mortgage optional election assignment

FHA Updates Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Requirements with respect to Mortgagee Optional Election Assignments

• September 26, 2019
• FHA , Home Equity Conversion Mortgages , Origination , Servicing

FHA issued Mortgagee Letter 2019-15, updating Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) requirements with respect to Mortgagee Optional Election (MOE) assignments. A MOE assignment allows a mortgagee, in circumstances involving a surviving non-borrowing spouse meeting certain eligibility criteria, to assign the HECM to FHA (in lieu of foreclosure). Per the Mortgagee Letter, FHA:

• Eliminated the interim MOE assignment election and assessment deadlines, along with associated notification requirements;
• Eliminated the 120-day timeframe for bringing current all property charges on HECM loans subject to pre-existing loss mitigation repayment plans;
• Established a 180-day “reasonable diligence” timeframe to initiate an MOE Assignment;
• Eliminated the requirement for an eligible surviving non-borrowing spouse to obtain good and marketable title to the property (that secured the HECM) or demonstrate the legal right to reside in the property for life, and modified related certification and assignment criteria; and
• Updated the definition of an eligible non-borrowing spouse.

In addition, FHA now requires mortgagees to request certain information from borrowers for purposes of identifying a non-borrowing spouse.

The updated requirements apply to all HECMs with case numbers assigned prior to August 4, 2014.

Click Here to View the FHA Mortgagee Letter 2019-15

Sign up for mortgage regulatory updates compiled from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA, RHS, Individual State Compliance & more. Subscribe to the TENAlert to receive an email notification the same day new updates are posted!​

Latest Regulatory News from the TENAlert Blog

VA Issues Temporary Local Variance for Borrower-Paid Real Estate Broker or Agent Charges

VA issued Circular 26-24-14 announcing a temporary local variance to allow borrowers to pay for real estate broker or agent (buyer-broker) charges. Per the Circular,

VA Revises Topic 2 of Chapter 7 of Lender’s Handbook (M26-7)

VA revised topic 2 of chapter 7 of the Lender’s Handbook (M26-7). Topic 2, relating to construction/permanent loans, of chapter 7 was revised in the

Freddie Mac Issues Bulletin 2024-08: Servicing Updates

Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2024-08 (Bulletin) announcing revisions to the Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide. Per the Bulletin, Freddie Mac: Revisions related to Resolve and the Resolve

Sign up below to receive regulatory updates from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, individual state compliance and more, delivered right to your inbox. 

Thanks for Your Submission!

You will also receive an email with a link to the PDF.

Contact TENA

• Looking for Support? Click to visit the TENA Help Center

TENA Contact Form

• Investigation and Enforcement
• Licensing and Approvals
• Regulatory Compliance
• Transactional and Corporate
• WBK Download
• Federal Regulatory Developments
• State Regulatory Developments
• Litigation Developments
• WBK Coronavirus Update
• Attorney Openings

FHA Revises Requirements for HECM Deferral Period and MOE Assignment

FHA recently published Mortgagee Letter 2021-11 (ML 2021-11), amending the requirements for the deferral period and the Mortgagee Optional Election (MOE) Assignment under the HECM program.  ML 2021-11 applies to all HECM loans, regardless of case number assignment date, that comprise a valid first lien security interest in real property under applicable state law.  Mortgagees may begin to follow the new guidelines immediately, but must comply with the new guidelines on and after September 3, 2021.

ML 2021-11, in part, eliminates the requirement that an eligible non-borrowing spouse must establish that he or she has marketable title or other legal right to remain in the property in order to qualify for a deferral period.  Additionally, ML 2021-11 expands the criteria to begin a deferral period for eligible non-borrowing spouses.  Specifically, for HECMs with a case number assigned on or after August 4, 2014, if the property is no longer the principal residence of a borrower due to the borrower’s residence in a health care facility for more than 12 consecutive months but remains the principal residence of an eligible non-borrowing spouse and all qualifying attributes are met, the due and payable status of the HECM may be deferred as long as the eligible non-borrowing spouse continues to meet the applicable requirements.  Previously, the deferral period was only available when the last surviving HECM borrower died.

Moreover, for HECMs with case numbers assigned before August 4, 2014, ML 2021-11 revises the definition of eligible surviving non-borrowing spouse and it expands the criteria for MOE Assignment eligibility to include HECMs eligible to be called due and payable under the terms of the original mortgage due to the property no longer being considered the principal residence of a borrower due to the borrower’s residence in a health care institution for more than 12 consecutive months.

• Legal Updates

HUD Issues Three New Mortgagee Letters for HECM Program Guidance

Loan originators and servicers should take note of the fact that the Home Equity Convertible Mortgage (HECM) program has attracted considerable attention from federal agencies and Congress in recent months. In August and September, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued three new Mortgagee Letters involving lending to condominium owners, deferring foreclosure for non-borrowing spouses, and extending HECM Collateral Risk Assessment requirements indefinitely. These Mortgagee Letters require lenders and servicers to make immediate changes to their policies and procedures. We describe these changes below.

HUD Mortgagee Letter 2019-15: Extends Non-Borrowing Spouse Protections

ML 2019-15 supersedes prior guidance addressing foreclosure deferral for non-borrowing spouses for loans originated after August 4, 2014. It allows lenders to defer foreclosure for non-borrowing spouses until after the death of the non-borrowing spouse and eliminates all HUD interim deadlines for assigning such loans to HUD.

Since the inception of the HECM program, HUD had interpreted its regulations to require lenders to call HECMs due and payable upon the death of the last surviving borrower, regardless of whether that borrower was survived by a non-borrowing spouse. In 2013 and 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that this interpretation was inconsistent with the statute authorizing the HECM program and ordered HUD to develop a plan to protect non-borrowing spouses against foreclosure. In 2014, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2014-07 , which required all HECMs originated after August 4, 2014 to contain a provision deferring the due and payable status that occurs because of the death of the last surviving mortgagor until the death of the last surviving Non-Borrowing Spouse or until another event of default occurs.

