BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 764
Assemblymember Nava
As Amended June 22, 2009
Hearing Date: July 14, 2009
Business and Professions Code; Civil Code
BCP:jd
SUBJECT
Real Estate Brokers
DESCRIPTION
This bill would prohibit any person who performs loan
modification services to claim, charge, receive, or collect a
fee paid for by the borrower for loan modification agreements
until the terms of the loan have been modified. The violation
of those restrictions would be a public offense and subject the
violator to a fine, imprisonment, or both. This bill would
additionally:
Subject attorneys to discipline if they collect a fee in
violation of the above prohibition;
Require a notice to be provided, prior to entering into a loan
modification agreement, that informs individuals that it is
not necessary to pay a third party to arrange a loan
modification; and
Revise provisions in existing law regarding advance fee
agreements for licensees of the Department of Real Estate.
(This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
committee.)
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2009, this committee held an informational hearing
that focused on the serious problem of foreclosure related scams
facing delinquent homeowners. Many of those scams involve a
promise to renegotiate a delinquent borrower's loan in exchange
for a significant up-front fee. In arresting three members of a
foreclosure fraud ring in Southern California last November, the
(more)
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 2 of ?
Attorney General's office reported:
The arrests came after an investigation into First Gov, also
operating as Foreclosure Prevention Services, uncovered that
the company was soliciting hundreds of homeowners with mail
flyers offering to help them stop the foreclosure process on
their homes. The scammers falsely told homeowners that they
would renegotiate their mortgages, reduce monthly payments,
and transfer any delinquent loan amounts to the renegotiated
principle [sic]. The company demanded an up-front fee,
ranging from $1,500 to $5,000, to participate in the
loan-modification program. The company also told the
victims to stop any mortgage payments or communications with
their lender, claiming they would interfere with the
company's effort to negotiate the loan modification.
When victims complained that they were still receiving
delinquency or foreclosure notices from their lenders,
fraud-ring members told the victims that the mortgage loans
had been renegotiated, but the lenders needed a "good faith"
payment to secure the new accounts. Homeowners made
payments to accounts under business names such as
"Reinstatement Department" or "Resolution Department" that
made it appear as if the payment had been applied toward the
loan. Bank records indicate that more than $700,000 was
stolen from homeowners who fell victim to this scheme.
The Attorney General reported the arrest of two women earlier
this year who ran a similar foreclosure scam ring. The Attorney
General noted:
The two women operated a company called Foreclosure Freedom,
which sent hundreds of fliers to Californians promising help
in stopping the foreclosure of their homes. The fliers
read: "FINAL NOTICE - Respond only to this notice
immediately." This is similar to [the] First Gov scam,
which the Attorney General stopped late last year.
When homeowners called the number on the flyer, they were
told their mortgages could be renegotiated to a lower
monthly payment. Victims, however, were required to pay
thousands of dollars in up-front fees and were instructed
not to contact their lenders. Victims were assured the
company had "private lenders and specialists exclusive to
their company who are very experienced in the options and
methods used to renegotiate home loans," yet neither of the
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 3 of ?
women who operated the company had real estate licenses,
legal training, or any experience in the home mortgage
market. Investigators found no evidence of any successful
loan modifications and most of the victims were either
forced into bankruptcy or lost their homes to foreclosure.
In addition to the above instances, nearly all the witnesses
(both consumer advocates and law enforcement) in this
committee's hearing earlier this year expressed the need for a
prohibition on advance fees. Accordingly, this bill would
generally prohibit any person from collecting an advance fee for
a loan modification until the terms of the loan have been
modified, and make other changes to provisions in existing law
regarding the collection of advance fees.
This bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Banking,
Finance and Insurance on July 9, 2009.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law prohibits real estate licensees from charging
a borrower an advance fee in connection with a residential
real estate loan, before the borrower becomes obligated on the
loan. (Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 10085.5.)
Existing law allows licensed real estate brokers to charge
borrowers an advance fee for helping negotiate a loan
modification on a borrower's behalf, as long as the broker's
fee agreement has been reviewed by the Department of Real
Estate (DRE), and DRE has no objections to it. (Bus. & Prof.
Code Sec. 10085.)
