foreclosures in those states where non-judicial foreclosures are otherwise available. USFN’s advocacy committee had been in communication with FHA about these concerns in the wake of Show Me and are pleased to see this guidance in the matter.

Copyright © 2024 USFN

USFNews - Sept. 4

By Lisa A. Lee, Esq.

KML Law Group, PC*

USFN Member (NJ, PA)

There is no doubt the pandemic had the effect of highlighting the benefits of face-to-face contact for all of us. Once the ability to be face-to-face with others is taken away, you realize just how important it is to building trust and lasting relationships.

The architects of the HUD default servicing requirements clearly believed in the importance of face-to-face contact long before anyone had ever heard of COVID-19. Servicers of HUD loans have long been subject to the provisions of 24 C.F.R.§203.604, which provide that a mortgagee “must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting before three full monthly installments due on the mortgage are unpaid.” There are several exemptions, including the circumstance where “[t]he mortgaged property is not within 200 miles of the mortgagee, its servicer, or a branch office of either.”  Section 203.604 includes a description of what a “reasonable effort” to arrange such a meeting looks like. Specifically, mortgagees must send one letter to the mortgagor by certified mail and must make at least one trip to see the mortgagor at the mortgaged property, unless the property falls under the 200-mile exemption, or it is known that the mortgagor does not reside at the property.

Due to the public health emergency created by the COVID-19 pandemic, HUD instituted a temporary, partial waiver of the face-to-face contact requirements on March 13, 2020. The stated purpose of the waiver is to ensure the continuation of early default intervention, but with the pandemic constraints on face-to-face contact in mind. The initial waiver period was 12 months, and was extended twice, most recently on December 19, 2022, with a current expiration date of December 31, 2023.

The waiver requires that, in lieu of face-to-face contact, the mortgagee attempt contact with the borrower by alternate means (phone interviews, email, Skype, Zoom, Webex, etc.) in order to determine the borrower’s circumstances, to inform the borrower that credit reporting will continue, that they may qualify for a repayment plan or other assistance, and to provide the names and addresses of other HUD officials to whom communications can be addressed. The waiver is specific that all efforts at contact must be documented using the same protocols in place for face-to-face contact. It is worth noting that the waiver does not apply to mortgages insured under section 248 of the National Housing Act, which generally applies to mortgages on Indian reservation land.

The most recent version of the waiver expands on the reasons HUD considers the waiver necessary and advisable. Of course, the primary reason remains the continuing national emergency due to COVID-19, but also mentions the rising rates of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), increased rates of the seasonal flu, shortages of staff and resources at servicers and their vendors, and the success of alternate communication means during the pandemic. On this last point, HUD specifically stated that they had “seen the alternative methods of contact provided for in this, and prior, waivers be successful since initially implemented. Servicers have been able to reach defaulted borrowers using these methods as or more successfully than through using face-to-face interviews.” (Emphasis added).

So, what can the industry expect after the expiration of this temporary, partial waiver? It remains to be seen whether HUD will extend the waiver again, or potentially make it permanent, given the apparent success of the use of alternative communication methods. If HUD were to amend the requirement in favor of alternative communication methods, it would seem that the 200-mile exemption would no longer make sense and could also become a thing of the past. There will undoubtedly be more to come on this subject, and USFN will keep you up to date.

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:

1. The mortgagor does not reside in the mortgaged property.
2. The mortgaged property is not within 200 miles of the mortgagee, its servicer, or a branch office of either.
3. The mortgagor has clearly indicated that they will not cooperate with an interview.
4. A repayment plan is entered into consistent with the mortgagor’s circumstances.
5. A “reasonable effort” to arrange a meeting is unsuccessful.

A “reasonable effort” is defined as:

1. Minimum of one letter sent to the mortgagor certified by the postal service as having been dispatched.
2. 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.

[1] BAC Home Loans Servicing v. Taylor, 2013-Ohio-355, 986 N.E.2d 1028, ¶ 19 (9th Dist.)

[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