This dilemma is talked about with regards to problems #13 and #14, above. Conditions relating to prepayment charges have now been integrated to the draft legislation connected as Appendix # 1; see part 3 and part 7 of this proposed legislation.
Because a lot of customers have actually told OCCR which they didn’t understand these were susceptible to a prepayment penalty until they attempted to cover their loan off early, this proposition will have necessary that each and every time the lending company notified the borrower for the unpaid stability on the loan (for instance, upon demand, or with every monthly declaration, or at year-end), the lending company will be expected to include into that stability the prepayment penalty, to give a detailed image of the specific buck amount essential to repay the mortgage.
We felt that the proposition had been a simple and revolutionary option to avoid “payoff shock. ” Nevertheless, we now have selected not to ever consist of it within our proposed legislation. Like countless apparently easy answers to complex dilemmas, this proposal would probably show too hard for loan providers’ billing computers to allow for, at the least simply for borrowers into the State of Maine. We continue steadily to believe that the idea has merit, so we also note the actions other states have actually taken fully to deal with, and indirectly discourage, such charges (Massachusetts, as an example, calls for loan providers to add prepayment charges within the “points-and-fees” calculation to find out whether extra “Section 32”-type protections ought to be imposed). Nevertheless, until or unless other states or federal regulators follow the idea, we believe that it will be impracticable to need such calculations entirely for Maine loans.
Problem #23: High attorney’s fees into the initial states of pre-foreclosure or foreclosure
The ask for Public Comment raised the problem of high very early appropriate charges, because within our experience assisting customers who will be delinquent inside their re re payments it usually seemed that loan providers incurred significant appropriate charges soon after files were delivered to solicitors with directions to start property foreclosure. The imposition of these high costs hindered the talents of all of the events to “unwind” the situation and acquire the consumer straight straight back on track, because as well as gathering all delinquent payments, interest and belated charges, loan providers additionally demanded reimbursement of appropriate costs incurred up to now.
The maximum amount of as we think this kind of incident deserves scrutiny, we have been now associated with viewpoint that the problem should really be addressed by 1) needing the lenders to have certain information from their lawyers to show precisely how reported costs had been incurred very quickly; and, if required, 2) interacting with the solicitors and/or aided by the Bar Overseers in egregious or duplicated instances. The attached legislation does not contain measures to address legal fees incurred at the pre-foreclosure stage for this reason.
Issue #24: Personal foreclosures
Although Maine is typically considered a “judicial property foreclosure” state, Maine legislation still allows personal foreclosures. But, the principles for such elements as solution of procedure, and accounting for equity within the property foreclosed upon, vary between personal and foreclosures that are judicial. We at OCCR feel that people forms of conditions must certanly be consistent both in general general general public and private foreclosures, considering that the stakes (losing ownership of one’s house) are identical. Consequently, the legislation that is proposedAppendix #1, area 12) proposes to put on the exact same form of solution of procedure criteria to personal foreclosures as happens to https://speedyloan.net/installment-loans-me be required in judicial foreclosures; and extra parts (part 13 and area 14) would repeal the existing right associated with the foreclosing party to postpone purchase of home for just two years and thereafter wthhold the entirety of this home without any responsibility to account towards the customer for just about any equity. Rather, we propose enactment of a necessity that the house be offered to your greatest bidder, since is done in judicial foreclosures, with any equity more than your debt plus costs incurred within the action, being gone back to the customer following the purchase.
The problem of lenders’ responses to payoff demands ended up being incorporated into our ask for Comment with offers to entice them not to refinance with other lenders because we heard from consumers that when the consumers requested payoff figures, their lenders bombarded them.
We now have maybe maybe maybe not included any new legislative proposition to deal with this problem. We now believe that any issues could be prevented 1) by vigorously enforcing Maine that is current law takes a loan provider or servicer to immediately react to an ask for a payoff figure (see 9-A MRSA § 9-305-B); and 2) by likewise enforcing, where appropriate, the buyer Credit Code’s supply against unconscionable conduct by loan providers (as an example, 9-A MRSA § 9-402 forbids the usage of unconscionable conduct to cause a customer to come right into a credit deal). As long as lenders adhere to the present timeframes that are statutory creating a payoff figure, our company is perhaps maybe not for the viewpoint which they must be (or legitimately could possibly be) prevented from providing their clients a far better deal.
Problem #26: feasible addition of an OCCR staff lawyer and/or an detective to simply help prevent predatory financing techniques
The proposal established in the ask for Public Comment to include an investigator and legal counsel to OCCR’s staff came across with unanimous support from customer teams and from industry commenters. We at OCCR believe that this kind of step will be incredibly helpful in our efforts to quickly protect consumers by and flexibly react to allegations by customers, or by rivals, of predatory activity by loan providers or loan agents.
Nonetheless, the connected bill will not propose authorization that is specific those two roles. Because of the sentiment that is current the addition of state staff just as a final resort, we believe that the legislative committee that considers this bill (in addition to CEI anti-predatory financing bill aswell) should make such determinations after assessing the necessity for such resources and after hearing from all events about the subject.