Existing law regulates the activities of foreclosure
consultants, which are defined as one who makes any
solicitation, representation, or offer to any owner of a
property on which a notice of default has been recorded, to
perform any of the following services for compensation:
stop or postpone a foreclosure sale, or save the owner's
residence from foreclosure;
obtain any forbearance from any beneficiary or
mortgagee;
help the owner exercise his or her right of
reinstatement, or extend the period within which the owner
may reinstate his or her mortgage obligation;
obtain any waiver of an acceleration clause in any
mortgage, as specified;
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 4 of ?
help the owner obtain a loan or advance of funds;
avoid or ameliorate the impairment of the owner's
credit, resulting from the recordation of a notice of
default or the conduct of a foreclosure sale; or
help the owner obtain remaining proceeds from a
foreclosure sale of the owner's residence. (Civ. Code Sec.
2945 et seq.)
Existing law exempts certain individuals and businesses from
the foreclosure consultant law, including: persons licensed to
practice law; a licensed real estate broker, as specified; a
licensed accountant; a licensed finance lender, as specified;
a licensed depository institution; a licensed escrow agent or
other licensed person authorized to conduct a title or escrow
business; and licensed residential mortgage lenders or
servicers. (Civ. Code Sec. 2945.1(b).)
Existing law makes it a violation of law for a foreclosure
consultant to do any of the following, and subjects violators
to a fine of not more than $10,000, imprisonment in the county
jail or in state prison for up to one year, or by both a fine
and imprisonment:
claim, demand, charge, collect, or receive any
compensation until after the foreclosure consultant has
fully performed each and every service he or she contracted
to perform or represented that he or she would perform;
claim, demand, charge, collect, or receive any fee,
interest, or any other compensation for any reason which
exceeds 10 percent per annum of the amount of any loan the
foreclosure consultant may make to the property owner;
take any wage assignment, any lien of any type on real
or personal property, or other security to secure the
payment of compensation;
receive any consideration from any third party in
connection with services rendered to an owner, unless that
consideration is fully disclosed to the owner;
acquire any interest in a residence in foreclosure from
an owner with whom the foreclosure consultant has
contracted, as specified;
take any power of attorney from any owner for any
purpose (effective July 1, 2009); or
induce or attempt to induce any owner to enter into a
contract that is not in compliance with the foreclosure
consultant law.
This bill would provide that it is unlawful for a licensed
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 5 of ?
real estate broker to claim, demand, charge, receive, or
collect a fee paid for by the borrower for a loan modification
agreement until the terms of that loan have been modified.
This bill would define "loan modification agreement" as a
contract for the performance of services for a borrower in
connection with the modification of the terms of a loan
secured directly or collaterally by a lien on residential real
property containing four or fewer dwelling units.
This bill would provide that a licensed real estate broker who
performs a loan modification service for a fee paid for by the
borrower shall provide the following statement, in not less
than 14-point bold type, prior to entering into a loan
modification agreement with the borrower:
It is not necessary to pay a third party to arrange for a
loan modification from your mortgage lender or servicer.
You may call your lender directly to ask for a change in
your loan terms. Nonprofit housing counseling agencies
also offer these and other forms of borrower assistance
free of charge. A list of nonprofit housing counseling
agencies approved by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is available from
your local HUD office or by visiting www.hud.gov.
This bill would also require the licensed real estate broker
to provide their license number, and provide that if the loan
modification agreement is offered or negotiated in one of the
foreign languages set forth in Section 1632 of the Civil Code,
a translated copy of the above statement and the license
number must be provided to the borrower in that language.
This bill would provide that the above provisions do not
prohibit the acceptance or receipt of a fee by specified
financial institutions, and that the provisions would not
apply to charges made by title insurers and controlled escrow
companies.
This bill would require a licensed real estate broker who
performs loan modification services to notify the Department
of Real Estate in writing on a specified form within 30 days
from first performing a loan modification agreement. The
broker must also notify the department, in writing, within 30
days from the last performance of a loan modification
agreement by that broker. This provision is not subject to
the January 1, 2013 sunset.
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 6 of ?
This bill would provide that a violation of the above
restrictions is punishable by a fine not exceeding $20,000, by
imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or both, or if by a
corporation, the violation is punishable by a fine not
exceeding $60,000.
This bill would limit the above provisions to mortgages or
deeds of trust secured by residential real property containing
four or fewer dwelling units, and, except as specified, sunset
the above provisions on January 1, 2013.
This bill would also revise the exemptions from the
prohibition on real estate licensees charging an advance fee
in connection with a residential real estate loan, before the
borrower becomes obligated on the loan, and increase the
penalty for violation of that prohibition.
