The debunked case was related to a 2023 purchase. This is related to a 2020 purchase. Nevertheless, likely bullshit.
The thoroughly debunked case involved their attempt to get her on mortgage fraud for a 2023 purchase of a home she made as a co-borrower with her niece. In that case, she gave her niece power of attorney to sign for her. In the power of attorney form, the property was mistakenly identified as her primary residence. In fact, it was to be the primary residence of her niece and she cleared up the confusion and the loan was made on that basis.
The indictment today involved a property she purchased in August 2020. She signed a "Second Home Rider." That is a rider that indicates you will use the home as a second home for the first year. They are accusing her of violating that rider by renting the property.
While she may have rented the property, as alleged, it appears that as of 2019, guidance on the meaning of a Fannie Mae Second Home Rider was "clarified" to allow short-term rental in the first year. After the first year, you can do with the property what you like.
I do not know if the rider she signed was a "Fannie Mae" rider, but if it was, I would bet that she rented the property within the terms as allowed by the clarified guidance and that Halligan is taking the former "strict interpretation" of no rental allowed within the first year.
From AI:
A "second home rider" on a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage can allow a borrower to rent their second home for a year under specific conditions, following a 2019 revision that clarified the rules on renting. Previously, the rider's strict language was interpreted by many lenders to prohibit any renting, leading to confusion and hesitation. The current rider allows for short-term rentals in the first year, but the property must primarily be for the owner's use, and after the first year, restrictions on renting are lifted, and the owner no longer needs to seek permission from the lender to rent the property.
= new reply since forum marked as read
