BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
SB 1150 (Leno)
Version: April 26, 2016
Hearing Date: May 3, 2016
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Mortgages and Deeds of Trust: Mortgage Servicers and Lenders:
Successors in Interest
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require mortgage servicers and lenders, upon
receiving sufficient documentation to show a person's "successor
in interest" status, to provide that person with basic
information about the status of a mortgage or loan. For certain
mortgages that authorize loan assumption, this bill would
require financial institutions to allow the successor in
interest to assume the loan and apply (though not necessarily
receive) a loan modification under the Homeowner's Bill of
Rights. The bill would provide successors in interest with a
private right of action against financial institutions that
violate these provisions, including $50,000 in statutory
damages, and would authorize the Department of Business
Oversight and the Bureau of Real Estate to develop implementing
regulations.
BACKGROUND
On June 27, 2012, the Conference Committee on the California
Foreclosure Crisis passed the Homeowners' Bill of Rights (HBOR)
in order to protect homeowners in the mortgage market, help keep
families in their homes, and revive the state's economy
following historic foreclosure rates and rampant abuse, fraud,
and deception that caused more than one million Californian's to
lose their homes. That bill package sought to: (1) stop the
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageB of?
practice of "dual-tracking;"<1> (2) establish a single point of
contact for homeowners with their lenders; and (3) mandate a
chain of title of the property.
Generally speaking, HBOR creates requirements intended to
facilitate communication between mortgage servicers and
borrowers regarding options for borrowers to avoid foreclosure.
HBOR restricts servicers from recording a Notice of Default
under California's non-judicial foreclosure process until at
least 30 days after contacting a borrower to discuss options for
that borrower to avoid foreclosure. HBOR requires servicers to
send specified documents to delinquent borrowers informing them
of their rights and to provide a toll-free telephone number that
can be used by borrowers to identify nearby housing counseling
agencies before recording a Notice of Default. Importantly,
once a borrower submits a loan modification application, the
servicer is prohibited from taking any further steps in the
non-judicial foreclosure process while that application is
pending. If the loan modification application is denied, the
servicer must send a written notice of denial to the borrower,
identifying the reasons for the denial and informing the
borrower how the denial decision may be appealed.
HBOR requires servicers to ensure that they have competent and
reliable evidence to substantiate a borrower's default and the
servicer's right to foreclose before recording documents in the
non-judicial foreclosure process. HBOR also requires servicers
to assign a single point of contact to any borrower who requests
a foreclosure prevention alternative, and states that the
contact must have authority to act on behalf of the servicer, as
specified, and be knowledgeable about the borrower's situation
and current status in the servicer's loss mitigation process.
HBOR includes various consumer remedies for violations of its
provisions, including treble and statutory damages.
While HBOR contains robust protections for borrowers facing
foreclosure, the statute lacks similar protections for the
survivors of borrowers who attempt to use the statute's
provisions to prevent a deceased relative's home from being
foreclosed upon. According to a recent article in Forbes:
The California Homeowner Bill of Rights has been widely
--------------------------
<1> "Dual tracking" generally refers to the practice of a lender
pursuing foreclosure while a homeowner is applying for, or being
considered for, a mortgage modification.
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageC of?
credited with leveling the playing field between individual
homeowners and their mortgage servicers. It has been a strong
part of the housing recovery. Both Nevada and Minnesota have
enacted similar versions of the Homeowner Bill of Rights. But
a vocal group of housing organizations in California are
arguing that it is not strong enough. The problem? Widowed
homeowners are left with no standing on their mortgage.
. . .
Despite the strong protections enacted under HBOR, family
members who want to speak with their mortgage servicers after
the death of a loved one are still hitting a brick wall. In
some cases, a family member may be on the title to the home,
but aren't on the mortgage, and servicers refuse to speak to
them and instead insist on speaking with the deceased borrower
who was listed on the mortgage. As a result, homeowners are
facing red-tape, mixed messages, unreasonable obstacles, and
unnecessary foreclosures.