2. This bill would, until January 1, 2013, provide that,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be
unlawful for any person who performs loan modification
services, as specified, to claim, demand, charge, receive, or
collect a fee paid for by the borrower for loan modification
agreements until the terms of that loan have been modified.
This bill would define "loan modification agreement," and
require a person who performs a loan modification service to
provide the above statutory form notice prior to entering into
a loan modification agreement with the borrowers, and require
a translated copy of the agreement to be provided if the
agreement is negotiated in one of the languages set forth in
Section 1632.
This bill would provide that a violation of the above
provisions by a person is punishable by a fine not exceeding
$20,000, 12 months imprisonment, or both, or if by a
corporation, punishable by a fine not to exceed $60,000.
This bill would state that nothing shall preclude a person or
their agent from collecting principal, interest, or other
charges under the terms of a loan, as specified, or accepting
payment from a federal agency, as specified. This bill would
also apply the above provisions to mortgages or deeds of trust
containing four or fewer dwelling units.
This bill would further provide that it shall constitute cause
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 7 of ?
for the imposition of discipline of an attorney to engage in
any conduct prohibited by the above provisions.
3. Existing law allows licensed real estate brokers to charge
borrowers an advance fee for helping negotiate a loan
modification on a borrower's behalf, as long as the broker's
fee agreement has been reviewed by the Department of Real
Estate (DRE), and DRE has no objections to it. (Bus. & Prof.
Code Sec. 10085.)
Existing law provides that any person using, disseminating, or
publishing any matter which the commissioner has ordered not
to be used, published, or disseminated shall be guilty of a
misdemeanors and punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000,
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
This bill would, instead, provide that the above actions are
punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or imprisonment in
the county jail not to exceed 12 months, or both.
This bill would, instead, state that the commissioner shall
require that any or all materials used in obtaining advanced
fee agreements, as specified, be submitted within at least 10
calendar days before they are used.
This bill would prohibit advertisements used in obtaining
advance fee agreements from employing words, letters,
initials, symbols, or other devices that are so similar to
those used by a governmental agency, nonprofit or charitable
institution, or senior organization that they could have the
capacity or tendency to mislead the public. This bill would
also provide examples of misleading materials.
4. Existing law provides that certain persons are exempt from
regulation under certain provisions of the Real Estate Law
dealing with real estate loans. (Bus. & Prof. Sec. 10133.1.)
This bill would further exempt from those provisions specified
nonprofit organizations that have been approved by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide
counseling services, when those services are provided at no
cost and in connection with residential mortgage loan
modifications.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 8 of ?
According to the author:
First and foremost, all homeowners in fear of facing
foreclosure or already in the process can receive help for
free either through their lender or through an approved
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) counseling agency.
Homeowners do not need to pay a dime for a loan modification.
Unfortunately, many loan modification companies are charging
homeowners $1000 to $4000 for little to no work. In most
cases, companies ask for the money upfront and lure homeowners
in with false promises and guarantees. Currently, the DRE is
investigating over 750 complaints of fraudulent loan
modification companies.
Licensed real estate brokers are collecting an advance fee
without even knowing if a loan can actually be modified. AB
764 will eliminate this issue and require a licensed real
estate broker to actually look at the complexities of the loan
and then determine whether or not it can be modified and then
modify the loan before a payment is received.
2. This bill would prohibit advance fees for loan modifications
As noted above, this committee heard testimony during the March
24, 2009 informational hearing on the wide breadth and scope of
foreclosure scams that are taking advantage of desperate
homeowners. Many of the consumer advocates, and representatives
from law enforcement, expressed their strong belief that advance
fees should be completely banned as it is almost impossible to
tell a legitimate service from one that will take a borrower's
money and not perform the promised services. Regarding the
advance fees that are currently being charged to struggling
homeowners, the California Reinvestment Coalition, in support,
states:
Many of the homeowners who have been taken advantage of by
for-profit scammers find their way to nonprofit housing
counselors, but at that point, the damage is done; the
servicer has not been contacted and the client - who is by
definition already in a severe financial crisis - is out
thousands of dollars for the fee. The average fee that we
are seeing borrowers charged is $3,000; we have seen fees as
high as a shocking $9,500. All or most of these fees are
charged up front, before any services have been rendered.
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 9 of ?