HUD struggled to develop protections for non-borrowing spouses for loans originated prior to August 2014. On January 29, 2015, HUD published Mortgagee Letter 2015-03, which established the "Mortgagee Optional Election Assignment" (MOE Assignment) as the mechanism for providing no-borrowing spouses with loans issued prior to August 4, 2015 with protection after the death of the borrower. The MOE allows lenders to assign a loan to HUD when a qualifying non-borrowing spouse resides in the home, so that the lender can be paid for the assignment and made whole without having to carry out a foreclosure while a non-borrowing spouse is still in the home. HUD holds the loan in its portfolio while it defers the "due and payable" status until the non-borrowing spouse passes away or otherwise fails to maintain the loan obligations.

ML 2015-03 required non-borrowing spouses to show that he or she had "good and marketable title" or a legal right to remain in the home until his or her death and make a one-time "principal limit" payment that was to be calculated in part on the difference in age between the non-borrowing spouse and the borrower, which could potentially be in the tens of thousands of dollars. These requirements were controversial and HUD rescinded ML 2015-03 several months after it was issued. Shortly thereafter, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2015-15 , which eliminated the Principal Limit payment. HUD continued to require non-borrowing spouses to satisfy other conditions, including proof of good and marketable title within 90 days after the borrower's death. It also imposed strict deadlines for servicers to make this election.

HUD's strict deadlines and the difficulty in determining whether a non-borrowing spouse holds marketable title prevented many otherwise eligible spouses from obtaining the benefits that ML 2015-15 was intended to confer. HUD also determined that its deadlines conflicted with some state laws. To address these complications, HUD recently replaced ML 2015-15 with Mortgagee Letter 2019-15 , which allows lenders to assign loans to HUD under circumstances that previously would have precluded an assignment to HUD.

ML 2019-15:

• eliminates the MOE Assignment election and assessment deadlines, along with associated notification requirements;
• eliminates the 120-day timeframe for bringing current all property charges on a HECM subject to a pre-existing loss mitigation repayment plan;
• eliminates the requirement for an NBS to obtain good and marketable title to the property that secured the HECM or demonstrate the legal right to reside in the property for life, and modification of related certifications and assignment criteria; and
• requires lenders to request information from borrowers to identify any non-borrowing spouse.

In order to avoid curtailment of insurance benefits, a mortgagee must pursue an MOE Assignment with reasonable diligence. A Mortgagee meets this reasonable diligence timeframe if the MOE Assignment is initiated in the Home Equity Reverse Mortgage Information Technology (HERMIT) system within 180 days of the death of the borrower or the issuance of this Mortgagee Letter, whichever is later. By extending the deadline to 180 days from the issuance of this letter, HUD seems to be allowing mortgagees to resubmit prior claims that were deemed time-barred. Accordingly, mortgagees should re-evaluate previously time-barred claims, and consider whether they may be resubmitted under ML 2019-15.

Another significant change that will require mortgagees to revise their policies and procedures are new communication requirements. Servicers must now request information from borrowers during the life of the loan to identify Non-Borrowing Spouses before the borrowers' death. A request for the following information must be sent to borrowers with the Annual Occupancy certification :

• Is the borrower currently married?
• Is the borrower's spouse a borrower on the HECM loan;
• Non-Borrowing Spouse's Name;
• Non-Borrowing Spouse's Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number;
• Non-Borrowing Spouse's Date of Birth; and
• The Date of the couple's marriage.

Appendices A and B of ML 2019-15 provide a sample information collection form and fact sheet that servicers may use to model their request to borrowers. Servicers must create a Non-Borrowing Spouse "Contact" in the HERMIT system for all Non-Borrowing Spouses identified through responses received from their information collection requests. Keep in mind that these provisions do not apply to loans assigned FHA case numbers after August 4, 2014, which continued to be governed by ML 2015-7.

HUD has published new informational materials and new web pages to reflect these recent changes.

Mortgagee Letter 2019-16: Collateral Risk Assessment

HUD's Collateral Risk Assessment requirement, commonly known as the second appraisal rule, was due to expire on September 30, 2019. According to ML 2019-16 , HUD "has determined that the collateral risk assessment requirements announced in ML 2018-06 are having the desired effect in mitigating collateral risk valuations and will remain in effect." Accordingly, ML 2019-16 extends the collateral risk assessment requirement for FHA-insured HECMs indefinitely.

Mortgagee Letter 2019-17: Condominium Project Approval Rule

The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) has issued a long-awaited update to its condominium rules , easing requiring for condo owners to obtain FHA financing. Mortgagee Letter 2019-17 extends these revisions to HECM loans. The revised rule promises to significantly increase a condo owner's access to HECM financing, which has been limited since FHA eliminated its spot approval process several years ago.

Under the existing rule, the only way to obtain a HECM on a condominium was to get FHA approval of the entire complex, which required a borrower to submit extensive documentation, including proof of adequate insurance, confirmation that no one individual owned more than 10% of the complex, evidence of sufficient cash reserves, and verification that at least 50% of the units were owner-occupied. Potential borrowers had no recourse if their homeowners associations failed to provide the needed documentation. Under the new "individual unit approval" rule, individual condo units in a building of 10 units or more may be eligible for spot approval if no more than 10% of the units are FHA-insured. Units in buildings with fewer than 10 units, are eligible if no more than two units have FHA insurance. The rules also loosen restrictions on owner-occupancy and mixed-use rules. Units may qualify for FHA funding if they are located in buildings that are as little as 50% owner-occupied. Mixed-use projects can now have up to 35% of their square footage dedicated to non-residential use.

About the Author

Jennifer Gray is a partner at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. She represents banks, investors, originators, loan servicers, and other institutions in federal and state court litigation involving financial services and residential real estate.

• Recent News
• Newsletters
• Subscribe for Insights
• Consumer Financial Services
• Mortgage Servicing and Lender Litigation

We value your privacy, and we use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking the Accept button, you agree to the terms of the Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Privacy Policy and Disclaimer .

24 CFR § 206.107 - Mortgagee election of assignment or shared premium option.

(a) Election of option. Before the mortgage is submitted for insurance endorsement, the mortgagee shall elect either the assignment option or the shared premium option.