Mortgage servicers have argued that protections for homeowners
created by HBOR do not extend to widowed homeowners and other
surviving heirs who have a legal interest in the home but who
aren't listed on a mortgage. Even in cases where a servicer
will speak with a surviving family member, homeowners can be
caught in an endless cycle if they try to seek a loan
modification as a result of their reduced income after the
death of a loved one. Servicers won't consider them for a
loan modification until they assume the mortgage. But, the
servicers won't let them assume the mortgage unless they
demonstrate that they can afford it. As a result, mortgage
payments are missed or they are not accepted by the servicer,
fees rack up, and servicers push grieving family members into
foreclosure. (Anna Bahney, Widowed Homeowners Fight for
Standing in California, Forbes (Apr. 30, 2015)
[as of Apr. 29,
2016].)
This bill would address the lack of remedies under HBOR for such
individuals by authorizing a successor in interest, as defined,
to receive information about a deceased borrower's mortgage
loan, assume the loan in certain circumstances, and utilize
HBOR's foreclosure prevention tools.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageD of?
Existing law regulates the non-judicial foreclosure of
properties pursuant to the power of sale contained within a
mortgage contract. To commence the process, existing law
requires the trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary to record a
Notice of Default (NOD) and allow three months to lapse before
setting a date for sale of the property. Existing law requires
the notice of a non-judicial foreclosure sale to be officially
noticed in a newspaper of general circulation, posted on the
property, and recorded at least 20 days before the sale date.
(Civ. Code Secs. 2924, 2924f.)
Existing law , the Homeowner's Bill of Rights (HBOR), from
January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017, generally prohibits a
mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent from recording an NOD until at least 30 days
after establishing contact with a delinquent borrower or
complying with specified due diligence requirements to establish
contact, and, if a borrower submits a complete application for a
first lien loan modification, before that borrower has been
provided with a written determination by the servicer regarding
that borrower's eligibility for that loan modification. (Civ.
Code Sec. 2923.5.)
Existing law , beginning on January 1, 2018, generally prohibits
a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent from recording an NOD until at least 30 days
after establishing contact with a delinquent borrower or
complying with specified due diligence requirements to establish
contact, and, if a borrower submits a complete application for a
foreclosure prevention alternative, before that borrower has
been provided with a written determination by the servicer
regarding eligibility for the requested alternative. (Civ. Code
Sec. 2923.5.)
Existing law , from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017,
generally prohibits a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording an NOD: (1)
until the servicer provides specified information to the
borrower; (2) until at least 30 days after the servicer
establishes contact with a delinquent borrower or complies with
specified due diligence requirements to establish contact; (3)
while a complete first lien loan modification is pending review;
and (4) if a complete first lien loan modification application
has been submitted by a borrower, until any of the following
occurs: the servicer makes a written determination that the
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageE of?
borrower is not eligible for a first lien loan modification, and
any appeal period has expired; the borrower does not accept an
offered first lien loan modification within 14 days of its
offer; or, the borrower accepts a written first lien loan
modification, but defaults on or otherwise breaches his or her
obligation under that loan modification agreement. (Civ. Code
Sec. 2923.55.)
Existing law , from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017,
generally prohibits a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording an NOD or Notice
of Sale (NOS), or from conducting a trustee's sale: (1) while a
complete first lien loan modification is pending review; or (2)
if a complete first lien loan modification application has been
submitted by a borrower, until any of the following occurs: (a)
the servicer makes a written determination that the borrower is
not eligible for a first lien loan modification, and any appeal
period has expired; (b) the borrower does not accept an offered
first lien loan modification within 14 days of its offer; or,
(c) the borrower accepts a written first lien loan modification,
but defaults or otherwise breaches his or her obligation under
that loan modification agreement. (Civ. Code Sec. 2923.6.)
Existing law requires, upon request from a borrower who requests
a foreclosure prevention alternative, the mortgage servicer to
promptly establish a single point of contact and provide the
borrower with one or more direct means of communication with the
single point of contact. The mortgage servicer's single point
of contact is responsible for, among other things:
communicating the process by which a borrower may apply for an
available foreclosure prevention alternative and the deadline
for any required submissions to be considered for these
options;
coordinating receipt of all documents associated with
available foreclosure prevention alternatives and notifying
the borrower of any missing documents necessary to complete
the application;
having access to current information and personnel sufficient
to timely, accurately, and adequately inform the borrower of
the current status of the foreclosure prevention alternative;
ensuring that a borrower is considered for all foreclosure
prevention alternatives offered by, or through, the mortgage
servicer, if any; and
having access to individuals with the ability and authority to
stop foreclosure proceedings when necessary. (Civ. Code Sec.
