Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

HUD

HUD Revises Borrower Residency Requirements for FHA-Insured Mortgages

By

What Happened?

On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD or the Department) issued Mortgagee Letter 2025-09 (ML 2025-09), which updates HUD’s residency requirements for borrower eligibility for mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The provisions of ML 2025-09 apply to all FHA Title II Single Family forward and Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) programs.

HUD indicated that it issued its updated residency requirements in response to (and to align with) recent executive actions by the President “that emphasize the prioritization of federal resources to protect the financial interests of American citizens and ensure the integrity of government-insured loan programs.”  The Department stated that “[c]urrently, non-permanent residents are subject to immigration laws that can affect their ability to remain legally in the country,” which “poses a challenge for FHA as the ability to fulfill long-term financial obligations depends on stable residency and employment.” The update “ensures that FHA’s mortgage insurance programs are administered in accordance with [the Trump] Administration[’s] priorities while fulfilling its mission of providing access to homeownership.”

The provisions of ML 2025-09 may be implemented immediately but are required to be implemented for all FHA-insured mortgages with case numbers assigned on or after May 25, 2025.

Why Does it Matter?

ML 2025-09 removes the Non-permanent Resident sections of the FHA Single Family Housing Policy Handbook 4000.1 (the Handbook), in its entirety, eliminating eligibility for non-permanent resident borrowers, and updating the requirements for permanent residents in the following sections of the Handbook:

  • Residency Requirements (II.A.1.b.ii(A)(9));
  • Residency Requirements (II.B.2.b.ii(A)(4));
  • Non-credit Qualifying Exemptions (II.A.8.d.vi(C)(1)(a)); and
  • Special Documentation and Procedures for Non-credit Qualifying Streamline Refinances (II.A.8.d.vi(C)(5)(b)).

The mortgagee letter clarifies that the burden is on the lender to “determine the residency status of the borrower based on information provided on the mortgage application and other applicable documentation” and notes that a Social Security card is insufficient to prove immigration or work status. Rather, “[t]he U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within the Department of Homeland Security provides evidence of lawful permanent resident status.”

In addition to limiting eligibility to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent U.S. residents, ML 2025-09 clarifies that a borrower with citizenship in the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau may also be eligible for FHA-insured financing provided the borrower satisfies the same requirements, terms, and conditions as those for U.S. citizens, and the mortgage file includes evidence of such citizenship.

Under the revised guidance, individuals who may be eligible for FHA-insured loans with case numbers assigned on or after May 25, 2025 are limited to (1) U.S. citizens, (2) lawful permanent U.S. residents, and (3) citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau.

Notably, because ML 2025-09 applies prospectively to FHA-insured mortgages with a case number assigned on or after May 25, 2025, the revised requirements would not appear to impact the servicing of existing FHA-insured mortgages made to non-permanent residents, such as the availability of loss mitigation assistance.

What Do I Need to Do?

FHA-approved mortgage lenders should review their policies, procedures, and controls and make any necessary updates to implement the requirements of ML 2025-09 for all FHA-insured mortgages that will have a case number assigned on or after May 25, 2025. Alston & Bird’s Consumer Financial Services Team is actively engaged and monitoring these developments and can assist with any compliance concerns regarding these changes to HUD requirements.

 

DEI in Lending: Are Special Purpose Credit Programs About to DIE?

By ,

For the last several years, federal agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), have been strongly encouraging financial institutions to implement and offer targeted credit assistance to historically underserved communities as one way to remedy the effects of redlining. Not surprisingly, in accordance with the prior Administration’s Combatting Redlining Initiative, every one of the 16 settlements by the CFPB and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) against both bank and non-bank lenders have mandated that these lenders offer targeted credit assistance based on the race or ethnicity of the borrowers or the predominant race or ethnicity of their neighborhoods. To satisfy the terms of these settlements, the lenders often work with state and local agencies to help market and administer their targeted loan subsidies to eligible borrowers based on protected characteristics. And still more redlining cases, brought by fair housing organizations that receive funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Private Enforcement Initiative (“PEI”), have been resolved via partnerships with federal- and state-funded entities to provide preferential treatment to Black and Hispanic borrowers and neighborhoods. However, given the current Administration’s stated goal of abolishing preferential treatment in favor of “colorblind equality,” it seems that preferential treatment in lending – even where beneficial to underserved and historically redlined communities – is on the chopping block.

