Pleadings and Discovery

 This is a 2019 complaint filed by Legal Services of Northern California in California Superior Court involving a reverse mortgage.  Soon after the plaintiff’s husband’s death, the plaintiff applied to the creditor to stay in her home through the MOE (mortgage option election) program. However, defendants erroneously denied her application and instead started the foreclosure process. The complaint seeks to stop the imminent foreclosure sale and compel defendants to honor her MOE application and allow her to remain living in her home.

This is a 2019 complaint filed by Legal Services of Northern California in California Superior Court involving a reverse mortgage.  Soon after the plaintiff’s husband’s death, the plaintiff applied to the creditor to stay in her home through the MOE (mortgage option election) program. However, defendants erroneously denied her application and instead started the foreclosure process. The complaint seeks to stop the imminent foreclosure sale and compel defendants to honor her MOE application and allow her to remain living in her home.

These two sample allegations could be added to a complaint challenging HUD’s pre 2014 MOE (mortgage option election) requirement that the spouse obtain good, marketable title or legal right to remain in the property within 90 days of the borrower’s death.

This is a 2018 complaint brought by Atlanta Legal Aid against HUD in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia involving an APA challenge involving a pre-2014 HECM reverse mortgage.  The claim is that HECM regulations do not sufficiently protect surviving spouses who are not listed on a reverse mortgage, so as to allow the surviving spouse to stay in the home.

This is a case involving a pre-2014 reverse mortgage.  This is the consumer’s pleading in Wilson in response to HUD’s motion the homeowner’s crossclaim against HUD. HUD’s brief and reply brief are also included as a companion material to this treatise. The spouse of a now-deceased borrower on a HUD insured reverse mortgage challenged HUD’s pre-2014 reverse-mortgage insurance program requirements as either unlawful or arbitrary and that the crossclaim is moot.