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageF of?
2923.7.)
Existing law , from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017,
generally prohibits a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording an NOD or NOS,
or conducting a trustee's sale, once a borrower has been
approved for a foreclosure prevention alternative in writing,
and as long as one of the following two conditions is met: (1)
the borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial
or permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan;
or (2) a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in
writing by all parties, and proof of funds or financing has been
provided to the servicer. (Civ. Code Sec. 2924.11.)
Existing law , beginning on January 1, 2018, prohibits a mortgage
servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent
from: (1) recording a NOS or conducting a trustee's sale while
a complete application for a foreclosure prevention alternative
is pending, and until the borrower has been provided with a
written determination by the servicer regarding that borrower's
eligibility for the requested foreclosure prevention
alternative; and (2) recording an NOD or NOS, or conducting a
trustee's sale, once a foreclosure prevention alternative is
approved in writing, and as long as one of the following two
conditions is met: (a) the borrower is in compliance with the
terms of a written trial or permanent loan modification,
forbearance, or repayment plan; or (b) a foreclosure prevention
alternative has been approved in writing by all parties, and
proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer.
(Civ. Code Sec. 2924.11.)
Existing law , from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017,
generally prohibits a mortgage servicer, trustee, mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording an NOD or NOS,
or from conducting a trustee's sale: (1) while a complete first
lien loan modification application is pending, and until the
borrower has been provided with a written determination by the
servicer regarding that borrower's eligibility for that loan
modification; and (2) under either of the following
circumstances, if a borrower has been approved for a foreclosure
prevention alternative in writing by the servicer: (a) the
borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or
permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan; or
(b) a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in
writing by all parties, and proof of funds or financing has been
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageG of?
provided to the servicer. (Civ. Code Sec. 2924.18.)
Existing law provides for various remedies for violations of the
above provisions, including treble actual damages and statutory
damages. (Civ. Code Secs. 2924.12, 2924.19.)
This bill states that upon notification by someone claiming to
be a successor in interest that a borrower has died, and where
that claimant is not a party to the loan or promissory note, a
mortgage servicer shall not record a notice of default until the
mortgage servicer does both of the following:
requests reasonable documentation of the death of the
borrower from the claimant within a reasonable period of
time, as specified; and
requests reasonable documentation from the claimant
regarding the status of that claimant as a successor in
interest in the real property within a reasonable period of
time, as specified.
This bill states that upon receipt by the mortgage servicer of
reasonable documentation of the status of a claimant as
successor in interest and that claimant's relation to the real
property, that claimant shall be deemed a "successor in
interest." This bill specifies that there may be more than one
successor in interest, and that being a successor in interest
does not impose an affirmative duty on a mortgage servicer or
alter any obligation the mortgage servicer has to provide a loan
modification to the successor in interest.
This bill states that within 10 days of a claimant being deemed
a successor in interest, a mortgage servicer shall provide the
successor in interest with information in writing about the
loan, including loan balance, interest rate and interest reset
dates and amounts, balloon payments if any, prepayment penalties
if any, default or delinquency status, the monthly payment
amount, and payoff amounts.
This bill states that a mortgage servicer shall allow a
successor in interest to either:
assume the deceased borrower's loan, unless such assumption is
prohibited by the terms of the loan; or
where a successor in interest of an assumable loan also seeks
a foreclosure prevention alternative, simultaneously apply to
assume the loan and for a foreclosure prevention alternative
that is offered by the loan lender or applicable loss
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageH of?
mitigation rules. If the successor in interest qualifies for
the foreclosure prevention alternative, the servicer shall
allow the successor in interest to assume the loan.
This bill states that a successor in interest who is eligible to
assume a deceased borrower's outstanding mortgage loan and
wishes to apply for a foreclosure prevention alternative in
connection with that loan shall have all the same rights and
remedies as a borrower under specified sections of the
Homeowner's Bill of Rights.
