BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 260
Assemblymember Lieu
As Introduced
Hearing Date: July 14, 2009
Various Codes
BCP:jd
SUBJECT
Lending
DESCRIPTION
This bill would enact various provisions with respect to
higher-priced mortgage loans, as defined, that are
originated on or after July 1, 2010. Specifically, this
bill would, among other things:
provide that a licensed person shall not make any false,
deceptive, or misleading statement or representation;
require a mortgage broker to receive the same
compensation for providing mortgage brokerage services
whether paid by a lender, borrower, or a third party; and
prohibit a mortgage broker from steering a borrower to
accept a loan at higher cost, as specified.
The bill would also, for higher-priced mortgage loans
originated on or after July 1, 2010, prohibit a licensed
person from making a higher-priced mortgage loan that
contains a provision for negative amortization, and limit
prepayment penalties to two percent the first year and one
percent the second year.
This bill would also, as of January 1, 2010:
codify the fiduciary duty of a mortgage broker to a
borrower with respect to residential mortgage loans; and
provide that a licensee's violation of specified federal
acts and regulations is a violation of the licensee's
respective licensing law.
(more)
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 2 of ?
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered
in committee.)
BACKGROUND
California, as well as the nation, is facing an
unprecedented threat to the economy and housing market due
to increasing numbers of foreclosures caused by mortgage
payment defaults. Although the crisis is the result of a
culmination of various factors (including inflated property
values and investor pressure for the sale of certain loan
products) there has been an increased focus on instances of
fraud and predatory practices that likely contributed to
the crisis. With respect to the role of mortgage brokers,
the Wall Street Journal, on May 30, 2007, reported:
Brokers, most of whom are lightly regulated by state
agencies, are involved in originating around 60% of all
home loans, according to Wholesale Access, a research
firm in Columbia, Md. The industry is under scrutiny
in Washington and state capitols because rogue brokers
have been accused of contributing to the spike in
mortgage defaults and foreclosures by encouraging
borrowers to take risky loans and by charging excessive
fees. . . .
Often the broker's incentives run counter to the
borrower's interests. Lenders pay [a yield spread
premium (YSP)] to the broker when the borrower is
paying a higher interest rate than the best he or she
could qualify for, which makes the loan more profitable
for the lender. The higher the rate, the higher the
payment to the broker. (Some lenders put a ceiling on
YSP.) Lenders may also pay brokers a bonus for loans
with prepayment penalties, which make it expensive for
borrowers to refinance within the first few years.
This bill, based upon a North Carolina statute enacted in
2007, seeks to provide increased restrictions on mortgage
brokers, regulate certain loan products, provide increased
regulatory oversight, and specifically codify the fiduciary
duty of mortgage brokers. This bill is substantially
similar to AB 1830 (Lieu, 2008), which was approved by this
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 3 of ?
committee on August 18, 2008 and vetoed by the Governor.
This bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Banking,
Finance and Insurance on July 9, 2009.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing federal law provides for a number of laws
that govern the rules under which mortgage lending,
brokering, and servicing may be conducted. These federal
laws include the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),
Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
(HMDA), and regulations that interpret those acts (most
notably Federal Reserve Board Regulation C, which
interprets HMDA, Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z,
which interprets TILA, and U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Regulation X, which interprets
RESPA).
Existing state law authorizes residential mortgage
lending, brokering, and servicing under five different
laws, including the Banking Law, Credit Union Law,
California Finance Lenders Law (CFLL), California
Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA), and Real Estate
Law, and the regulations that interpret those laws.
Existing state law generally regulates the entities that
engage in mortgage lending, brokering, and servicing
under three different departments, including the
Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), Department of
Corporations (DOC), and the Department of Real Estate
(DRE).
Existing state law , the Covered Loan Law, imposes
prohibitions on persons who make or arrange a covered
loan, and provides for administrative and civil penalties
and civil damages for failure to comply with the Covered
Loan Law. (Fin. Code Sec. 4970 et seq.)
This bill would enact various restrictions with respect
to higher-priced mortgage loans, including preventing
licensed persons from:
making or causing to be made any false, deceptive,
or misleading statement or representation;
recommending or encouraging default on an existing
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 4 of ?
loan or other debt prior to and in connection with the
closing or planned closing of a higher-priced mortgage
loan, as specified; and
making a higher-priced mortgage loan that contains
a provision for negative amortization.
