Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

State Law

California Quickly Enacts New Mortgage Servicing Standards That Can Affect Foreclosures

By ,

What Happened?

On June 30, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law, with an immediate effective date, California Assembly Bill 130, a significant housing bill that, notably renders certain mortgage servicer conduct an unlawful practice in connection with subordinate lien mortgage loans, including, among others, not providing the borrower with any communication regarding the loan secured by the mortgage for at least 3 years and  threatening to conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure after providing a form to the borrower indicating that the debt had been written off or discharged.

The legislation appears to be geared toward combatting “zombie mortgages” which are second mortgage debt that homeowners may have believed was discharged or satisfied long ago, only to have it unexpectedly reappear with demands for payment and potential threats of foreclosure years later. These dormant loans are often sold to debt buyers for a small fraction of their value. Borrowers may have received no notices or statements for years, leading them to believe the second mortgage had been forgiven, discharged in bankruptcy, or modified along with their first mortgage.

Why Does It Matter?

Notably, the legislation forbids mortgage servicers from engaging in the following “unlawful practices” while the servicing subordinate lien mortgages:

  • Not providing written communication to the borrower for at least three years
  • Failing to provide a transfer of loan servicing notice as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) or investor/grantor requirements
  • Failing to provide a transfer of loan ownership notice as required by the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) or investor/grantor requirements
  • Conducting or threatening to conduct a foreclosure sale after providing a form indicating the debt had been written off or discharged
  • Conducting or threatening to conduct a foreclosure after the statute of limitations expired
  • Failing to provide a periodic statement as required by TILA or investor/grantor requirements

Failure to comply with these law’s prohibitions could impede or prevent foreclosure of the second lien and expose servicers to liability. For example, borrowers contending that the mortgage servicer engaged in an unlawful practice may seek to enjoin the foreclosure sale until a court renders a final determination of the servicer’s compliance with the new law. Under the new law, it is affirmative defense in a judicial foreclosure proceeding if the court finds the mortgage servicer engaged in any of the unlawful practices enumerated above.  Court may also provide equitable remedies that they deem appropriate, depending on the extent and severity of the mortgage servicer’s violations. However, any failure to comply with the provisions of this section does not affect the validity of a trustee’s sale or a sale in favor of a bona fide purchaser.

What Should I Do?

Servicers of subordinate lien mortgage loans in California must ensure that they are fully compliant with federal and California law applicable to the servicing of loans, such as providing borrowers timely notices required by RESPA and TILA, especially with older vintage subordinate lien loans that have been delinquent or sporadically performing. Subordinate lien debt buyers must also ensure that their servicers comply with these laws before foreclosing on these debts. Additionally, servicers should review their foreclosure procedures to ensure they do not run afoul of California’s new standards.

Large AI Model Developers in Focus for New York

By

What Happened?

On June 12, 2025, the New York State legislature passed the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act, which awaits Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature or veto.  The RAISE Act addresses developers of “frontier” AI models—those large AI models that cost over $100 million or use massive compute—and it aims to reduce the risks of “critical harm,” or the death or serious injury to 100 or more people, or causing $1 billion or more in damages.  The law applies only to large-scale frontier AI models, and it excludes smaller AI models and start up initiatives.

Why is it Important?

If the RAISE Act is signed by the Governor, it would mean that:

  • Developers of fronter AI models must create robust safety and security plans before making those models available in New York; publish redacted versions of those plans; retain unredacted copies; and permit annual external reviews and audits.
  • Any “safety incident”—from model failure to unauthorized access—must be reported to New York’s Attorney General and the New York Division of Homeland Security within 72 hours.
  • The New York AG can penalize violations: up to $10 million for a first offense and $30 million for repeat infractions.
  • Employees and contractors are protected when reporting serious safety concerns.

What to do Now?

Pursuant to the New York Senate rules, the RAISE Act must be delivered to the Governor by July 27, 2025; once delivered, Governor Hochul will have 30 days to sign or veto the bill.  If it is signed, it will take effect 90 days later.

If it is enacted, in-scope AI firms and developers will need to ensure appropriate internal protocols, engage with third-party auditors, and maintain incident reporting and whistleblower channels.

Georgia Legislation Expands Consumer Financial Protections

By

What Happened?

On May 13 and 14, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law three measures that amend or expand existing consumer financial protections for Georgians, and impact mortgage lending and servicing as follows:

  • HB 240, effectively immediately upon approval on May 13, prohibits unfair and deceptive practices related to mortgage trigger leads.
  • HB 241, effective July 1, clarifies allowable convenience fees applicable to loans made under the Georgia Residential Mortgage Act (“GRMA”) (as well as laws applicable to installment loans, retail installment and home solicitation sales contracts, motor vehicle sales financing contracts, and insurance premium finance companies).
  • HB 15, effective July 1, in addition to certain licensing amendments, amends the GRMA to impose capital, net worth, liquidity and corporate governance obligation on mortgage lenders and servicers. Noteworthy, the measure requires mortgage lenders and brokers to prepare an annual risk assessment delivered to its board of directors and make it available to the regulators upon request.