This bill provides successors in interest with certain remedies
for violations of the above provisions, including injunctive
relief, actual economic damages, treble actual damages, or
statutory damages of $50,000, and reasonable attorney fees and
costs.
This bill authorizes the Department of Business Oversight and
the Bureau of Real Estate to adopt regulations under their
respective jurisdictions as necessary to implement the above
provisions.
This bill specifies that it shall only apply to first lien
mortgages or deeds of trust that are secured by owner-occupied
residential real property containing no more than four dwelling
units.
This bill makes related findings and declarations.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
California led the nation in 2012 with its Homeowners' Bill of
Rights (HBOR), requiring a single point of contact and
prohibiting dual-tracking of borrowers, a practice of driving
owners to foreclosure even while working on loan
modifications. HBOR is credited with having slowed down
foreclosures in 2013 as servicers attended to the new
homeowner protections. HBOR helps stabilize families,
neighborhoods, and local economies. However, there's more to
be done.
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageI of?
In California and across the country, legal aid organizations
have documented that the very abuses HBOR prohibits are being
endured by widows, widowers, and other survivors who are
losing their homes to foreclosure because the mortgage
servicer refuses to consider them for a loan assumption or
modification. The servicers maintain that surviving
homeowners who aren't listed on the mortgage note have no
protections under HBOR, even though the intent of the bill was
to protect all homeowners.
In the most common scenario, a surviving widow owns her home,
but is not listed on its mortgage loan. She attempts to apply
for a loan assumption and to get information on loan
modification options, just as her spouse could have done under
HBOR. At that point, she faces a mortgage servicer who
exhibits the same problematic behaviors that convinced the
legislature to pass HBOR: refusing to talk to the homeowner,
creating a confusing labyrinth of processes, losing documents
repeatedly, transferring responsibilities between multiple
employees, giving inaccurate information, and foreclosing on
the homeowner without ever considering her for a loan
modification.
Unnecessary foreclosures devastate families' ability to build
for their financial future. As homeownership remains the
primary way that Americans build wealth for themselves and
their offspring, our continued failure to protect surviving
spouses and children only exacerbates the racial wealth gap in
society. Further, foreclosures on survivors thwart the intent
of property, and wills and estates laws. And, unnecessary
foreclosures also are secret, silent killers. Seniors forced
from their home are likely to suffer devastating health
impacts, and with dramatically high and still rising rents
across California, homelessness.
Surviving homeowners deserve a fair chance to take
responsibility for their mortgage loan attached to their
homes. They deserve the respect of receiving clear
communication and accurate information, especially during the
stressful time following the death of a loved one. SB 1150
clarifies the responsibilities of a lender when a borrower
dies leaving a surviving homeowner who wishes to assume the
loan.
2.Protecting successors from foreclosure
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageJ of?
The Homeowner's Bill of Rights (HBOR) transformed non-judicial
foreclosure practices in California by creating basic fairness
and transparency requirements for homeowners facing foreclosure.
HBOR requires lenders to take deliberate steps to help
homeowners avoid foreclosure by providing them with critical
information on loan modification options, and by suspending the
foreclosure process while a loan modification is being
considered. HBOR requires transparency and fairness in the
foreclosure process by requiring lenders to verify and
authenticate documents relied on by lenders during the process,
by requiring lenders to speak with one voice to consumers
through a single point of contact, and by giving homeowners
powerful remedies to incentivize lenders to comply with the law.
This bill would extend these same critical protections to
successors in interest of homeowners who pass away. Under this
bill, successors will be able to obtain basic information about
the status of a decedent's loan, postpone the foreclosure
process while the lender determines whether a claimant should be
treated as a "successor in interest," assume the loan unless
prohibited by the loan's terms, and, if necessary, seek a loan
modification using all the tools provided under HBOR. This bill
grants a private right of action to successors in interest
modeled on the private right of action given to homeowners under
HBOR, and, like HBOR, the availability of a strong remedial
right of action gives successors the power to compel mortgage
servicers to comply with the bill's provisions. With these
tools made available to them, successors who choose to assume a
loan will be better positioned to help keep a decedent's home
from falling into foreclosure.
