1 Comment

1. 

   James E. Veale, CPA, MBT

   June 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm

   The participants in the AARP have had some interesting comments of late. I would remind counsel for the plaintiffs that HUD has defined homeowner for this purpose. They have consistently defined it as a borrowing spouse only. What would redefining it do?

   Now counsel for the AARP plaintiffs is telling us that HUD can define the term spouse to exclude spouses who become spouses after the HECM goes into place? What would they do with spouses who were married to the borrower at time of closing, divorced, and then remarried before the demise of the borrowing spouse? Would that spouse qualify? It seems AARP and its counsel are looking to become the ultimate deciders of law pertaining to HECMs or if not all HECM law at least the spouse displacement rule.

   Who is AARP or its counsel to declare what HUD can or cannot do? Hubris in this case is running at all time highs. While they have every right to litigate over the actions HUD takes, they have no power whatsoever to dictate to HUD what HUD can or can not do.

   Is AARP counsel pushing this definition so they can litigate on behalf of spouses who were not married to the borrowing spouse at time of closing as is the case with one of their current plaintiffs? If misstated or taken out of context, counsel should make sure it is corrected or retracted. The comments of the participants in this case are getting a little out of hand.

   • Reply
   • Link