Why Is It Important?

Taken together, these pieces of legislation signal Georgia’s intent to enhance consumer protections with respect to mortgage lending and servicing.

Trigger Lead Legislation: HB 240 amends the state’s unfair and deceptive trade law, called the Fair Business Practices Act (“FBPA”).  First, the measure specifies that use of a mortgage trigger lead to solicit a consumer who has applied for a loan with a different mortgage lender or broker (as those terms are defined in the GRMA) is considered unfair or deceptive when it (1) fails to clearly state in the solicitation that the solicitor is not affiliated with the mortgage lender or broker the consumer initially applied with; (2) fails to comply with state and federal requirements to make a firm offer of credit to the consumer; (3) uses the information of consumers who have opted out of being contacted; or (4) offers rates, terms, or costs with the knowledge that they will subsequently be changed to the detriment of the consumer.  For purposes of this provision, a “mortgage trigger lead,” in accordance with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, is defined as a “consumer report triggered by an inquiry made with a consumer reporting agency in response to an application for credit.” Second, the measure amends the GRMA to include a new paragraph prohibiting mortgage lenders and brokers form engaging in unfair or deceptive practices as outlined in Section 10-1-393.20 of the Georgia Code.

Banking and Finance Laws: HB 15 implements a variety of changes to Georgia’s banking and finance laws. The measure amends requirements for mortgage lenders related to licensing, reporting to the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and registry, quarterly and annual reporting obligations, and calculating liquidity and net worth. The measure also requires mortgage brokers and lenders to have a board of directors and outlines their responsibilities including designing governance frameworks, monitoring licensee compliance, accurately reporting, conducting internal audits, and establishing risk management programs. The measure creates two new sections of the GRMA of particular  relevance to mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers:

  • Section 7-1-1022 outlines capital, liquidity, and net worth requirements, to be reported in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If a licensed mortgage lender is a covered servicer (meaning that it has a servicing portfolio of 2,000 or more residential mortgages serviced or subserviced as reported in its most recent mortgage call report), it must maintain the requisite the capital, liquidity, and net worth outlined in the Federal Housing Finance Agency Eligibility Requirements for Enterprise Single-family Seller/Servicers. All other lenders must maintain a minimum net worth of $100,000 and evidence of $1 million of liquidity (which may include a warehouse line of credit).
  • Section 7-1-1023 mirrors the corporate governance requirements in the Model Capital, Liquidity and Risk Management Framework for non-bank lenders created by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. Every mortgage lender and broker must establish a board of directors responsible for establishing a written corporate governance framework, monitoring the licensee’s compliance with said framework, reporting regularly, developing internal audit requirements, creating risk management programs and assessments, and conducting formal reviews. The adoption of financial and corporate governance standards for servicers also follows similar legislation in other states (including Connecticut and Maryland, and Iowa) on which we have previously reported.

Convenience Fees: HB 241 revises the general provisions of Georgia contract law to amend requirements for merchants and lenders seeking to utilize convenience fees when processing electronic payments. The measure sets a floor for convenience fees, allowing merchants to charge whichever is greater — $5.00 or the average actual cost (defined as the amount paid by a lender to a third party or the amount incurred by a third party) of a specific type of payment made by electronic means. These provisions apply to banking and financial institutions, as well as lenders of retail installment loans, home solicitation sales contracts, vehicle financing contracts, and insurance premium finance agreements.

What To Do Now?

Licensed mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers should familiarize themselves with the requirements under the newly amended GRMA and FBPA, particularly the prohibitions on deceptive or unfair practices when using mortgage trigger leads or extending credit.

Mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers should also understand the newly updated licensing, reporting, governance, and liquidity requirements to ensure compliance with Georgia’s updated banking and finance regulations.

When utilizing convenience fees, lenders and merchants should verify that such fees do not exceed the maximum amount and should implement the requisite payment processing options. The $5.00 minimum may allow changes in pricing structures for some lenders and merchants.

*We would like to thank Summer Associate Elise Hall for her contribution to this blog post.

Update on New Maryland Law Clarifying Exemptions for Certain Mortgage Trusts

By ,

What Happened?

As we previously advised you, in 2024, the Maryland Appellate Court in Estate of H. Gregory Brown v. Carrie M. Ward, et al., No. 1009, (App. Ct. Sept. Term 2023), ruled that a statutory trust that held a defaulted home equity line of credit (a “HELOC”) must be licensed as both an installment lender and a mortgage lender under Maryland law prior to proceeding to foreclosure on the HELOC.  The relevant parties did not appeal the decision.  Following this ruling, on January 10, 2025, the Maryland Office of Financial Regulation (the “OFR”) issued formal guidance on licensing requirements for mortgage trusts and a notice of emergency regulations to conform to the Brown decision. The guidance mandated that absent an exemption, all assignees of Maryland residential mortgage loans, including trusts, must be licensed as Maryland Installment Lenders or Maryland Mortgage Lenders.  While the formal guidance and emergency regulations took effect upon promulgation by the OFR on January 10, 2025, the OFR suspended enforcement of the emergency regulations until April 10, 2025 — later extended to July 6, 2025.