DEI in the Current Political Climate

Only a couple of weeks into the new Administration, the message is clear: diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives are out. On January 22, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order terminating DEI initiatives in the federal workforce and in federal contracting and spending. Specifically, the Executive Order directs all departments and agencies to take strong action to end private sector “DEI discrimination,” including civil compliance investigations, and requires the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education to issue joint guidance regarding the measures and practices required to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. As a reminder, the Supreme Court’s decision in Harvard effectively ended race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country.

Shortly after the President’s Executive Order, on January 31, 2025, Texas governor Greg Abbott issued his own Executive Order directing all Texas state agencies to eliminate any forms of DEI policies and to treat all people equally regardless of race. In particular, the Executive Oder requires all state agencies to comply with a “color-blind guarantee,” including by ensuring that “all agency rules, policies, employment practices, communications, curricula, use of state funds, awarding of government benefits, and all other official actions treat people equally, regardless of race.” Similarly, West Virginia governor Patrick Morrisey issued his own Executive Order prohibiting DEI efforts by any entity receiving state resources, and there are likely more of such state executive actions to come.

Are SPCPs a form of DEI?

The above federal and state executive actions cast significant doubt on the current legality and permissibility of special purpose credit programs (“SPCPs”), which have been recognized for years as an exception to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) prohibition on differential treatment in lending. SPCPs, by definition, provide credit assistance to borrowers via some preferential treatment, often on the basis of borrower race or ethnicity or the predominant race or ethnicity of the residents in the neighborhood. While there may be no agreed-upon definition of DEI, it is safe to say that a SPCP that provides credit assistance, or more favorable credit terms, to borrowers based on race or ethnicity is a form of DEI.

To that end, where the requirement for a lender to implement a SPCP is baked into the terms of a settlement with a federal government agency, and such agency conducts ongoing monitoring of the lender’s activities to ensure the SPCP is being properly carried out, one could argue that the government is effectively mandating differential treatment based on race or ethnicity – in violation of the new DEI prohibition. The same could be said where state agencies and non-profit organizations that receive federal and state funds assist lenders in marketing and administering their SPCPs. Even the HUD-funded Fair Housing Initiatives Program, which includes the PEI program, could be problematic from a White House perspective, given that federal and/or state funds are currently being spent on furthering alleged redlining remediation through differential treatment.

It is even possible that SPCPs offered voluntarily and proactively by lenders may be scrutinized, particularly if the lender receives any government funding or grants. Currently, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac offer SPCPs where borrowers receive down payment or closing cost assistance grants from both the government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”) and the lender. It is unclear whether such GSE programs would fall within the scope of the President’s Executive Order.

Other Uses of DEI in Lending

Setting aside SPCPs, which are often imposed on lenders by the government as a way to remediate alleged redlining, federal and state agencies essentially expect lenders to engage in race-based action and differential treatment in an effort to manage fair lending risk. Indeed, when assessing whether a lender may have engaged in redlining against a particular racial or ethnic group, the CFPB and DOJ, as a matter of course, employ quota-based metrics to evaluate the “rates” or “percentages” of a lender’s activity in majority-minority geographic areas. These federal agencies also consider a lender’s failure to specifically target neighborhoods based on race or ethnicity to be evidence of potential redlining. In other words, the government’s approach to date has not been “colorblind.” It will be interesting to see whether the agencies’ approach to redlining cases will change as a result of this shift away from DEI.

Takeaways for Lenders

Lenders that offer their own SPCPs or participate in GSE SPCPs should ensure that their written plans continue to meet the requirements of Regulation B, which implements ECOA. As always, the justifications for lending decisions that could disproportionately affect consumers based on their race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic should be well documented and justified by legitimate business needs.

More importantly, lenders that are worried about their fair lending compliance or are subject to a government inquiry for potential redlining should consult with counsel regarding the best approach for presenting evidence of their minority-area lending. These lenders also should strongly consider whether a government-mandated SPCP is the best way forward. While an SPCP, such as loan subsidies or other pricing or underwriting flexibilities may benefit underserved communities and likely expedite settlement of an enforcement matter, the risk of running afoul of DEI prohibitions is not immaterial.