This bill would provide that a mortgage broker, as
specified:
shall not steer, counsel, or direct any borrower to
accept a loan at a higher cost than that for which the
borrower could qualify based upon the loans offered by
the persons with whom the broker regularly does
business;
shall not receive compensation, including a yield
spread premium (YSP), fee, commission, or any other
compensation, for arranging a higher-priced mortgage
loan with a prepayment penalty that exceeds the
compensation that the mortgage broker would otherwise
receive for arranging that higher-priced mortgage loan
without a prepayment penalty;
shall receive the same compensation for providing
mortgage brokerage services whether paid by the
lender, borrower, or a third party; and
must disclose if they only arrange higher-priced
mortgage loans.
This bill would apply the provisions of the bill to any
licensed person who in bad faith attempts to avoid its
application by dividing any loan transaction into
separate parts, as specified, or any other subterfuge.
This bill would provide that a licensed person who makes
a higher-priced mortgage loan and who, when acting in
good faith, fails to comply with the above provisions,
shall not be liable if the licensed person took specified
steps either (1) within 90 days of the loan closing and
prior to an action, or (2) within 120 days after the
receipt of a complaint or discovery of a compliance
failure that was unintentional and the result of a bona
fide error. Those steps require the licensed person to:
(a) notify the borrower of the compliance failure; (b)
tender appropriate restitution; and (c) offer, at the
borrower's option, to either make the higher-priced loan
comply with the above requirements or change the terms of
the loan so that the loan is no longer a higher priced
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 5 of ?
loan, as specified.
2. Existing federal law , under the Federal Reserve
Board's Regulation Z effective October 1, 2009, will
prohibit prepayment penalties on higher-priced mortgage
loans and HOEPA loans if loan payments can change during
the first four years of the loan. For all other
higher-priced loans and HOEPA loans whose payments do not
change for the first four years, existing federal law
will limit the prepayment penalty period to two years
after loan consummation and require that a prepayment
penalty may not be imposed if the same creditor or its
affiliate refinances the loan. (12 CFR 226.32(d)(6)-(7);
226.35(b)(2).)
This bill would provide that the maximum amount of a
prepayment penalty that may be imposed in connection with
a higher-priced mortgage loan shall not exceed 2 percent
of the principal balance during the first 12 months or 1
percent of that balance during the second 12 months
following loan consummation.
3. Existing federal law , the Truth in Lending Act,
generally prohibits unfair, abusive, or deceptive
mortgage lending practices and requires certain
disclosures. Existing state law prohibits several
specific acts by persons licensed under the Real Estate
Law, and allows the commissioner to suspend or revoke the
license of any person who is found guilty of various
acts. (Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 10176, 10177.)
This bill would provide that any licensed person who
violates any provision of the division shall be deemed to
have violated that person's licensing law. The licensing
agency may also prohibit licensees from engaging in acts
or practices that are unfair, deceptive, or designed to
evade the laws of this state.
This bill would provide that a violation of Section
2923.1 of the Civil Code (codifying common law fiduciary
duty), or a violation of the provisions in Regulation Z
relating to prepayment penalties, in connection with a
higher-priced mortgage loan, is a violation of this
division. This bill would provide that a prepayment
penalty or yield spread premium provision of a
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 6 of ?
higher-priced mortgage loan that violates the division
shall be unenforceable.
This bill would state that the provisions of the division
may be enforced only by the Attorney General or the
licensed person's licensing agency. Any licensed person
who willfully and knowingly violates any provision of the
division shall be liable for a civil penalty of $10,000
per violation.
This bill would define "higher-priced mortgage loan" to
have the same meaning set forth in the Federal Reserve
Board's Regulation Z. That definition, which takes
effect October 1, 2009, provides that a "higher-priced
mortgage loan" is a consumer credit transaction secured
by the consumer's principal dwelling with an annual
percentage rate that exceeds the average prime offer rate
for a comparable transaction as of the date the interest
rate is set by 1.5 or more percentage points for loans
secured by a first lien on a dwelling, or by 3.5 or more
percentage points for loans secured by a subordinate lien
on a dwelling. The definition specifically excludes
loans for initial home construction, temporary or
"bridge" loans, reverse mortgages, and home equity lines
of credit, as specified.
