Texas House Bill HB3589

Texas 2009 - 81st Regular

Caption

Relating to requiring foreclosure deferment and reset notification on certain residential mortgages.

Impact

If enacted, HB3589 would amend the Texas Property Code by adding Chapter 51A, which mandates specific procedures and notifications concerning foreclosure deferment. The bill requires mortgage servicers to notify debtors of their rights at least 30 days prior to starting foreclosure proceedings. This notice must provide essential information on the process of obtaining a deferment, thereby enhancing consumer awareness and enabling informed decisions about foreclosure options. Such provisions are expected to alleviate some of the pressures faced by homeowners, particularly those in precarious financial situations.

Summary

House Bill 3589 introduces important provisions regarding the deferment of foreclosure proceedings on certain residential mortgages, specifically those classified as subprime or involving negative amortization. The bill aims to ensure that debtors have clear rights and notifications related to foreclosure, thereby offering them potential relief from the stress of impending foreclosure actions on their homes. By establishing defined terms for deferment and the obligations of mortgage servicers, the bill seeks to protect vulnerable borrowers from losing their homes during challenging financial periods.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding HB3589 may arise from the definition of eligible mortgages and the potential implications for mortgage servicers. While the intent is to shield debtors from losing their homes and to offer a structured way to handle mortgage defaults, servicers may express concerns regarding the administrative burdens associated with complying with the new notification and deferment requirements. Additionally, discussions may arise regarding the appropriateness of the criteria set forth for determining eligibility for deferments, particularly in relation to income thresholds and mortgage types. These differences could ignite debates among stakeholders, including consumer advocates, mortgage lenders, and lawmakers.