HUD Issues Guidance on Appraisal Reviews and Reconsiderations of Value

By

What Happened?

Continuing its focus on appraisal bias, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued new guidance to Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) mortgagees regarding appraisal reviews and reconsiderations of value (“ROVs”).  On May 1, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2024-07 (the “Letter”), announcing updates to the FHA Single Family Housing Policy Handbook (Handbook 4000.1), finalizing a proposal that outlines when a borrower may request an ROV and how the lender must respond.  The Mortgagee Letter includes substantially identical provisions applicable to FHA-insured forward and HECM (reverse) mortgage loans.

Why Is It Important?

Combatting appraisal bias has been a federal government priority since the 2021 announcement of the Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (“PAVE”).  As part of the PAVE efforts (as we previously reported), HUD published a draft version of the Letter (Borrower Request for Review of Appraisal Results) for public comment.  In the proposal, HUD sought comment on (among other issues) when material deficiencies in the appraisal process may merit a second appraisal and/or permit a borrower to request an ROV.  The Mortgagee Letter finalizes that proposed guidance, incorporating feedback received.

First, HUD has amended the criteria for determining whether a deficiency in an appraisal is “material.” In addition to having “a direct impact on value and marketability,” a material deficiency may be one that “indicates a potential violation of fair housing laws or professional standards related to nondiscrimination” (such as the USPAP Ethics Rule).  As an example of such deficiency, the amended Handbook will include “statements related to characteristics of a protected class,” unless the consideration is permitted by fair housing laws.

Second, HUD has clarified that when the nature of a material deficiency is such that the appraiser cannot resolve it, the underwriter may forgo communication with the appraiser before ordering a second appraisal.  If a mortgagee orders a second appraisal because of material deficiencies, it must report the deficient appraisal to the relevant state regulator (the appraisal board or equivalent).

Third, HUD has updated its requirements for appraisal review as they relate to the criteria for determining the acceptability of a property.  As in its proposed version, the Letter requires a mortgagee to ensure that its underwriters “review the appraisal and determine that it is complete, accurate, and provides a credible analysis of the marketability and value of the Property.”  The mortgagee must also ensure that as part of such review, the underwriter is able to identify appraisal deficiencies, including discriminatory practices.  The underwriter must remediate such deficiencies by: (a) requesting that the appraiser provide a correction, explanation, or substantiation (as appropriate); (b) requesting an ROV; and/or (c) ordering a second appraisal.

Fourth, HUD has added ROV requirements to its general property acceptability criteria.  When communicating with an appraiser regarding an ROV, the Letter requires the underwriter to: (a) include a description of the areas in the appraisal report and the additional information that require a response from the appraiser; (b) provide, as available, detailed information, data, or relevant comparables; (c) only include comparables that are relevant as of the appraisal’s effective date; and (d) include a maximum of five alternate comparables.  The appraiser must include his or her response in a revised version of the appraisal, and the mortgagee may not charge the borrower for costs associated with the ROV process.

Further, the Letter requires each mortgagee to establish a process for a borrower-initiated ROV request (which an underwriter must assess for applicability, and relevance and appropriateness of information, before communicating to the appraiser).  The Letter requires a mortgagee’s process for borrower-initiated ROVs to include: (a) the provision of a disclosure regarding the process, both at application and upon delivery of the appraisal report to the borrower; (b) specification in such disclosure of the process for submitting an ROV request, including any requirements for or limitations on supporting information; and (c) the establishment of protocols for communication with the borrower regarding the request throughout the ROV process.

Finally, the Letter requires a mortgagee to include in its Quality Control Plan standards for both the appraisal review and the ROV process.

What Do I Need to Do?

Mortgagees of FHA-insured loans have until September 2 to implement the Letter’s requirements (for FHA case numbers assigned on or after that date). However, given that early adoption is permitted, lenders should review the new requirements against their current practices to ensure these requirements are appropriately incorporated into a mortgagee’s policies and procedures and its vendor management oversight program (to the extent the mortgagee utilizes appraisal management companies).

FHA and VA Announce New Loss Mitigation Options

By ,

What Happened?