This bill would also define licensed person, mortgage
broker, and mortgage brokerage services.
This bill would provide that the provisions described in
1 - 3 apply to higher-priced mortgage loans originated on
or after July 1, 2010.
4. Existing case law generally provides that a mortgage
loan broker owes a fiduciary duty of the highest good
faith toward his or her principal and is charged with the
duty of fullest disclosure of all material facts
concerning the transaction that might affect the
principal's decision. (Barry v. Raskov (1991) 232
Cal.App.3d 447, 455; Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979)
24 Cal.3d 773, 782.) Existing law, the Residential
Mortgage Lending Act, requires a loan brokerage agreement
to contain an explicit statement that, when acting as an
agent for the borrower, the licensee owes that borrower a
fiduciary duty of utmost care, honesty, and loyalty in
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 7 of ?
the transaction, including the duty of full disclosure of
all material facts. (Fin. Code Sec. 50701.) Existing
law, the Covered Loan Law, additionally codifies the duty
of a mortgage broker. (Fin. Code Sec. 4979.5.)
This bill would state that a mortgage broker providing
mortgage brokerage services to a borrower is the
fiduciary of the borrower, and any violation of the
broker's fiduciary duties shall be a violation of the
mortgage broker's license law. That fiduciary duty
includes a requirement that the mortgage broker place the
economic best interest of the borrower ahead of his or
her own economic interest, and is owed to a borrower
regardless of whether the broker is acting as an agent
for any other party in the transaction.
This bill would, for purposes of that section, define
licensed person, mortgage broker, mortgage brokerage
service, and residential mortgage loan. Those
definitions would limit application of the fiduciary duty
provision to loans secured by residential real property
that is improved by one to four units, and where the
broker is the agent of the borrower or dual agent for the
borrower and lender.
5. Existing law , generally regulates the entities that
engage in mortgage lending, brokering, and servicing
under DFI, DOC, and DRE.
This bill would provide that a licensee's violation of
any of the following federal acts or regulations is a
violation of the licensee's licensing law:
The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA);
The Truth in Lending Act, as amended (TILA);
The Home Ownership Equity Protection Act (HOEPA);
or
Any regulation promulgated under the above acts.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author,
Briefly, the past few years have shown the consequences
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 8 of ?
of a lending system that failed to effectively regulate
and reign in the out of control subprime mortgage
industry. The problem has, and continues to be,
particularly acute in California, which accounts for
one-third of the nations foreclosures. Lenders filed a
record number of mortgage default notices against
California homeowners during the first three months of
the year. Most of these default notices are the result
of bad loans that were made in 2005 and 2006. AB 260
directly addresses the poor lending practices that
caused, and continue to cause, a record number of
foreclosures in California.
Committee staff additionally notes that the recent increase
in foreclosure activity is due to the increasing number of
defaults on Alt-A loans where bad loan practices also
played a role. The proposed reforms could also alleviate
some of the abuses in that area as well.
2. Restrictions on activities of mortgage brokers and
other licensed persons
Many of the allegations of broker fraud include concerns
about improper incentives created by the use of
yield-spread premiums (YSP), actions contrary to the best
interest of borrowers, and claims of steering "prime"
borrowers into "subprime" loans. This bill includes
numerous provisions that attempt to directly address those
concerns with respect to higher-priced mortgage loans.
a) Prohibition on making any false, deceptive, or
misleading statement or representation in connection
with a higher-priced mortgage loan
Although false, deceptive, or misleading statements may
already subject a licensee to discipline under their
respective licensing laws, this bill would specifically
prohibit those statements. Provided that borrowers
recognize that a false, deceptive, or misleading
statement was made, this provision alone would provide
borrowers with a tool to combat a vast majority of the
reported abuses that led to the current mortgage crisis.