This bill would respond to the issue of foreclosure scammers
charging those excessive advance fees, and inform anyone who
would contract for loan modification services that they need not
pay for that service.
a) Proposed limitations seek to address foreclosure rescue
scams
This bill would prohibit any person from claiming, charging,
or collecting a fee paid for by the borrower for a loan
modification agreement, as defined, until the terms of the
loan have been modified. That prohibition seeks to address
many of the scams and concerns raised in this committee's
March 24, 2009 informational hearing. For example, if a
desperate homeowner is approached by an unscrupulous
individual who offers to help modify their loan for $3,000,
this bill would prohibit those individuals from collecting a
fee until the terms of the loan have actually been modified.
Since the reported foreclosure scams operate by taking advance
fees but offering no actual service to the borrower, the above
prohibition on advance fees would appear to prohibit the
specific scams reported to this committee.
It should be noted that unlike SB 94 (Calderon, Corbett,
Steinberg), which prohibits payment of a fee until the
individual has fully performed each and every service that the
individual contracted to perform or represented that he or she
would perform, this bill would prohibit fees until the terms
of a loan have actually been modified. As the bill does not
define the parameters for a loan modification, that
requirement would arguably be met by any modification of a
loan, including those which actually raise a borrower's
monthly mortgage payment. Given that a borrower must arguably
agree to a proposed loan modification, the practical effect of
this bill would be to prohibit the payment of a fee until the
borrower has approved of the modification negotiated by the
third party.
In addition to prohibiting advance fees, this bill would
require those who do charge a fee to inform the customer that
it is not necessary to pay a third party to arrange for a loan
modification, and that nonprofit housing counseling agencies
offer assistance free of charge. Essentially, if a borrower
is approached in the above situation, that borrower must also
be informed of the broker's license number (if the individual
is a licensed real estate broker), that they need not pay any
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 10 of ?
money for a loan modification and that nonprofit housing
counseling agencies offer assistance free of charge. That
notice must be on a separate statement, in not less than
14-point bold type, must be provided prior to entering into
any fee agreement, and a translated copy of that statement
must be provided if the services are offered or negotiated in
one of the foreign languages set forth in Civil Code Section
1632 (Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Chinese).
From a public policy standpoint, the addition of those
translation requirements provides a key consumer protection
for desperate homeowners with limited, or no, English
proficiency.
This bill would also require a licensed real estate broker who
performs loan modification services to notify the Department
of Real Estate within 30 days from the first performance of a
loan modification agreement, and within 30 days from the last
performance of a loan modification agreement by that broker.
b) Attorney-specific provisions
Staff notes that the committee heard extensive testimony at
the March 24, 2009 informational hearing regarding the
involvement of attorneys in loan modification scams. The
State Bar of California, in support of this bill, further
notes:
In the last year, the crisis in the mortgage industry has
resulted in fraudulent practices involving services
offered to homeowners by unscrupulous individuals who
promise help in avoiding foreclosure or modifying the
terms of a loan, but who instead charge exorbitant fees
upfront and provide little or no work on their behalf.
Unfortunately many of those cases involve attorneys.
According to the State Bar's Office of the Chief Trial
Counsel (OCTC), it has been receiving between 850 and 900
calls per month on its attorney discipline complaint line
related to promised loan modification services during
this foreclosure crisis, and to advance fees being made
but then no work being done.
To ensure that the State Bar has authority to discipline
attorneys in violation of this bill's prohibition, this bill
would specifically state that it shall be a cause for the
imposition of discipline of an attorney engaged in any conduct
prohibited under proposed Civil Code Section 2944.6 (the
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 11 of ?
proposed prohibition on any person collecting an advance fee
for a loan modification until the terms of the loan have been
modified).
It should be noted that the committee received a letter from
an individual expressing concern that the provisions of this
bill would prevent attorneys from obtaining retainers or
advance fees for loan modification legal services.
3. Additional restrictions on advance fee agreements
Existing law generally permits the Commissioner of the
Department of Real Estate (Commissioner) to require that
materials used in obtaining advance fee agreements be submitted
at least 10 calendar days before they are used. If the
Commissioner determines that any of those materials would tend
to mislead, the Commissioner may order that it shall not be
used, disseminated, nor published. Violation of that
prohibition is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed
$1,000, imprisonment for up to six months, or both.