(1) Under the assignment option, the mortgagee shall have the option of assigning the mortgage to the Commissioner if the outstanding loan balance is equal to or greater than 98 percent of the maximum claim amount , regardless of the deferral status, or the borrower has requested a payment which exceeds the difference between the maximum claim amount and the outstanding loan balance and:

(i) The mortgagee is current in making the required payments under the mortgage to the borrower ;

(ii) The mortgagee is current in its payment of the MIP (and late charges and interest on the MIP , if any) to the Commissioner ;

(iii) The mortgage is not due and payable under § 206.27(c)(1) , or, if due and payable under § 206.27(c)(1) , its due and payable status has been deferred pursuant to a Deferral Period ;

(iv) An event described in § 206.27(c)(2) has not occurred, or the Commissioner has been so informed but has denied approval for the mortgage to be due and payable. At the mortgagee 's option, the mortgagee may forgo assignment of the mortgage and file a claim under any of the circumstances described in § 206.123(a)(3) -(5); and

(v) The mortgage is a first lien of record and title to the property securing the mortgage is good and marketable. The provisions of § 206.136 pertaining to mortgagee certifications also apply.

(2) Under the shared premium option, the mortgagee may not assign a mortgage to the Commissioner unless the mortgagee fails to make payments and the Commissioner demands assignment ( § 206.123(a)(2) ), but the mortgagee shall only be required to remit a reduced monthly MIP to the Commissioner . The mortgagee shall collect from the borrower the full amount of the monthly MIP provided in § 206.105(b) but shall retain a portion of the monthly MIP paid by the borrower as compensation for the default risk assumed by the mortgagee . The portion of the MIP to be retained by a mortgagee shall be determined by the Commissioner as calculated in § 206.109 . For a particular mortgage , the applicable portion shall be determined as of the date of the commitment. The mortgagee retains the right to file a claim under any of the circumstances described in § 206.123(a)(2) -(5).

(b) No election for shared appreciation. Shared appreciation mortgages shall be insured by the Commissioner only under the shared premium option.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

How Your Age Affects a Reverse Mortgage

If your spouse or partner is a co-borrower, if your spouse or partner isn’t a co-borrower, eligible non-borrowing spouses, ineligible non-borrowing spouses.

• Frequently Asked Questions

The Bottom Line

• Reverse Mortgage

Options When a Spouse Dies with a Reverse Mortgage

It depends on whether the spouse is a co-borrower and when the loan originated

Lea Uradu, J.D. is a Maryland State Registered Tax Preparer, State Certified Notary Public, Certified VITA Tax Preparer, IRS Annual Filing Season Program Participant, and Tax Writer.

Homeowners age 62 or older can use a reverse mortgage to tap into their home equity without selling the house or making monthly payments. A lender gives you an advance on your home equity, paying you in a lump sum , monthly payouts, or a line of credit . Over the loan term, your debt increases, your home equity decreases, and interest and fees accrue. 

Unlike a traditional (or forward) mortgage , the loan doesn’t become due until you sell the home, move out, fall behind on property charges, or die. If your spouse dies with a reverse mortgage, your next steps depend on whether you’re a co-borrower on the loan or an eligible or ineligible non-borrowing spouse.

Key Takeaways

• A reverse mortgage is for homeowners age 62 or older who want to tap into their home equity without selling the house or making monthly payments.  
• The loan and interest become due when you sell the home, move out, fall behind on property charges, or pass away.
• Eligible non-borrowing spouses can continue living in the home after the borrower dies, but they won’t receive more loan proceeds.
• Anyone who is qualified can be a co-borrower on a reverse mortgage, including a spouse, partner, or roommate who lives with you. 
• If a spouse dies with a reverse mortgage, the next steps depend on whether the surviving spouse is a co-borrower or an eligible or ineligible non-borrowing spouse. 

Nearly all reverse mortgages are home equity conversion mortgages (HECMs) , insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and offered by FHA-backed lenders. The rules described here apply to HECMs, so if you have a different type of loan, then these protections may not apply. Review your reverse mortgage contract and consult an experienced attorney if you have questions or concerns.

First, some background about reverse mortgages. You must be at least 62 years old to get an HECM (some proprietary reverse mortgage lenders accept borrowers as young as 55). However, your age—and that of your spouse or co-borrowers on the loan— influence the amount that you can get out of a reverse mortgage . That’s because the loan balance increases over time, so the longer that a borrower or non-borrowing spouse lives in the home, the greater the chance that the loan balance will exceed the home’s value. And since you can’t ever owe more than the home’s value, that’s a situation that the FHA wants to avoid.

A reverse mortgage’s net principal limit is the total proceeds that you receive before paying off existing mortgages, closing costs , and property charges due at closing.

In general, loans with older borrowers, higher-valued homes, and lower interest rates have higher principal limits and vice versa. The principal limit is based on the age of the youngest borrower or eligible non-borrowing spouse.

The payouts that you receive from a reverse mortgage are usually tax free and won’t affect your Medicare or Social Security benefits .

After a borrower dies, any co-borrower on the loan continues to receive the benefits of the reverse mortgage — including loan payouts . Additionally, co-borrowers can stay in the home for as long as they wish, provided that they fulfill the ongoing loan obligations. A spouse or partner who meets the borrowing requirements generally should be listed as co-borrowers on a reverse mortgage to take advantage of these protections.

Under reverse mortgage loan terms, you must stay current with your ongoing property charges, including property taxes , homeowners insurance , flood insurance premiums, homeowners association (HOA) fees , and other special assessments. 

When a spouse or partner of a deceased reverse mortgage holder isn’t listed as a co-borrower on the loan documents, they can stay in the home if they pay off the loan—but they typically pay off the loan by selling the house and finding a new place to live. However, a surviving spouse may be able to remain in the home without settling the debt, depending on whether they are an eligible or ineligible non-borrowing spouse and when the loan originated. Here’s a rundown.

A non-borrowing spouse is just what it sounds like: a spouse who is not a borrower on a reverse mortgage agreement . While there are several reasons why a spouse would be a non-borrower, the most common is age: You must be at least 62 to qualify as a borrower or co-borrower of an HECM.

Reverse Mortgages Originated Before Aug. 4, 2014

Non-borrowing spouses have fewer protections for reverse mortgage loans originated before Aug. 4, 2014. If the borrower moves into a healthcare facility or dies, the lender or loan servicer can choose to:

• Foreclose on the home (a non-borrowing spouse who is actively trying to sell the house or pay off the debt can request a delay of the foreclosure for up to 180 days), or
• Enter a process called “Mortgagee Optional Election (MOE) Assignment,” which allows an eligible non-borrowing spouse to remain in the house.

