DS News

DS News January 2021

DSNews delivers stories, ideas, links, companies, people, events, and videos impacting the mortgage default servicing industry.

Issue link: http://digital.dsnews.com/i/1322815

Contents of this Issue


Page 33 of 99

32 Legal Industry Update STATE FOCUS: FLORIDA By: Charles P. Gufford HUD FACE-TO-FACE: IS IT A CONDITION PRECEDENT? Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeals has recently followed up its decision in Bank of America, N.A. v. Jones, 294 So. 3d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) and has issued two new opinions concerning 24 C.F.R 203.604, otherwise known as the "HUD Face-to-Face Provision." Both actions involved the involuntary dismissal of foreclosure cases at trial based upon the lender's failure to present prima facie evidence showing it complied with 24 C.F.R 203.604(b), specifically those minimum actions required to comply with the reasonable efforts expectation of the rule when a face-to-face interview has not been conducted. (It should be noted that Malcolm Harrison was the appellee in both cases and the servicer prevailed in both cases by overturning the circuit courts' ruling.) 24 C.F.R 203.604(d) illuminates the specific actions required to comply with the reasonable efforts exception: (d) A reasonable effort to arrange a face-to- face meeting with the mortgagor shall consist at a minimum of one letter sent to the mortgagor certified as dispatched by the United States Postal Service (USPS). A reasonable effort shall also include at least one trip to see the mortgagor at the mortgaged property, unless the mortgaged property is more than 200 miles from the mortgagee, its servicer, or a branch office of either; or it is known that the mortgagor is not residing in the mortgaged property. Based on the above rule, a lender must meet a two-prong test: (1) visit the borrower(s) at least once to attempt a face-to-face interview, and (2) demonstrate a letter was sent via USPS to the borrower(s) asking to schedule the face- to-face interview. New FL Case: Ustarez e Fourth District Court of Appeal in Penny Mac Loan Servs. LLC v. Ustarez, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 13329 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), overturned the involuntary dismissal and found the lender submitted prima facie evidence in the form of the certified face-to-face letter mailed to the borrower and made the minimum one visit to the property as required by the regulation. However, the court went further and ruled in favor of the lender's argument that 24 C.F.R 203.604 did not operate as a condition precedent to foreclose upon a residential mortgage. e court expounded on its ruling by observing that the subject note and mortgage involved in the case incorporated HUD language, which did not authorize acceleration of the loan if not permitted by regulation of the secretary of HUD. e language contained in the mortgage and note created a "self-imposed" condition precedent requiring the lender to comply with HUD regulations when, in actuality, no true condition precedent existed based upon a solitary interpretation of 24 C.F.R 203.604. In other words, the "self-imposed" condition precedent was a creature created by mere contract alone. Second FL Case: WalCott-Barr e court followed up its ruling in Ustarez with its ruling in Lakeview Loan Servicing v. WalCott-Barr, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 14512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Like the case of Ustaez, the court reviewed 24 C.F.R 203.604(d); however, in this case, the court specifically analyzed what the terms "certified" and "dispatched" meant in relation to the manner of establishing the mailing of the face-to-face letter. Upon reviewing the terms based on their plain language, the court determined that "certify a letter has been dispatched" generally means to confirm or attest to the prompt or speedy sending off of something. Utilizing the aforementioned definition, the court concluded 24 C.F.R 203.604(d) did not require a certified mail receipt from the USPS in order to establish compliance with mailing requirement of the regulation, nor did the definition limit how a lender can prove such compliance. e court found the servicer's established compliance via its employee's testimony. e corporate witness identified the face-to-face

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of DS News - DS News January 2021