Saturday, February 13, 2016

Reverse mortgages are not always what they seem

Reverse mortgages can be great for the elderly and their heirs, but what about lenders and the neighbors when a house deteriorates in the owner's final years?

Reverse mortgages are not always what they seem


(Updated at 1:20 p.m.)

Sunday's column -- about tears and sneers over apparent dog abandonment in Haddonfield -- contained a line about a homeowner taking out a $500,000 reverse mortgage on a house valued at just $245,000.

I used the word "puzzling" to describe the disparity. This morning, a reader provided some clarity.

Joe Kiefer has spent three decades in real estate, serving as president of the Camden County Board of Realtors and as a title insurance expert. For the past half-dozen years, he has specialized in reverse mortgages at a Cherry Hill firm with a cheeky motto, "Let the gray haired guys work for you."

Given the advanced age (late 80s) of the owner in my column, Kiefer says she would have been eligible to take out roughly 70 percent of the $250,000 appraised value of the house. So she likely received about $140,000, either in a lump sum or regular disbursements.

Kiefer explained that reverse mortgages are recorded twice, once for the lender and once for the FHA, which insures the loans. Thus, a $250,000 reverse mortgage would show up in public documents as a $500,000 transaction.

Reverse mortgages, he explains, work on the premise that an elderly homeowner can extract equity for immediate or long-term use. The terms are good until the owner leaves the home or dies. "So if she lives to be 103," he explains, "she's going to owe a heckuva lot more than the $140,000."

The deals can be great for some seniors but nightmares for others, as the New York Times explores in a piece that focuses on fraud and confusion that permeates the industry.

Ideally, a house would appreciate in the ensuing years, with new equity covering the interest on the loan. But the woman in my column died two years later, leaving behind a home neighbors say has been deteriorating for years and may not have held its value.

"The heirs don't get saddled with the debt. The FHA does," Kiefer explains. "If it’s a knockdown, they’re going to lose their shirt.”

-- Monica Yant Kinney

We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy: comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog
Blinq is a news commentary blog featuring contributions from Inquirer Metro columnists Kevin Riordan and Daniel Rubin.

Kevin Riordan Inquirer Columnist
Daniel Rubin Inquirer Columnist
Also on
letter icon Newsletter