Reverse Mortgages Originated on or After Aug. 4, 2014

If a borrower dies or moves into a healthcare facility , their lender (or loan servicer) will determine if their spouse, who is not a co-borrower, is an eligible or ineligible non-borrowing spouse. A spouse who qualifies under U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules as an eligible non-borrowing spouse receives a couple of important protections for reverse mortgages originated on or after Aug. 4, 2014. Under HUD program updates, eligible non-borrowing spouses:

• Can remain in the home after their spouse dies or moves into a healthcare facility without repaying the loan balance. The deferral period remains in effect as long as the surviving spouse lives in and maintains the home and pays the property charges.  
• No longer have to establish a marketable title or demonstrate their legal right to remain in the home following their spouse’s death, making it easier for non-borrowing spouses to establish deferral eligibility. 

While non-borrowing spouses continue benefiting from the protections built into the loan, they don’t receive any remaining loan funds. Instead, the payouts stop, and any credit lines are closed when the borrowing spouse passes away. 

To qualify as an eligible non-borrowing spouse, your spouse must:

• Have been married to you when you signed the loan documents and stayed married to you until your death.
• Have been identified in the loan documents as a non-borrowing spouse.
• Have lived in the home as their principal residence even after you move out or die.
• Meet the ongoing loan requirements.

Same-sex couples who were unmarried due to state laws when they got a reverse mortgage have eligible non-borrowing spouse protections if they marry before the borrower dies or moves into a healthcare facility for more than 12 consecutive months.

An ineligible non-borrowing spouse is a non-borrowing spouse who doesn’t meet the above eligibility requirements. An ineligible non-borrowing spouse has no protections allowing them to remain in the home if the borrowing spouse dies or permanently moves out to enter a healthcare facility.

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) , you should seek legal advice if you think that your spouse should be on your reverse mortgage loan. If your spouse isn’t on the loan, talk to a lawyer about transferring the property to your spouse when you pass away.

Can you outlive a reverse mortgage?

No, the loan is not due until the last borrower on the reverse mortgage loan agreement sells the home, moves out, stops paying taxes and insurance, stops maintaining the house, or dies. So, if you stay current with those payments and basic maintenance , then you can live in the house for as long as you wish without repaying the loan.

What happens if my reverse mortgage lender goes out of business?

If you have a home equity conversion mortgage (HECM)—the most common reverse mortgage—your terms will not change. That’s because the loan is covered by government insurance. You will still receive your agreed-upon payouts as long as you fulfill the loan obligations.

Can I change my mind after closing on a reverse mortgage loan?

You have a three-day “rescission period” after closing to cancel the reverse mortgage without owing any interest. If you cancel after that, you must pay back the loan amount that you already received plus any accrued interest.

Before HUD made changes to its HECM program in 2014, non-borrowing spouses had to either pay off or refinance the loan—or give up the home. However, for loans originated on or after Aug. 4, 2014, eligible non-borrowing spouses can remain in the house for as long as they wish, provided that they fulfill the loan obligations.

If you’re having trouble with a reverse mortgage, the CFPB recommends that you:

• Talk to a HUD-approved housing counselor .
• Consult an attorney (you may qualify for free legal services; visit lsc.gov to find a legal aid office).
• Contact Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) to find state and local assistance programs that may be able to help you pay for property charges and home repairs.
• Submit a complaint to the CFPB if you’re having problems with your lender or servicer.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “ What Is a Reverse Mortgage? ”

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “ How Much Money Can I Get with a Reverse Mortgage Loan, and What Are My Payment Options? ”

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “ You Have a Reverse Mortgage: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities ,” Page 17 (Page 19 of PDF).

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “ When Do I Have to Pay Back a Reverse Mortgage Loan? ”

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “ You Have a Reverse Mortgage: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities ,” Page 13 (Page 15 of PDF).

Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Advice. “ Reverse Mortgages .”

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “ Can Anyone Take Out a Reverse Mortgage Loan? ”

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “ Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) .”

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “ You Have a Reverse Mortgage: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities ,” Page 15 (Page 17 of PDF).

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “ You Have a Reverse Mortgage: Know Your Rights and Responsibilities ,” Page 14 (Page 16 of PDF).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “ HECM Protocol: Section E. Reverse Mortgage Issues/Obligations After Closing .”

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy

• Top 100 Reports

M.O.E. An Alternative to HECM Foreclosures

• by Shannon Hicks
• | 11 Comments
• | February 2, 2015

[vimeo id=”118188104″ width=”625″ height=”352″]

New Policy Gives Some NBS Protections

This monumental policy change comes in the wake of several notable lawsuits brought against the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and reflects the agency’s desire to close the door on further displacement of younger non-borrowing spouses. Let me begin by saying that this policy is somewhat complex and we will only be covering the primary guidelines of this new policy. The  Mortgagee Optional Election  or MOE provides lenders with an alternative to foreclosure of the property upon the death of the last surviving borrower provded a number of requirements are met.

First, two choices are presented: proceed with foreclosure in accordance with the HECM contract or utilize the MOE assignment. The deferral period in the Mortgagee Optional Election assignment is the time period following the death of the last suriving borrower…

Download a transcript of this episode  here .

Looking for more reverse mortgage news, commentary and technology?  Visit ReverseFocus.com today .

Leave a Comment

11 comments.

M.O.E. and all the other “laws” that have been invented over the last three years have complicated the Reverse mortgage and its benefits as originally intended.President Reagan instituted a financial product that was fair and equitable to the borrower and the investor and lender. Why do the thieves always wait in sheep clothing to devour the sheep? I was a series 7 financial adviser with Prudential Securities and American International Group for 30 years and left because I could not trust the products offered 15 years ago and now this after I had great trust and faith in the RM. I am turning in my License. I have no more faith in the product.

Something has to be done. HUD is wrong about the displacement protection due non-borrowing spouses and will not do the right thing.