Both the FHA and VA have established new loss mitigation options to provide payment reduction to delinquent borrowers.  On February 21, 2024, the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued a new mortgagee letter (ML 2024-02) which, among other things, establishes the Payment Supplement loss mitigation option for all FHA-insured Title II Single-Family forward mortgage loans (the “Payment Supplement”) and also extends FHA’s COVID-19 Recovery Options through April 30, 2025. The provisions of ML 2024-02 may be implemented starting May 1, 2024 but must be implemented no later than January 1, 2025. The Payment Supplement will bring a borrower’s mortgage current and temporarily reduce their monthly mortgage payment without requiring a modification.

And, on April 10, 2024 , the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) announced the release of its much-anticipated Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (“VASP”) program, which is a new, last-resort tool in the VA’s suite of home retention options for eligible veterans, active-duty servicemembers, and surviving spouses with VA-guaranteed home loans who are experiencing severe financial hardship. The VASP program will take effect beginning on May 31, 2024.

Why Does it Matter?

FHA’s Payment Supplement

ML 2024-02 establishes the Payment Supplement as a new loss mitigation option to be added to FHA’s current loss mitigation waterfall. Specifically, if a servicer is unable to achieve the target payment reduction under FHA’s current COVID-19 Recovery Modification option, the mortgage must review the borrower for the Payment Supplement. The Payment Supplement is a loss mitigation option that utilizes Partial Claim funds to bring a delinquent mortgage current and couples it with the subsequent provision of a Monthly Principal Reduction (“MoPR”) that is applied toward the borrower’s principal due each month for a period of 36 months to provide payment relief without having to permanently modify the borrower’s mortgage loan. The maximum MoPR is the lesser of a 25 percent principal and interest reduction for 36 months, or the principal portion of the monthly mortgage payment as of the date the Payment Supplement period begins.

The Payment Supplement will temporarily reduce an eligible borrower’s monthly mortgage payment for a period of three years, without requiring modification of the borrower’s mortgage loan. At the end of the three-year period, the borrower will be responsible for resuming payment of the full monthly principal and interest amount. A borrower is not eligible for a new Payment Supplement until 36 months after the date the borrower previously executed Payment Supplement documents.

To be eligible for the Payment Supplement, servicers must ensure that:

  • that at least three or more full monthly payments are due and unpaid;
  • the mortgage is a fixed rate mortgage;
  • sufficient Partial Claim funds are available to bring the mortgage current and to fund the MoPR;
  • the borrower meets the requirements for loss mitigation during bankruptcy proceedings set forth in Section III.A.2.i.viii of FHA Single-Family Handbook 4000.1;
  • the principal portion of the borrower’s first monthly mortgage payment after the mortgage is brought current will be greater than or equal to a “Minimum MoPR” which must be equal to or greater than 5 percent of the principal and interest portion of the borrower’s monthly mortgage payment, and may not be less than $20.00 per month, as of the date the Payment Supplement period begins;
  • the MoPR does not exceed the lesser of a 25% principal and interest reduction for three years or the principal portion of the monthly mortgage payment as of the date the Payment Supplement period begins; and
  • the borrower indicates they have the ability to make their portion of the monthly mortgage payment after the MoPR is applied (servicers are not required to obtain income documentation from the borrower).

Servicers are responsible for making monthly disbursements of the MoPR from a Payment Supplement Account, which is a separate, non-interest bearing, insured custodial account that holds the balance of the funds paid by FHA for the purpose of implementing the Payment Supplement, and which must segregated from funds associated with the FHA-insured mortgage, including escrow funds, and any funds held in accounts restricted by agreements with Ginnie Mae. Neither the servicer nor the borrower has any discretion in how the Payment Supplement funds are used or applied.

Borrowers will be required to execute a non-interest-bearing Note, Subordinate Mortgage, and a Payment Supplement Agreement, which is a rider to and is incorporated by reference into the Payment Supplement promissory Note, given in favor of HUD, to secure the Partial Claim funds utilized and the amount of the MoPR applied toward the borrower’s principal during the 36-month period. The Note and Subordinate Mortgage do not require repayment until maturity of the mortgage, sale or transfer of the property, payoff of the mortgage, or termination of FHA insurance on the mortgage.