This bill would, instead, provide that the Commissioner shall
require the submission of materials used in obtaining advance
fee agreements. This bill would also prohibit the use of words,
or other devices, in advertisements that are similar to those
used by a government agency, nonprofit or charitable
institution, or senior organization that could have the capacity
or tendency to mislead the public. The author, in support,
states:
A main resource for these "loan modification consultants" is
through advertising which all too often is misleading. A
lot of the time the advertising looks like it is government
approved through the use of logos or wording which lures
homeowners into believing the company is government
sponsored. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently
surveyed online and print advertising for mortgage
foreclosure companies running suspicious ads.
Staff also notes that the above provisions would codify portions
of Regulation 2970 that currently require the submission of
advertising materials when they proposed to collect an advance
fee, and that the materials would not be approved if they
include any representation that is false, misleading, or
deceptive.
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 12 of ?
This bill would also increase the penalty for violations to a
fine not to exceed $2,500, imprisonment not to exceed 12 months,
or both.
4. Duplicate penalties for licensed real estate brokers
The bill would impose restrictions specific to real estate
brokers in Business and Professions Code Section 10085.6, and
similarly restrict the activities of "any person" under Civil
Code Section 2944.6. As both sections would apply to brokers,
if a broker violates the advance fee prohibition, the broker
would technically violate both sections. That broker could be
subject to fines under both 10085.6(d) and 2944.6(d) pursuant to
language in Section 2944.6(d) that states the "penalties are
cumulative to any other remedies or penalties provided by law."
To clarify that a penalty may be imposed under only one of those
sections when a real estate broker violates the bill's
prohibitions, the author offers the following clarifying
amendment:
Clarifying amendment
1) On page 9, line 6, insert:
These penalties shall not be cumulative, or in addition to, the
penalties provided by subdivision (e) of Section 2944.6 of the
Civil Code.
2) On page 13, line 10, strike out "These" and insert:
Except as provided in subdivision (e) of Section 10085.6 of the
Business and Professions Code, these
5. Author's amendments to be offered in Committee
The following amendments were accepted in the Senate Banking,
Finance and Insurance Committee on July 9, 2009, but are to be
taken in this committee due to procedural timing requirements.
The amendments clarify the bill's attorney provisions, limit
application to residential property with one to four units,
create consistent penalties, and make other clarifying changes.
6106.4. (a) It shall constitute cause for the imposition of
discipline of an attorney .to claim, demand, charge,
receive, or collect a fee from any person to provide
services to obtain a legally enforceable modification of the
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 13 of ?
terms of that person's loan secured directly or collaterally
by a lien on single family residential real property
containing four or fewer dwelling units until those services
have been provided. within the meaning of this chapter for
an attorney to engage in any conduct prohibited under
Section 2944.6 of the Civil Code.
. . .
SEC. 4. Section 10085.6 is added to the Business and
Professions Code, to read:
10085.6. (a) It shall be unlawful for a licensed real
estate broker to claim, demand, charge, receive, or collect
a fee paid for by the borrower for loan modification
agreements until the terms of that loan have been modified.
(b) For purposes of this section, "loan modification
agreement" means a contract for the performance of services
for a borrower in connection with the modification of the
terms of a loan secured directly or collaterally by a lien
on residential real property containing four or fewer
dwelling units .
(c) (1) A licensed real estate broker who performs a loan
modification service as described in subdivision (b) for a
fee paid for by the borrower shall provide the following
prior to entering into a loan modification agreement with
the borrower:
(A) As a separate statement, in not less than 14-point
bold type:
"It is not necessary to pay a third party to arrange for
a loan modification from your mortgage lender or servicer.
You may call your lender directly to ask for a change in
your loan terms. Nonprofit housing counseling agencies also
offer these and other forms of borrower assistance free of
charge. A list of nonprofit housing counseling agencies
approved by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) is available from your local HUD
office or by visiting www.hud.gov."
(B) The licensed real estate broker's license number.
(2) If a loan modification agreement is offered or
negotiated in one of the foreign languages set forth in
Section 1632 of the Civil Code, a translated copy of the
statement in subparagraph (A) and the information required
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 14 of ?
under subparagraph (B) shall be provided to the borrower in
that foreign language.
(d) A licensed real estate broker who performs loan
modification services as described in subdivision (b) shall
notify the department in writing in a form prescribed by the
commissioner within 30 days from the first performance of a
loan modification agreement and shall notify the department
in writing within 30 days from the last performance of a
loan modification agreement by that licensed real estate
broker.