In reaction to its loss at the Court of Appeals and the certain reprimand it will receive at the Supreme Court, HUD has been busy creating Mortgagee Letters which cut out the displacement protection rights it is willing to protect for a limited number of surviving, non-borrowing spouses and throwing the rest away. Instead of facing a Congress which is just waiting to reprimand it for its failure to manage the MMI Fund especially the HECM portion and HUD’s failure to protect the rights of seniors, HUD is acting like a adolescent who will face rebuke for his/her own misdeeds.

Who disagrees that the law as it is will not create a financial fiasco for the MMI Fund but that is no defense for both not enforcing the law AND not going to Congress for over a quarter of a century to get a more realistic policy in place. While the industry generally and foolishly attacked non-borrowing spouses for seeking the displacement protections provided under the law we should have been encouraging these seniors forward and at the same time encouraging HUD to get the law changed.

Yeah, we were duped by both HUD and lenders into parroting what it is they wanted us to say was true when they knew it was not, but that shows how foolish most of us were for so long in not reading the law. When I finally read the law 7 years ago and considered it, I was so furious that I complained to the HUD most senior person I knew at that time and surprisingly that person agreed that non-borrowing spouses had displacement protections under that provision.

While I am angered by the hubris response of HUD, I am furious about how our industry treated those seniors who sought their rights in the courts. Accusing them of freeloading, greed, and other misdeeds was irresponsible and full of bias. We need to denounce the false accusations and prior and current policies of HUD toward non-borrowing spouses and encourage HUD to get the law changed the right way in Congress so that we are not diddling around with how 12 USC 1715z-20z(h)(3) applies to the some Mortgagee Letters but not parts of another, etc. for the next 25 years.

HUD needs to grow up, act its age, and get to Congress for a retroactive rewrite of 12 USC 1715z-20(j) which says what it is HUD’s policy has been all along.

Shannon – you normally do a great job !

On this video, you went over a new and complicated topic much, much too fast – no new net learning !

Best Wishes, Dave nute

I can appreciate that the complexity of this topic warrants much much more time. That said I am challenged to condense complex issues into our short format. From time to time I myself have to watch something a few times to fully absorb the information. All the best. Cheers…

I love how short you can be but this is one time it seemed to backfire. Sometimes the subject matter does not allow for being short.

So even though I understand your rationale and it is extremely reasonable, this topic should probably be readdressed.

Keep up the good work.

Come on, folks – Shannon is doing us a service, within the constraints of his short video format, by bringing something to our attention that obviously warrants further investigation.

He’s done his job – now let’s go do ours.

Constructive criticism is just that. Unfortunately many people do not understand it or how to use it for good. While Shannon is not perfect (sorry), he does seem to take constructive criticism quite well and does better because of it.

So, Jim, while you might not like criticism about what you do, other people should be allowed their right to ask for something better.

Sorry, Critic – I did not realize that other people’s “right to ask for something better” trumps my right to suggest that, in this case, Shannon did an excellent job within the constraints of his format and if we want a more detailed treatment of the subject we should seek it in a different forum.

Interesting that you bring up something trumping something else. Perhaps we should get together for some Texas Hold’em.

You did not say that the segment was “perfect.” Being excellent leaves room for improvement.

All I am saying is that the segment in question was not up to Shannon’s general level of presentation particularly how quickly he wound up the balance due test.

Yes, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” See you all in heaven! lol… Our industry seems to believe that the employees of HUD who dream up all of our new and improved rules and regulations are smarter, better informed, more familiar with the nature of this product and its implementation than the rest of us…..NOTHING could be further from the truth. There was a time when those of us in this industry insisted upon having a voice and a legitimate place at the table during deliberations about the best path forward in this program……Now, our industry seems to cow to these folks and consistently fails to insist upon a place at the table BEFORE all of this nonsense is put into place. The scariest part is some of our most influential voices honestly believe that this program is headed in a positive direction…..poppycock.

I surmize more litigation to come, if no serious changes are made to protect the non-borrowing spouse in her or his home.

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Stories

March 21 Deadline for Servicers to Assign to HUD Certain Reverse Mortgages to Protect Surviving Spouses

HUD created a March 21st deadline for reverse mortgage servicers to assign the reverse mortgage to HUD without financial penalty in order to protect certain surviving non-borrower spouses from foreclosure. This article explains the meaning of the deadline and what actions non-borrowing surviving spouses should take so that they can remain in their homes. For a certain category of surviving spouses, it is important to act before March 21 .

The Mortgagee Optional Election Option Protecting Non-Borrowing Spouses

Administered by HUD, the nation’s major reverse mortgage program is called the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program. HECM mortgages are made by private lenders, but under rules set out by HUD.

HECM reverse mortgage loans generally must be paid off when the last borrower dies, sells, or permanently relocates from the home. Since August 4, 2014, the HECM loan documents explicitly allow for a non-borrowing spouse to remain in the home after the borrower’s death, until the non-borrowing spouse either dies or moves out.

For HECMs made before August 4, 2014, non-borrowing spouses living in the home after the death of the borrower can end up in foreclosure unless they take action. HUD created the Mortgagee Optional Election (MOE) in 2015 to allow non-borrowing spouses with pre-August 2014 loans to remain at home after the borrower dies if they meet the eligibility criteria and continue to fulfill the terms and conditions of the loan. However, many non-borrowing spouses had been blocked from accessing the MOE program due to strict deadlines and a confusingly worded requirement to establish “good and marketable title or a legal right to remain in the home.”

HUD in 2019 Gives Non-Borrowing Spouses a Better Chance at Protection

HUD issued revised guidelines on September 23, 2019, announced in Mortgagee Letter 2019-15 , indicating that non-borrowing spouses no longer have to provide proof of marketable title or a legal right to remain in the home in order to be eligible for the MOE program. Moreover, there is no hard deadline for servicers to elect the MOE. The new policy relaxes program deadlines and also requires servicers to notify borrowers about the existence of the option and request the names of any non-borrowing spouse living in the home who may potentially qualify for the option. Borrowers will receive the notice and form along with the annual occupancy certification.