After the Payment Supplement is finalized, servicers must send borrowers written disclosures annually and 60-90 days before the expiration of the Payment Supplement period. ML 2024-02 also sets forth servicers’ obligations if a borrower defaults during the Payment Supplement period.

Contemporaneous with the publication of ML 2024-02, HUD published the following model documents necessary to complete a Payment Supplement: (1) Payment Supplement Promissory Note and Security Instrument, (2) Payment Supplement Agreement Rider, (3) Annual Payment Supplement Disclosure, and (4) Final Payment Supplement Disclosure. However, servicers will need to ensure these model documents comply with applicable state law.

Given that the Payment Supplement only provides temporary relief, it is likely that borrowers will experience “payment shock” at the end of the Payment Supplement period. HUD has indicated that it is aware of this risk and intends to assess this issue on an ongoing basis as borrowers begin to reach the end of their Payment Supplement period to help inform future updates to FHA loss mitigation.

VA’s VASP Program

Effective May 31, 2024, VASP will be added as the final home retention option on the VA Home Retention Waterfall where the VA may elect to purchase a loan from the servicer under an expediated basis after the servicer evaluates the loans and certain criteria are met.  Unlike a traditional VA Purchase, a trial payment period may also be required before VA purchases the loan.

Importantly, a borrower cannot elect to use the VASP program. Rather, servicers must follow the VA’s home retention waterfall to determine the most appropriate home retention option. If the waterfall leads to VASP, then the servicer must determine if certain qualifying loan criteria are met, including:

  • the loan is between 3 to 60-months delinquent on the date the servicer submits to VALERI either the VASP TPP event or VASP with No TPP event;
  • the property is owner-occupied;
  • none of the obligors are in active bankruptcy at the time of the applicable VASP event;
  • the reason for default has been resolved and the borrower has indicated they can resume scheduled payments;
  • the loan is in first-lien position and is not otherwise encumbered by any liens or judgments that would jeopardize VA’s first-lien position;
  • the borrower has made at least six monthly payments on the loan since origination;
  • the borrower is the property’s current legal owner of record; and
  • the borrower and all other obligors agree to the terms of the VASP modification.

After determining that a loan qualifies for VASP, the servicer must determine the appropriate terms that may be offered to the borrower. Until further notice, all VASP loans will be modified at a fixed rate of 2.5% interest, with either a 360-month term or, if this does not realize at least a 20% reduction in the principal and interest payment, a 480-month term. Borrowers who cannot afford to resume monthly payments at the 480-month term are to be evaluated for and offered any appropriate alternatives to foreclosure. A three-payment trial payment plan will be required if (i) the loans is 24 months or more delinquent, or (ii) the principal and interest portion of the monthly payment is not reduced by at least 20%. Borrowers who fail three trial payment plans during a single default episode are no longer eligible for VASP.

Once VA has certified the VASP payment, servicers have 60 days to complete a standard transfer to VA’s contractor, after which the servicer must report the transfer event in VALERI.

Importantly, servicers that fail to properly evaluate the loan in accordance with VA’s requirements may be subject to enforcement action and/or refusal by VA to either temporarily or permanently guarantee or insure any loans made by such servicer and may bar such servicer from servicing or acquiring guaranteed loans. The risk of enforcement is exacerbated by the VASP program’s technical requirements, which may cause operational challenges for servicers.

What Do I Need to Do?

FHA’s Payment Supplement and VA’s VASP programs both have relatively short implementation timelines but will likely require substantial effort to operationalize given their technical requirements.  Therefore, servicers of FHA-insured and/or VA-guaranteed mortgage loans should begin reviewing the requirements of both programs now, as applicable, and ensure that they make any necessary updates to policies, procedures, systems, training, and other controls to ensure compliance with these programs once they take effect. Alston & Bird’s Consumer Financial Services team is well-versed in these programs and is happy to assist with such a review.

