Provides for payment of insurance proceeds jointly to the mortgagee and the mortgagor of damaged residential property. (8/1/22)
Under SB 432, while insurance proceeds are in escrow, mortgagees are prohibited from initiating foreclosure proceedings against mortgagors or placing them in default. This provision is meant to alleviate the financial burden on homeowners awaiting repairs by suspending mortgage payments and interest accrual during this period. Additionally, the bill requires that mortgagees must extend the mortgage term by the same duration as the escrow period, helping to stabilize homeowners' financial situations amid repairs.
Senate Bill 432 introduces significant modifications regarding the handling of insurance proceeds related to damaged residential properties. The bill mandates that proceeds from insurance claims are paid jointly to the mortgagee and mortgagor, ensuring that funds are held in escrow during the repair or replacement of damaged property. A notable change in this legislation is the removal of the prior $25,000 limitation on these proceeds, making it applicable to any funds received, thereby broadening the scope of the law's applicability.
The sentiment surrounding Senate Bill 432 has generally been positive among advocates for homeowners' rights, as it provides much-needed protections during the often stressful process of dealing with insurance claims and property repairs. This bill is seen as a step towards ensuring that homeowners are not unduly pressured while awaiting necessary repairs. However, some concerns have been raised regarding the potential implications for mortgagees, who may find their hands tied during the escrow period and may face repercussions for non-compliance.
Contention around SB 432 primarily revolves around the regulatory responsibilities imposed on mortgagees, as they must adhere to strict timelines for releasing escrow funds post-verification of property repairs. If they fail to do so, the bill stipulates penalties including financial damages payable to the mortgagor. Critics argue that these requirements could complicate the insurance claims process and could deter financial institutions from issuing loans on properties deemed high-risk for damage, thus potentially affecting housing stability in vulnerable areas.