3.Existing federal remedies
The federal Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982
(Pub.L. 97-320) already provides successors in interest with
limited authority to act on behalf of a decedent to keep a
mortgage loan current. This act, passed as part of a larger
package of measures aimed at revitalizing the housing industry,
prevents lenders from calling a loan due or forcing immediate
repayment of a note in certain circumstances, including when a
surviving joint tenant takes title to a home, or when title is
transferred by inheritance to another who takes occupancy of the
home.
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageK of?
Generally speaking, mortgages with a "due-on-sale" clause become
due and payable at the option of the mortgagee if the mortgagor
transfers title of a mortgaged property without the mortgagee's
consent. The Garn-St Germain Act invalidated these due-on-sale
clauses in certain situations for residential mortgages entered
into after 1982 where a property is transferred "by devise,
descent, or operation of law on the death of a joint tenant or
tenant by the entirety," by "transfer to a relative resulting
from the death of a borrower," or by "transfer where the spouse
or children of the borrower become an owner of the property."
(12,U.S.C. § 1701j-3(d).)
Despite invalidating these due-on-sale clauses, the Garn-St
Germain Act does not require lenders to allow successors to
"assume" a decedent's mortgage, which is where a successor takes
on all the obligations and benefits held by the decedent under a
loan contract and becomes legally responsible for the loan.
Rather, Garn-St Germain encourages lenders "to permit an
assumption of a real property loan at the existing contract
rate." (12,U.S.C. § 1701j-3(b).) Without the ability to assume
a loan and be added to the mortgage note, a successor in
interest lacks lawful authority to exercise rights as a
homeowner under HBOR and pursue a mortgage loan modification,
should a modification prove necessary. This bill remedies that
situation by requiring a mortgage servicer to allow a successor
in interest to assume the deceased borrower's loan, unless such
assumption is prohibited by the terms of the loan, at the
successor's election.
4.Multiple successors in interest
The California Bankers Association, along with other mortgage
servicer and business organizations writing in opposition, raise
concerns that this bill could require mortgage servicers to
contend with multiple, potentially competing, successors in
interest all seeking to assume a decedent's mortgage. They
write:
[a]s drafted, the measure mandates that a mortgage servicer
negotiate with more than one successor in interest. And while
the measure contemplates multiple successors approaching a
mortgage servicer, the measure offers no clarity on how to
manage such scenarios. Accordingly, the measure may
inappropriately circumvent a necessary judicial process by
forcing a mortgage servicer into a situation normally left to
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageL of?
a probate court when attempting to settle an estate. In order
to comply, should the mortgage servicer work with the first
successor in interest or a subsequent successor? Does a
successor that is not a family member who approaches the
mortgage servicer first have priority over a family member?
Responding to this concern, the author states:
The opponents' "multiple successors" issue is a red herring.
Servicers already face these situations - when a homeowner
leaves his or her home to two or more children/people - and
should have policies in place to address them. Nothing in SB
1150 will change the frequency of these cases. Additionally,
because Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing
Administration currently require the types of communication
included in SB 1150, servicers should already know how to
communicate with multiple successors and allow them to assume
the loan. Put another way, any servicer that does not have a
"multiple successors" policy in place is in violation of
existing federal rules [such as] CFPB Bulletin 2013-12.
Staff notes that regulations implementing the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) already require
mortgage servicers to treat successors in interest as borrowers
with respect to a decedent's mortgage loan, both in terms of
communicating loan details and in terms of considering
applications for loan modifications. These regulations require
loan servicers to "maintain policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed," upon notification of the death of a
borrower, to:
promptly identify and facilitate communication with the
successor in interest of the deceased borrower with respect to
the property secured by the deceased borrower's mortgage loan;
provide accurate information regarding loss mitigation options
available to a borrower from the owner or assignee of the
borrower's mortgage loan;
identify with specificity all loss mitigation options for
which borrowers may be eligible pursuant to any requirements
established by an owner or assignee of the borrower's mortgage
loan;
provide prompt access to all documents and information
submitted by a borrower in connection with a loss mitigation
option to servicer personnel that are assigned to assist the
borrower;
identify documents and information that a borrower is required
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageM of?
to submit to complete a loss mitigation application; and
properly evaluate a borrower who submits an application for a
loss mitigation option for all loss mitigation options for
which the borrower may be eligible pursuant to any
requirements established by the owner or assignee of the
borrower's mortgage loan. (12 C.F.R. Sec. 1024.38(b).