For example, if a mortgage broker sells a borrower a
risky adjustable rate mortgage but is misleading in their
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 9 of ?
description of the product and its associated risks, the
broker could be subject to liability under this
provision. Other potential situations covered by this
language could be the steering into a higher-priced
mortgage loan through deceptive statements, or the
intentional concealment of a kickback from a lender as a
result of placing a borrower in a higher-priced loan.
b) Restriction on mortgage broker compensation,
including payment of a yield spread premium
This bill would require a mortgage broker to receive the
same compensation for providing brokerage services
whether paid by the lender, borrower, or a third party.
Staff notes this provision intends to address the reports
of brokers receiving greater compensation for steering
borrowers into riskier loan products. This provision
would address any prior incentive to direct borrowers
into those products by preventing a broker from receiving
greater compensation from a lender than the borrower
would pay to the broker in up-front costs. Consistent
with the fiduciary duty and anti-steering provision, the
removal of that financial incentive further ensures that
brokers are acting in the borrower's best interest.
Also related to broker compensation, this bill would
provide that a broker shall not receive greater
compensation for including a prepayment penalty in a
higher-priced mortgage loan. Similar to the use of a
YSP, connecting broker compensation to the inclusion of a
prepayment penalty financially compensates a broker for
placing a borrower in an arguably costlier product.
c) Remaining mortgage broker provisions include a
prohibition on steering
The bill would also prohibit a broker from steering a
borrower into a loan of higher cost than that for which
they could qualify, as specified, and require a broker to
disclose if they only originate higher-priced mortgage
loans.
3. Codification of a mortgage broker's fiduciary duty
with respect to residential mortgage loans, including
those that are not higher-priced
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 10 of ?
California is one of several states in which mortgage
brokers have a fiduciary duty to borrowers when acting as
their agent in a loan transaction. In Wyatt v. Union
Mortg. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773, the California Supreme
Court held:
In the context of insurance policies, this court has
recognized that a fiduciary's duty may extend beyond
bare written disclosure of the terms of a transaction
to duties of oral disclosure and counseling. . . The
reasoning of these cases applies to transactions with
mortgage loan brokers as well. . . . Against such a
backdrop, the broker's failure to disclose orally the
true rate of interest, the penalty for late payments or
the swollen size of the balloon payment clearly
constituted breach of the broker's fiduciary
obligations. (Id. at 783-84.)
Although established in case law, this bill would
specifically codify the fiduciary duty owed by a mortgage
broker when providing mortgage brokerage services to a
borrower. The fiduciary duty would expressly require the
broker to place the economic interest of the borrower ahead
of his or her own economic interest, and clarify that the
broker owes the fiduciary duty to the borrower regardless
of whether the mortgage broker is acting as an agent for
any other party in connection with the residential mortgage
loan transaction.
This codified duty would apply to residential mortgage
loans secured by four or fewer residential units where the
mortgage broker is the exclusive agent of the borrower or
dual agent of the borrower and lender. As case law does
not explicitly define the outer boundaries of fiduciary
duty, the bill contains a savings clause that states that
the duties in the section shall not be construed to limit
or narrow any other fiduciary duty of a mortgage broker.
Staff further notes that the intent of this provision is to
codify fiduciary duty and not to imply a fiduciary
relationship that may not otherwise exist.
4. Restrictions on licensed persons include restrictions
on the use of prepayment penalties and prohibition on
loans that provide for negative amortization
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 11 of ?
In addition to the above specific prohibitions that apply
to mortgage brokers, the bill places further restrictions
on the activities of specified persons licensed under the
Real Estate Law, Finance Lenders Law, Residential Mortgage
Lending Act, Banking Law, Savings Associations Law, and
Credit Union Law.
Most notably, the bill states that the maximum amount of a
prepayment penalty that may be imposed by a licensed person
in connection with a higher-priced mortgage loan shall not
exceed two percent of the principal balance during the
first 12 months or one percent of that balance during the
second 12 months. Staff notes that this provision is
intended to overlay with the changes to Regulation Z that
will go into effect on October 1, 2009. Those changes
prohibit prepayment penalties on higher-priced loans if
loan payments can change during the first four years of the
loan, and limit prepayment penalties to two years in length
on loans whose payments are constant during the first four
years of the loan. To complement those additional
restrictions, this bill, as of July 1, 2010, would restrict
prepayment penalties as described above.