HUD Seeks Comment on Proposed Notice to Change HECM for Purchase Program to Expand Funding Sources and Interested Party Contributions

By ,

A&B Abstract:

On October 24, 2023, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) published, for public comment, a Federal Register Notice (“Proposed Notice”) to implement changes to the Federal housing Administration’s (“FHA”) Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (“HECM”) for Purchase program. The Proposed Notice expands the list of acceptable funding sources and permits additional interested party contributions to satisfy the borrower’s monetary investment requirement. Under the Proposed Notice, the FHA would also remove existing restrictions that prohibit the borrower from accepting cash from a seller or another person or entity that financially benefits from the HECM for Purchase transaction. HUD is seeking comment from interested members of the public on the Proposed Notice. The period for public comment ends on November 24, 2023.

Background

The HECM for Purchase program allows mortgagees to originate HECM for Purchase transactions to purchase a 1-to-4 family dwelling unit, one unit of which will serve as the borrower’s principal residence. The program requires borrowers to contribute substantial liquid assets to meet the negotiated contract sales price for the property plus standard origination fees and charges.

In 2009, the FHA published Mortgage Letter 2009-11 (“ML 2009-11”) which prohibited certain funding sources for the investment:

  • sweat equity;
  • trade equity;
  • rent credit; and
  • cash or its equivalent, in whole or in part, received from the seller or any other person or entity that financially benefits from the HECM for Purchase transaction, or any third party or entity that is reimbursed, directly or indirectly, by the seller or any other person or entity that financially benefits from the HECM for Purchase transaction.

In addition, ML 2009-11 prohibited seller contributions (or “seller concessions”) in any HECM for Purchase transaction. “Seller concessions” are the use of “loan points, interest rate buy-downs, closing cost down payment assistance, builder incentives, gifts or personal property given by the seller, or any other party involved in the transaction.” These limits are meant to redirect expenses customarily paid by the seller or other interest parties to the borrower.

In 2017, the FHA codified the requirements for the HECM for Purchase program, and other program changes, and also codified three permitted funding sources for the borrower’s required money investment (the “Final Rule”):

  • Cash on hand;
  • Cash from the sale or liquidation of the borrower’s assets; and
  • HECM proceeds.

The Final Rule also changed the funding source restrictions to permit interested party contributions to pay for:

  • fees required to be paid by the seller under state or local law;
  • fees that are customarily paid by the seller in the locality of the subject property; and
  • purchase of the Home Warranty policy by the seller.

The Proposed Notice

The Proposed Notice would permit interested parties to contribute up to six percent of the sales price and expand the list of permitted interested party contributions.

Under the Proposed Notice, an “interested party contribution” would be defined to mean a payment by an interested party or combination of parties, toward the borrower’s origination fees, other closing costs including any items paid outside of closing, prepaid items, and discount points. “Interested Parties” refers to sellers, real estate agents, builders, developers, mortgagees, third-party originators, or other parties with an interest in the transaction.

Under the Proposed Notice, the six percent limit on interest party contributions may be applied towards but may not exceed the cost of:

  • origination fees;
  • other closing costs paid outside of closing (e.g., credit report and appraisal);
  • prepaid items;
  • discount points;
  • interested party payment for permanent and temporary interest rate buydowns; and
  • payment of the initial mortgage insurance premium.

Additionally, the Proposed Notice would also permit the following additional funding sources to satisfy the borrower’s monetary investment:

  • premium pricing;
  • gifts;
  • disaster relief grants; and
  • employer assistance.

This would be the first time that premium pricing is permitted for use in the HECM for Purchase program. Under the Proposed Notice, borrowers would be able to receive a credit from the mortgagee or third-party originator to reduce their closing costs in exchange for a certain initial mortgage interest rate.

Premium pricing credits from the mortgagee or third-party originator would be excluded from the six percent limit if the mortgagee or third-party originator is not the seller, real estate agent, builder, or developer. The interested party contributions for the various fees permitted under 24 C.F.R. § 206.44(c)(1) will also be excluded from the six percent interested party contribution limit. The FHA will also exclude the satisfaction of a Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) lien or obligation against the property by the property seller from the definition of an interested party contribution in the HECM for Purchase program.

Takeaway

The Proposed Notice is an effort by the FHA to more closely align the HECM for Purchase program with its forward mortgage programs. If implemented, the Proposed Notice would likely make it easier for borrowers to meet their monetary investment requirement by expanding the list of funding sources and permitting interested party contributions. Lenders participating in the HECM for Purchase program should review the Proposed Notice and consider submitting a comment.