Why Does it Matter?

On April 22, 2025, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed into law the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025 (emergency measures HB 1516 and its companion SB 1026) with an immediate effective date. The legislation expressly excludes passive trusts from Maryland’s mortgage licensing requirements and defines a “passive trust” as a trust that: (1) acquires or is assigned mortgage loans in whole or in part; (2) does not make mortgage loans; (3) is not a mortgage broker or a mortgage servicer; and (4) is not engaged in the servicing of mortgage loans, which does not include the act of transmitting or directing payments received by a mortgage servicer.

On May 29, 2025, in response to the enactment of the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025, OFR rescinded its prior guidance issued on January 10, 2025, and all related advisories (issued on January 31, 2025, and February 18, 2025) and enforcement deadlines concerning licensing requirements for trusts holding mortgage loans. The OFR also formally withdrew the previous emergency and proposed regulations relating to the licensing of mortgage trusts.

The OFR also clarified that commercial lenders making loans exclusively for business purposes under Maryland’s installment loan statutes, as defined by Md. Code Ann., Fin. Inst. § 11-301, are not subject to OFR’s licensing requirements under mortgage lending and installment licensing provisions.

What to Do Now

Please be advised that the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025 and the OFR’s rescission of its prior guidance and previous emergency and proposed regulations applies only to residential mortgage loans, and does not address other loan categories such as consumer loans not secured by real estate.  

Secondary market purchasers of loans that do not use passive trusts to acquire or take assignment of residential mortgage loans in Maryland must become licensed as Maryland mortgage lenders by July 6, 2025. However, there can be no assurance that other states will not pass laws or issue regulations, or courts of law will require licensing, even retrospectively, which may adversely affect the Mortgage Loans.

Governor Moore Signs Legislation Exempting “Passive Trusts” from Licensure in Maryland

By

What Happened?

In a highly anticipated and welcome development, on April 22, 2025, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed into law the Maryland Secondary Market Stability Act of 2025 (emergency measures HB 1516 and its companion SB 1026) with an immediate effective date.  The legislation is significant as it has the effect of modifying the formal guidance issued on January 10, 2025 by the Maryland Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) requiring assignees of residential mortgage loans, including passive trusts that acquire or take assignment of residential mortgage loans in Maryland, to become licensed in Maryland by April 10, 2025—later extended to July 6, 2025.  The OFR’s January licensing mandate, which derived from the OFR’s interpretation of a Maryland Appellate Court decision in Estate of Brown v. Ward, 251 Md. App. 385 (2024), would have created a logistical nightmare for, among others, passive trusts holding Maryland loans in residential mortgage-backed securitizations. By custom, passive trusts holding residential mortgage loans do not obtain licenses, and no state legislature has required such licensure for trusts holding these loans. The OFR’s January 10 formal guidance contravenes the plain language of the licensing requirements of the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law and the Maryland Installment Loan Law that do not apply to assignees.

Why Does it Matter?

The legislation addresses the OFR’s overreach by expressly excluding “passive trusts” from Maryland’s mortgage licensing requirements. The legislation defines a “passive trust” as a

trust that

(1) ACQUIRES OR IS ASSIGNED MORTGAGE LOANS IN WHOLE OR IN PART;

(2) DOES NOT MAKE MORTGAGE LOANS;

(3) IS NOT A MORTGAGE BROKER OR A MORTGAGE SERVICER; AND

(4) IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE SERVICING OF MORTGAGE LOANS, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ACT OF TRANSMITTING OR DIRECTING PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY A MORTGAGE SERVICER.

The legislation defines “trust” as “any trust established under the laws of the State or any other state.”  Hence, the “passive trust” must be an actual trust and not a non-trust corporate entity.

The legislation also includes a “Maryland Licensing Workshop” that is comprised of members of consumer groups, the banking and non-bank mortgage industry, and others appointed by the Governor to study Maryland’s licensing statutes and make recommendations regarding, among other things, whether expansion of the existing licensing requirements to persons not currently licensed is warranted. The legislation requires the working group to report its findings to the Governor by December 31, 2025.

What Do I Need to Do?

While the legislation spares passive trusts, including trusts in existing residential mortgage-backed securitizations, from having to become licensed in Maryland, secondary market purchasers of loans that do not utilize passive trusts to acquire or take assignment of residential mortgage loans in Maryland must become licensed as Maryland Mortgage Lenders by July 6, 2025.