(e) This section does not prohibit the acceptance or
receipt of a fee by a bank, savings association, credit
union, industrial loan company, person acting within the
scope of a license issued to that person pursuant to
Division 9 (commencing with Section 22000) of the Financial
Code, or person acting within the scope of a license issued
to that person pursuant to Division 20 (commencing with
Section 50000) of the Financial Code, in connection with the
modification of the terms of a loan secured directly or
collaterally by a lien on single-family residential real
property. This section does not apply
to charges made by title insurers and controlled escrow
companies pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
12340) of Part 6 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code.
(f) A violation of this section is a public offense
punishable by a fine not exceeding twenty thousand dollars
($20,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not
to exceed 12 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment,
or if by a corporation, the violation is punishable by a
fine not exceeding sixty thousand dollars ($60,000).
(g) This section shall apply only to mortgages and deeds
of trust secured by residential real property containing
four or fewer dwelling units.
(h) This section shall remain in effect only until
January 1, 2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a
later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1,
2013, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 5. Section 10085.6 is added to the
Business and Professions Code , to read:
10085.6. (a) A licensed real estate broker who performs
loan modification services as described in subdivision (b)
shall notify the department in writing in a form prescribed
by the commissioner within 30 days from the first
performance of a loan modification agreement and shall
notify the department in writing within 30 days from the
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 15 of ?
last performance of a loan modification agreement by that
licensed real estate broker.
(b) For purposes of this section, "loan modification
agreement" means a contract for the performance of services
for a borrower in connection with the modification of the
terms of a loan secured directly or collaterally by a lien
on residential real property containing four or fewer
dwelling units .
(c) This section shall become operative on January 1,
2013.
2944.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law
Except as provided in Sections 6106.4 and 10085.6 of the
Business and Professions Code , it shall be unlawful for any
person who performs loan modification services as described
in subdivision (b) to claim, demand, charge, receive, or
collect a fee paid for by the borrower for loan modification
agreements until the terms of that loan have been modified.
(b) For purposes of this section, "loan modification
agreement" means a contract entered into with a borrower for
the performance of services for the borrower in connection
with the modification of the terms of a loan secured
directly or collaterally by a lien on single-family
residential real property containing four or fewer dwelling
units.
(c) (1) A person who performs a loan modification service
as described in subdivision (b) for a fee paid for by the
borrower shall provide the following prior to entering into
a loan modification agreement with the borrower:
"It is not necessary to pay a third party to arrange for a
loan modification from your mortgage lender or servicer. You
may call your lender directly to ask for a change in your
loan terms. Nonprofit housing counseling agencies also offer
these and other forms of borrower assistance free of charge.
A list of nonprofit housing counseling agencies approved by
the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is available from your local HUD office or
by visiting www.hud.gov."
(2) If a loan modification agreement is offered or
negotiated in one of the foreign languages set forth in
Section 1632 of the Civil Code, a translated copy of the
statement in paragraph (1) shall be provided to the borrower
in that foreign language.
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 16 of ?
(d) A violation of this section by a natural person is a
public offense punishable by a fine not exceeding twenty ten
thousand dollars ($20,000 ) ($10,000), by imprisonment in the
county jail for a term not to exceed 12 months, or by both
that fine and imprisonment, or if by a corporation, the
violation is punishable by a fine not exceeding sixty fifty
thousand dollars ($60,000) ($50,000 ). These penalties are
cumulative to any other remedies or penalties provided by
law.
?
Support : California Labor Federation; California Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now (California ACORN); City
of Los Angeles; California Reinvestment Coalition; State Bar of
California; Consumers Union
Opposition : One individual
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : SB 94 (Calderon, Corbett,
Steinberg), would, until January 1, 2013, prohibit persons from
charging advance fees to borrowers in connection with the
modification of the terms of the borrower's loan. This bill was
approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on July 9, 2009.
Prior Legislation : AB 180 (Bass, Chapter 278, Statutes of
2008), strengthened the foreclosure consultant law.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Committee on Banking and Finance (Ayes 8, Noes 3)
Assembly Committee on Business and Professions (Ayes 6, Noes 3)
Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 11, Noes 5)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 48, Noes 29)
Senate Committee on Banking, Finance and Insurance (Ayes 7, Noes
3)
**************
AB 764 (Nava)
Page 17 of ?