Timing and Process to Avoid Foreclosure

The MOE is still discretionary with the lender. In order to avoid being financially penalized by HUD, the lender must either initiate foreclosure or assign the loan to HUD through the MOE process within 180 days of the borrower’s death or the issuance of the mortgagee letter, whichever is later. For non-borrowing spouses who were previously blocked from the program due to missing a deadline, and whose spouses died months or years ago, the new Mortgagee Letter provides a new window of time in which lenders can elect the MOE without any financial penalty.

This window extends until March 21, 2020. Even after that date, lenders can elect the MOE, but might face interest curtailment due to their delay. Lenders may choose to make the MOE election even after starting the foreclosure process.

The surviving non-borrowing spouse still must establish her eligibility under the program’s guidelines. Eligible non-borrowing spouses include those who were married to the borrower at the time of loan closing (or engaged in a committed relationship akin to marriage); live in the home as a principal residence; and have a loan that is not due and payable for other reasons. If property charges are in arrears, even if the borrower was enrolled in a repayment plan prior to the death, the non-borrowing spouse must bring those charges current before the lender can assign the loan to HUD.

If the non-borrowing spouse qualifies for the MOE, the due and payable status on the loan will be deferred and the loan will not be subject to foreclosure until the spouse moves out of the home, dies, or fails to meet the terms and conditions of the loan, including paying the property charges. Though the spouse is required to meet the financial obligations of the loan (i.e., payment of ongoing property charges, home maintenance) she will not receive any proceeds from the HECM. The non-borrowing spouse must certify annually that these conditions for deferral continue to be met.

Importance of the March 21st Deadline

Non-borrowing spouses who have not been contacted and are still in the home despite the death of a borrower-spouse prior to September 23, 2019 should reach out to the mortgage company right away. There is a short window—up until March 21, 2020—during which the lender can put these older loans into the MOE program without financial penalty.

For More Information

NCLC has produced a fact sheet for non-borrowing spouses— Are You a Reverse Mortgage Non-Borrowing Spouse? Tips to Help You Remain in Your Home —which is available to download and distribute. The fact sheet has information on obtaining assistance with the process.

Also an important source of information is HUD’s guidance found in Mortgagee Letter 2019-15 (Sept. 23, 2019).

National Consumer Law Center, Home Foreclosures Chapter 14 is a detailed treatment of all foreclosure issues relating to reverse mortgages. See in particular § 14.3.3.3 and 14.3.3.4 .

Also of relevance is NCLC’s Mortgage Lending Chapter 9 , concerning the origination of reverse mortgages. See in particular §§ 9.3 and 9.7.2 . See also NCLCs Mortgage Servicing and Loan Modifications .

Meet the author

Sarah Bolling Mancini  is Co-Director of Advocacy focusing on foreclosures, mortgage lending, and credit reporting issues. Sarah’s work centers on the racial justice issues surrounding homeownership, including access to sustainable mortgages and addressing the risks posed by land contracts, lease-options, home equity theft, heirs property, and property tax foreclosure. Sarah previously worked in the Home Defense Program of Atlanta Legal Aid, and has represented homeowners in litigation in state, federal district, and bankruptcy courts. She also clerked for the Honorable Amy Totenberg, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Sarah is a member of the Georgia Bar. She received her B.A. in public policy from Princeton University and her J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Related Publications

Home foreclosures.

Mortgage Lending

Related Articles

• Three Important New Protections Preventing Home Foreclosures
• Supreme Court Stops Equity Theft in Property Tax Foreclosures
• Homeowner Tactics to Overcome Problems with Tangled Titles
• HUD Removes Significant Obstacle to FHA Mortgage Loan Modifications
• LIBOR’s Death Will Soon Impact $1.4 Trillion in Consumer Contracts

Free First Chapters

The first chapter of each consumer law treatise is available for free  in NCLC's Digital Library.

Click any NCLC title below to start reading now:

Debtor Rights

Fair Debt Collection Consumer Bankruptcy Law and Practice Student Loan Law Repossessions Access to Utility Service

Mortgages & Foreclosures

Mortgage Lending Mortgage Servicing and Loan Modifications Home Foreclosures

Deception & Warranties

Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Federal Deception Law Automobile Fraud Consumer Warranty Law

Credit & Banking

Fair Credit Reporting Truth in Lending Consumer Credit Regulation Credit Discrimination Consumer Banking and Payments Law

Consumer Litigation

Collection Actions Consumer Class Actions Consumer Arbitration Agreements

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government.

• Legal Status

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Program: Mortgagee Optional Election Assignment for Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECMs) With FHA Case Numbers Assigned Prior to August 4, 2014-Solicitation of Comment

A Notice by the Housing and Urban Development Department on 02/06/2015

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register .

Document Statistics

Published document.

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Enhanced Content - Table of Contents

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, enhanced content - submit public comment.

• This feature is not available for this document.

Enhanced Content - Read Public Comments

Enhanced content - sharing.

• Email this document to a friend

Enhanced Content - Document Print View

• Print this document

Enhanced Content - Document Tools

These tools are designed to help you understand the official document better and aid in comparing the online edition to the print edition.

These markup elements allow the user to see how the document follows the Document Drafting Handbook that agencies use to create their documents. These can be useful for better understanding how a document is structured but are not part of the published document itself.

Enhanced Content - Developer Tools

This document is available in the following developer friendly formats:.

• JSON: Normalized attributes and metadata
• XML: Original full text XML
• MODS: Government Publishing Office metadata

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

Official Content

• View printed version (PDF)

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 02/05/2015 at 8:45 am.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

On January 29, 2015, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) issued Mortgagee Letter 2015-03, setting out an alternative path to claim payment—the Mortgagee Optional Election Assignment—for certain HECMs. FHA issued this Mortgagee Letter pursuant to the authority granted to it in the Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act of 2013 and Section 230 of the National Housing Act. This alternative path to claim payment is necessary in order to ensure the financial viability of the HECM program and the FHA insurance funds. The mortgagee letter was issued for immediate effect and only applies to HECMs assigned an FHA Case Number prior to August 4, 2014, where there is a Non-Borrowing Spouse. This notice solicits comment for a period of 30 days on the alternative option for claim payment announced in Mortgagee Letter 2015-03.

Comment Due Date: March 9, 2015.

Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.

1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov . HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.

No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable.

Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled in advance by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number). Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov .

