Home > Mortgages > Widows Sue Government, Claim Evictions Illegal

Comments 4 Comments

Eviction_Monik_Markus_CCFlickrThe AARP, the powerful senior citizens organization, sued the federal government Tuesday, alleging that illegal changes to rules regarding reverse mortgages could result in seniors getting evicted from their homes.

The suit was filed against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the AARP Foundation in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The plaintiffs are two widows in Indiana and New York and a widower in Maryland, all of whom face immediate foreclosure and eviction as a result of HUD’s decision to change rules regarding reverse mortgages.

“HUD has inexplicably turned existing reverse mortgage policies upside down,” Jean Constantine-Davis, a lawyer with the AARP, said in a press release. “These are older individuals with limited means who have been blindsided by arbitrary, retroactive decision making.”

[Article: 3 New Medicare Scams to Watch]

HUD does not comment on pending lawsuits, according to a spokeswoman.

Reverse mortgages were created more than a quarter-century ago so that seniors with significant equity invested in their homes could tap into that equity to cover living expenses. A reverse mortgage is different from a regular mortgage in which the homeowner pays down the principal each month.  Instead, with a reverse mortgage, the principal grows over time as the homeowner receives a monthly payment. The loan is paid off at the very end, often when the last homeowner dies, moves into assisted living or sells the home.

Since 1989, HUD rules stated that borrowers or their heirs would never owe more than the house was worth at the time of repayment, according to the AARP. But HUD changed that rule in December 2008, so that now borrowers and heirs must pay the full mortgage to keep the home, even if the value has fallen since the mortgage was written.

During the housing boom, that was rarely a problem. But now that 23% of American homes are worth less than their mortgages, some seniors find that reverse mortgages they received to balance their finances are actually sinking them. Unable to find a lender willing to give a loan for more than their house is worth, they are forced to sell the home, pay the difference between purchase and selling price themselves, and give up all of the remaining equity they had invested.

[Free Tool: Obtain your Identity Risk Score from Credit.com]

AARP points out that after seniors lose their home, anyone off the street could buy it at the new, lower value.

“Rather than protecting borrowers, HUD retroactively changed the terms of the loans to make these elderly borrowers’ spouses and heirs pay more to keep their home than an unrelated purchaser would have to pay to purchase the property,” attorney Steven A. Skalet, who is working with AARP on the case, said in a press release. “This is shameful.”

Image: Monik Markus

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Ruth Seegers

    My father did a reverse mortgage with Fannie Mae when he was 71. My mother at the time was 61. He died in 2004 and my mother has been living in the house for almost seven years. After my father died she went to an attorney to find out if she could continue staying in the house. The attorney did the research and checked the paper work and said there wasn’t a problem. She also received a letter from Sallie Mae that she could stay. Now almost seven years later she has received letters stating that she will be evicted. No reason has been given and that is what I am trying to find out. Every year she has followed the terms and conditions by paying taxes and homeowners insurance. She has also paid this year for the whole year and now they want to throw her out. She went to her attorney and he could not figure out why this is happening. After some research by him hes states that she is liable to this reverse mortgage because at the final signing her name was on the paperwork. She was only 61 at the time of signing. I have been doing my own research because I did not understand what a reverse mortgage is, so hopefully we will understand why.
    Thank you for your time in reading this.

    • Christopher Maag

      Hello Ruth. Thank you very much for telling us your story. It makes me think that maybe we should do a longer feature story about your mother’s experience. If you’re interested, would you please email me so that we can talk further? My email address: chris@credit.com.

      Thank you.

    • Cecilia G

      My mother lost her home to a reverse mortgage. She has demetia, my brother walked her thru it and stole the rest of the money. She is now in a nursing home and penniless. The bank has the house. They realized after the fact that my brother did not present a signed Power of Attorney, a little late and of course I got no response from them.

  • Cecilia G

    My brother in May 2008 walked mt mother who had already been diagnosed with demetia thru a reverse mortgage never showing POA and at the day of closing promptly had $35,000 wired to her checking and had his son make out a check (with her signature) to a attorney for a retainer on a CSC charge his son was facing. The bank months later sent a letter to my mother asking for a POA. She is now in a nursing home on Medicaid. I had to turn the property back to WFB as it was not worth was was owed on it. I would like to sue them for all my mothers attorney fees and mine and my mothers emotional suffering. Cecilia, Michigan

  • Pingback: Seniors the Target of Big-Ticket Fraud | ComparePlastic()

  • Pingback: Seniors the Target of Big-Ticket Fraud | Credit.com News + Advice()

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team