To clarify that mortgage lenders are to follow existing federal
regulations concerning communications with, and applications
received from, successors in interest, the author offers the
following amendment:
Author's Amendment :
On page 4, following line 9, insert "Servicers shall apply the
provisions of this section to multiple successors in
accordance with the terms of the loan and federal and state
laws and regulations."
1.Opposition concerns
In addition to concerns over mortgage servicers potentially
having to respond to requests by multiple successors in
interest, opposition stakeholders raise a number of other
concerns with SB 1150. First, the coalition of opposition
stakeholders asserts that SB 1150 is premature, given that
regulations are being promulgated by the federal Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau that are expected to address some of
the same issues in SB 1150 and are scheduled to be finalized in
mid-2016. Opposition stakeholders also assert that SB 1150
would impermissibly interfere with the contract rights of others
by allowing third parties not originally party to a mortgage
contract to apply for loan assumption and foreclosure avoidance
alternatives in connection with the original contract.
Opposition stakeholders suggest generally that "state and
federal privacy laws" will restrict mortgage servicers from
providing loan information to successors as proposed in the
bill, that the bill's provisions will "delay the foreclosure
process by additional months, if not years," and that the bill
"establishes new, lopsided, private rights of action with
draconian penalties." Finally, opposition stakeholders believe
the bill's scope extends far beyond that of HBOR, including to
residences that are not "owner-occupied," and that imprecision
regarding how mortgage servicers are to comply with the bill's
provisions "will lead to unnecessary litigation as parties
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageN of?
pursue court action as a means to clarify the law."
Support : AARP California; AIDS Legal Referral Panel; Alameda
County Board of Supervisors; Attorney General Kamala Harris; Bay
Area Legal Aid; Burbank Housing Development Corporation;
California District Attorneys Association; California Nurses
Association; California Professional Firefighters; California
Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; CALPIRG; Capital Impact
Partners; Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Consumer
Attorneys of California; Consumer Federation of California;
Consumers Union; Courage Campaign; Fair Housing Council of the
San Fernando Valley; Fair Housing of Marin; Family Caregiver
Alliance; Housing California; Inland Fair Housing and Meditation
Board; Institute on Aging; Justice in Aging; Law Foundation of
Silicon Valley; Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles; Legal
Services of Northern California; Los Angeles County Democratic
Party; Montebello Housing Development Corporation; National
Center for Lesbian Rights; National Council of La Raza; National
Housing Law Project; Nehemiah Corporation of America;
Neighborhood Housing Services of Los Angeles County; Non-Profit
Housing Association of Northern California; People's Self-Help
Housing; Project Sentinel; Public Counsel; Public Law Center;
Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center; Retired Public Employees
Association; Rural Community Assistance Corporation; SEIU
California; Tenants Together; The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy
California Collaboration; United Domestic Workers of America
/AFSCME Local 3930; UNITE HERE; Valley Industry and Commerce
Association; Western Center on Law & Poverty; One individual
Opposition : American Securitization Forum; California Bankers
Association; California Building Industry Association;
California Business Roundtable; California Chamber of Commerce;
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse; California Community
Banking Network; California Credit Union League; California
Financial Services Association;
California Land Title Association; California Mortgage
Association; California Mortgage Bankers Association; Civil
Justice Association of California; Consumer Mortgage Coalition;
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; United
Trustees Association
HISTORY
Source : California Alliance for Retired Americans; California
SB 1150 (Leno)
PageO of?
Reinvestment Coalition; Housing and Economic Rights Advocates
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 244 (Eggman, 2015) would have permitted a successor in
interest to succeed a deceased borrower for the purpose of
exercising rights under the Homeowner's Bill of Rights. This
bill would have defined a successor in interest as a surviving
spouse who provides the mortgage servicer with notification of
the death of the mortgagor or trustor, as well as specified
supporting documentation. This bill died in the Assembly
Banking and Finance Committee.
AB 278 (Eng et al., Ch. 86, Stats. 2012) and SB 900 (Leno et
al., Ch. 87, Stats. 2012) enacted the Homeowner's Bill of
Rights.
Prior Vote : Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee
(Ayes 4, Noes 3)
**************