Ivery Himes, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9172, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-1672 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

FHA has a statutory obligation to ensure the fiscal soundness of the FHA insurance funds and must take into account the financial and administrative burden of any potential alternative to claim payment that may be afforded to mortgagees holding any eligible HECMs that were assigned FHA Case Numbers prior to August 4, 2014. FHA also has the ability, pursuant to the Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act of 2013 ( Pub. L. 113-29 ), to establish, by notice or mortgagee letter, any additional or alternative requirements that the Start Printed Page 6744 Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, determines are necessary to improve the fiscal safety and soundness of the HECM program authorized by section 255 of the National Housing Act.

FHA provided two alternative paths to claim payment in pending litigation: The Hold Election and the Mortgagee Optional Election Assignment, which are further discussed in Mortgagee Letter 2015-03. [ 1 ] When analyzed in the aggregate, these options are costly; either option, even if offered alone, poses a significant financial impact to the FHA insurance funds. The Hold Election, when applied to the potential universe of mortgages involving Non-Borrowing Spouses of HECM borrowers, imposes a financial risk to the insurance funds that is simply too great. FHA's obligation to protect the soundness of the insurance funds makes it impossible to offer this option broadly. Even though the Mortgagee Optional Election Assignment also poses a financial risk to the FHA insurance funds, the risk is significantly less; therefore, FHA has determined that the only alternative path to claim payment that FHA will permit mortgagees to elect, pursuant to Mortgagee Letter 2015-03, is the Mortgagee Optional Election Assignment.

In Mortgagee Letter 2015-03, FHA set out the Mortgagee Optional Election Assignment path to claim payment for existing HECMs with FHA Case Numbers issued prior to August 4, 2014. FHA alerted mortgagees that aside from the present procedures for either the sale of the home or foreclosure of the HECM in accordance with the contract as endorsed, or the Mortgagee Optional Election Assignment alternative, no other path to claim payment exists.

Comments on the changes announced in Mortgagee Letter 2015-03 will be accepted for a period of 30 days and will be considered by HUD.

Dated: February 3, 2015.

Biniam Gebre,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner.

1.  Mortgagee Letter 2015-03 is available at http://portal.hud.gov/​hudportal/​documents/​huddoc?​id=​15-03ml.pdf .

[ FR Doc. 2015-02452 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

DePaul adjunct professor fired for optional assignment on how 'genocide in Gaza' impacts health and biology

Students delivered a petition calling for the reinstatement of anne d’aquino on thursday morning. she was fired on may 8 after she offered an optional assignment, asking students to analyze the impact of “the genocide in gaza on human health.”.

Anne d’Aquino spoke to reporters with pro-Palestinian demonstrators standing behind her.

Jessica Ma/Chicago Sun-Times

A DePaul University adjunct professor said she was fired for giving her students an optional assignment about the war in Gaza .

Anne d’Aquino, who taught in the Health Sciences Department, was terminated May 8. Two days earlier, she offered an optional assignment, asking students to evaluate the impact of the “genocide in Gaza on human health and biology,” she said.

“My termination was a breach of my academic freedom and another example of this administration’s efforts to twist any discussions of Palestine and Palestinian liberation language into false claims of antisemitism,” d’Aquino said at a news conference Thursday morning.

In support, about 50 demonstrators gathered on the corner of Seminary and Belden avenues. They waved Palestinian flags and held signs that read “Academic freedom includes Palestine.”

Students delivered a petition to the administrative office in the Monsignor Andrew J. McGowan Environmental Science and Chemistry building, calling for the reinstatement of d’Aquino. The printed copy of the petition extended 24 pages long with 1,500 signatures.

D’Aquino filed an appeal May 14, which Kristin Mathews, a university spokesperson, said will be “completed soon.”

The university did not immediately respond for comment .

• Pro-Palestinian student says University of Chicago is withholding degrees from 4 protesters

D’Aquino was halfway through her first quarter teaching at DePaul when she was fired. She taught a class called Health 194, Human Pathogens and Defense, which covers topics such as infectious disease and antibiotics.

The optional assignment suggested students review articles about the “intersection of biological sciences, health and history in Palestine.” Afterwards, students would write about the impact of “genocide on biology.”

“I’d been trying to incorporate contemporary topics for students to connect their basic biology knowledge to something that’s currently happening in the wider world,” d’Aquino said.

D’Aquino said the assignment was related to the course. For months, scientists warned about the spread of infectious disease in Gaza due to starvation, malnutrition, overcrowding, destruction of critical water and sanitation infrastructure, she said.

In the termination email, Sarah Connolly, the chair of Health Sciences, wrote that students expressed concern about “the introduction of political matters into the class.”

“That was all very sudden,” d’Aquino said. “Nobody complained to me about the assignment. I received no negative feedback on the assignment.”

A freshman in d’Aquino’s class, who did not want to be identified due to safety concerns, was “shocked, disappointed and speechless” about the firing.

After d’Aquino left, Connolly filled in as the class instructor. The student stopped attending class.

• Illinois Holocaust Museum calls out antisemitism at campus protests
• Antisemitic acts in Illinois and nation at worst levels ever, Anti-Defamation League says

“At Metro Chicago Hillel, we care deeply about the Jewish student experience at DePaul,” Charles, executive director of Metro Chicago Hillel, said in a statement. “Our hope is that the administration ensures that Jewish students feel safe, welcome and included in the classroom and all over campus, just like every other student.”

“[The firing] breaches everything DePaul stands for,” the student said. “Anne has love on her side.”

But Sarah van Loon, the regional manager of the American Jewish Committee Chicago, said the firing shows the “limits of protected academic freedom.”

Even if the assignment was optional, Van Loon believes d’Aquino introduced a topic that was “outside the bounds” of the class description.

“We’ve got a biology professor discussing politics in the Middle East or creating a comment about Gaza,” she said. “It really isn’t in line with what it is that they’re there to be teaching on and opens up the university to risk too.

“It doesn’t surprise me that the university felt that this was not something that upheld their standards,” Van Loon said.

But petition organizers said d’Aquino’s termination is part of a wider crackdown on academic freedom across U.S. college campuses.

Since Oct. 7, professors have said they have been fired, suspended or investigated for speaking out about the Israel-Hamas war, including at Stanford University and the City University of New York .

And the situation isn’t limited to colleges and universities.