The bill would also prohibit a licensed person from making
a higher-priced mortgage loan that contains a provision for
negative amortization (loan payments for a period such that
the payment is less than the interest charged over that
period resulting in an increase in the outstanding
balance). It should be noted that that prohibition would
not preclude a subsequent agreement to capitalize payments
as a means of curing or preventing default.
5. Remedies for violation
The bill would provide for enforcement by the Attorney
General or the licensed person's licensing agency, include
a civil penalty of $10,000 for a willful and knowing
violation of the bill's provisions, and specifically allow
a licensing agency to prohibit licensees from engaging in
acts that are unfair, deceptive, or designed to evade the
laws of this state. The bill would also provide that a
prepayment penalty or yield spread premium provision in
violation of the added division is unenforceable and state
that a licensed person who violates any provision of the
division shall be deemed to have violated that person's
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 12 of ?
licensing law.
It should be noted that the author's amendments in Comment
10 would strike the private right of action and attorney
fee provisions from this bill. Those amendments would
appear to address some of the prior concerns raised about
this bill (and its predecessor, AB 1830). Provided that it
is not inconsistent with the author's commitment in the
Senate Banking, Finance, and Insurance Committee, the
following savings clause is suggested to ensure that the
striking of that language is not construed to limit the
remedies otherwise available to aggrieved borrowers:
Suggested amendment:
On page 11, between lines 36 and 37, insert:
4995.6. Nothing in this division shall be construed to
affect any other rights or remedies otherwise available
at law.
The bill also contains a right to cure that applies if a
licensed person, in good faith, fails to comply with
certain requirements of the bill. The licensed person can
invoke the right to cure either: (1) within 90 days of the
loan closing and prior to the institution of any action
against the licensed person; or (2) within 120 days after
receipt of a complaint of discovery of a compliance failure
if the failure was not intentional and resulted from a bona
fide error, as specified. In both instances, the licensed
person must notify the borrower of the compliance failure,
tender appropriate restitution, offer (at the borrower's
option) either to make the loan comply with the bill's
requirements or change the loan terms so that it is not a
higher-priced mortgage loan, and take appropriate action
within a reasonable period of time.
From a policy standpoint, a right to cure is usually not
included in consumer statutes out of concerns that
individuals will not comply until their violation is
actually discovered. In this case the right to cure
provision, as with other provisions of the bill, is from a
recently enacted North Carolina statute, and its inclusion
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 13 of ?
should not be construed as endorsing the insertion of a
right to cure provision into other consumer statutes.
Furthermore, the right to cure is narrowly crafted to give
the borrower an early remedy as a means of avoiding costly
protracted litigation that could jeopardize the borrower's
ability to remain in the home. It should also be noted
that the right to cure only applies when the licensed
person acts in good faith, and that once an action is
filed, the provision only applies to bona fide errors
(defined as including clerical, calculation, computer
malfunction and programming, and printing errors).
6. Expanded regulatory authority for violations of
federal statutes and regulations
This bill would also give DFI, DOC, and DRE express
authority to enforce TILA, HOEPA, and RESPA, as if
violations of these federal laws and their implementing
regulations were violations of state licensing laws. This
language would provide consistency in the application of
laws and regulations across licensees by giving
California's three mortgage licensing departments express
authority to address violations.
7. Application to federally chartered financial
institutions
Federal banking statutes and regulations do contain
preemption clauses that restrict the ability of the state
to regulate the activities of federally chartered financial
institutions.
As an example, 12 C.F.R. 34.4(a), which implements the
National Bank Act, preempts "state laws that obstruct,
impair, or condition a national bank's ability to fully
exercise its Federally authorized real estate lending
powers."
Although the language of this bill refers only to
individuals licensed under California law, certain
provisions (such as the prepayment penalty language) may
act to restrict the loan products that a federally
chartered financial institution may offer through a
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 14 of ?
California licensed mortgage broker. Despite that
potential restriction, it can be argued that the activities
of mortgage brokers are within the purview of the
individual states and that the provisions of this bill are
permissible restrictions on state licensees in response to
prior bad acts by those licensees.
It should be noted that if any provision of the division on
Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans is found to be preempted, the
included severability clause would ensure that the
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application.
8. Opposition's arguments
The California Association of Mortgage Brokers (CAMB), in
opposition, applauds the intent of AB 260 but expresses
concern that its flaws will nullify the bill's positive
components. CAMB contends that: (1) the proposed statutory
fiduciary duty's economic interest test is vague; (2) the
anti-steering clause fails to provide guidance on the
definition of "high cost;" and (3) the safe harbor
provision cannot be utilized because it requires a broker
to change loan terms after a loan has been funded.
The California Association of Realtors (CAR), in
opposition, contends that AB 260 is "obsolete before it can
become effective" because federal law requires California
to separately license, register, or regulate "all mortgage
loan originators."
The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) further
opposes the bill due to concerns that it would create a
statutory fiduciary duty where the obligation is already
required under case law, and out of concern that the other
provisions of the bill would encourage lawsuits.
The Department of Finance, Department of Corporations, and
Department of Real Estate all oppose for the same reasons
as stated in the Governor's veto message for AB 1830 (Lieu,
2008).
9. Veto of AB 1830 (Lieu, 2008)
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 15 of ?
With the exception of enactment dates, this bill is
identical to AB 1830 (Lieu, 2008), which was vetoed by the
Governor. The Governor's veto message stated:
The goals of this bill are to be lauded and the work
and effort that went into the bill commended. However,
I believe the approach of the bill to address the
subprime crisis overreaches and may have unintended
consequences.
First, its provisions will only apply to state
regulated entities, as federally regulated entities
will be exempt. This will create an uneven playing
field, putting state regulated entities at a
competitive disadvantage and consumers will have
unequal protections under the law. Secondly, this bill
allows for a private right of action and allows a
plaintiff to recover attorney fees if he or she
prevails. The bill does not allow a defendant to
recover costs if he or she prevails. This provision
will likely lead to increased litigation based on de
minimis violations as plaintiffs attorneys will have
much to gain and little to lose.
Many changes have already occurred to curb some of the
past lending and brokering abuses. Last year, I signed
SB 385 strengthening underwriting criteria to ensure
that borrowers can afford loans. The Federal Reserve
Board has implemented amendments to the Truth in
Lending Act (Regulation Z) to regulate advertising
practices and provide additional protections to the
lending marketplace. I recently signed SB 1137 to
provide homeowners with additional protections against
foreclosure and to expand the rights of tenants.
Finally, the President recently signed the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act, which imposes new oversight
requirements on loan originators and contains many
other provisions to assist in economic recovery. All
of these changes need time to take effect. As a
result, further legislation is unnecessary until we can
evaluate the effect of the reforms that have already
been enacted.
10. Author's amendments
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 16 of ?
The following amendment to remove the private right of
action was accepted by the author in the Senate Committee
on Banking, Finance and Insurance, but is to be taken in
this committee due to procedural timing requirements.
On page 11, strike out lines 26 through 30, inclusive.
Support: California Federation of Teachers; California
Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union; United
Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council;
Engineers and Scientists of California; UNITE HERE!;
California Conference of Machinists; Professional &
Technical Engineers, Local 21; Strategic Committee of
Public Employees, Laborers' International Union of North
America; California Teamsters Public Affairs Council;
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; California State
Employees Association (CSEA); American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO
Opposition: Department of Real Estate; Department of
Corporations; Department of Finance; California Mortgage
Association; California Association of Mortgage Brokers;
California Association of Realtors; Civil Justice
Association of California
HISTORY
Source: California Labor Federation; California ACORN;
CALPIRG
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation:
SB 1137 (Perata, Chapter 69, Statutes of 2008), enacted a
comprehensive foreclosure reform package.
SBX2 7 (Corbett, Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009), provided
that a servicer of residential mortgage loans may not
proceed with foreclosure proceedings for 90 days under
specified conditions, unless the servicer has a
comprehensive loan modification program.
AB 1830 (Lieu, 2008). See Comment 9.
Prior Vote:
AB 260 (Lieu)
Page 17 of ?
Assembly Banking and Finance Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 3)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 3)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 5)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 50, Noes 28)
Senate Banking, Finance, and Insurance Committee (Ayes 7,
Noes 3)
**************