• Chicago police clear pro-Palestinian encampment on DePaul campus

Last November, two first-grade teachers were put on leave from their jobs at a public charter school that leases space at a Jewish synagogue in Los Angeles. The action was taken over them teaching first graders what one of the teachers described on social media as “a lesson on the genocide in Palestine,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

At DePaul, Victoria Agunod, an adjunct professor in the Peace, Justice and Conflict Studies Program, said the university investigated her for her pro-Palestinian views — which was “terrifying.”

She called investigations, such as the one she went through, “political suppression.”

And d’Aquino agrees.

“[It] coincides with efforts from far-right wing members of Congress to pressure university presidents into firing faculty and disciplining students for their speech about Palestine,” d’Aquino said.

Despite the firing, d’Aquino said she hopes to see her students’ final projects.

“I’m sad that I don’t get a chance to properly say goodbye to [my students],” d’Aquino said.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

DePaul University dismisses biology professor after assignment tied to Israel-Hamas war

DePaul University adjunct professor Anne d’Aquino speaks to reporters with pro-Palestinian demonstrators standing behind her outside the North Side university’s quad, Thursday, June 6, 2024. (Jessica Ma/Chicago Sun-Times via AP)

• Copy Link copied

CHICAGO (AP) — DePaul University said it dismissed a part-time biology instructor after she gave an optional assignment related to the Israel-Hamas war.

Anne d’Aquino told students in May that they could write about the impact of “genocide in Gaza on human health and biology.” The theme of the spring class at the Chicago school was how microorganisms cause disease.

DePaul said some students “expressed significant concern” about politics in a science class.

“We investigated the matter, spoke with the faculty member, and found it had negatively affected the learning environment by introducing extraneous political material that was outside the scope of the academic subject as outlined in the curriculum,” DePaul said Friday in a statement.

The school noted an email with the assignment expressed support for people “resisting the normalization of ethnic cleansing.”

“The class was provided a new instructor, and the faculty member has been released from their appointment as a part-time faculty member,” DePaul said.

D’Aquino is appealing her dismissal.

About 50 people protested last Thursday in support of her, waving Palestinian flags, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

“My termination was a breach of my academic freedom and another example of this administration’s efforts to twist any discussions of Palestine and Palestinian liberation language into false claims of antisemitism,” d’Aquino said at the demonstration.

She said the assignment was relevant, noting that scientists have warned about the spread of disease in Gaza due to malnutrition and a lack of water and adequate sanitation.

This is a site about the books and other writing by James Rodgers, author of Assignment Moscow: Reporting on Russia From Lenin to Putin ( new edition 2023 ; first published July 2020); Headlines from the Holy Land (2015 and 2017); No Road Home: Fighting for Land and Faith in Gaza (2013); Reporting Conflict (2012). My work looks at how stories of international affairs, especially armed conflict, are told to the world.

I am an author and journalist. During two decades of covering international news, I reported on the end of the Soviet Union; the wars in Chechnya; the coming to power of Vladimir Putin; 9/11; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the 2003 war in Iraq; Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008. I completed correspondent postings for the BBC in Moscow, Brussels, and Gaza. I now teach in the Journalism Department at City, University of London.

Assignment Moscow: Russia’s Story From Lenin To Putin

I outlined some of my ideas from Assignment Moscow: Reporting on Russia from Lenin to Putin in a recent piece for The Conversation . I am republishing it here .

WHAT A CONTRAST IT WAS . In early May 2000, Vladimir Putin strode through the Kremlin’s gilded corridors, his progress relayed on live TV across the world’s largest country, and beyond. I was reporting from Moscow for the BBC. Putin looked purposeful, slim and sober as he swore to uphold the constitution of the Russian Federation.

During the 1990s, the international press corps in Moscow had become used to the president of Russia as an unpredictable character: impulsive, sometimes even drunk in public. But Boris Yeltsin resigned suddenly on the last day of 1999. As the constitution required, his acting successor – Vladimir Putin, a prime minister who had built his reputation by taking the fight to separatists in Chechnya – had to stand for election to be confirmed in his post. He was duly elected.

Two decades later, Putin’s critics argue that he has upended that constitution – introducing changes, by means of a recent national vote, that mean he  could stay in power  until he is 83.

None of the correspondents in Moscow in May 2000 stopped to think that Putin might be in power so long. He probably did not foresee it himself. At the time, his arrival appeared to be a necessary corrective to the chaos that had gone before.

We correspondents had certainly seen plenty of that: for the few winners of Russia’s new bandit capitalism, there had been unimaginable wealth; for many more, uncertainty and unpaid wages. From the years of political and economic chaos that had followed the collapse of communism, another kind of leader now emerged – one who was very much a product of the Soviet system in which he had grown up.

Because relatively few westerners or other foreigners have visited Russia, those correspondents who have ventured there have had a disproportionate influence on forming outside opinion of the country. At various times, Russia has welcomed them, expelled them – or banned them altogether.

Theirs is the story I tell in my  new book , Assignment Moscow: Reporting on Russia From Lenin to Putin. In short, Russia’s treatment of international correspondents tells the story of its relations with the rest of the world.

‘A Window On The Country’

I first visited the Soviet Union as a language student in 1987. Four years later, I returned as a TV news producer. It was my first foreign assignment. It was also the year when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Major change had been underway for some years. That era of reform – started in the 1980s by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev – was also a golden age for international correspondents.

Fred Weir – whom I interviewed for the book – first went to Moscow in 1986 as correspondent for a Communist newspaper, the Canadian Tribune. He has reported for many other English-language publications since, and still does. He remembers that “a window on the country”, opened for foreign journalists as the Gorbachev era got underway. Travel restrictions remained, but were eased. Yet while it was not clear which direction the Soviet Union would take, few foresaw such a complete and sudden collapse of the system.

The brightest correspondents who have covered Russia have always tried to understand the country, its language, history and culture. Their insight has often enabled them to guess what was coming.

Journalism is designed to capture the sense of a moment, of a day. The greater understanding and interpretation is left for historians, who often benefit from a wider range of sources, and the power of hindsight. Yet the work of the best reporters from Russia – even as far back as the revolutions of 1917 – is still worth reading today.

Sympathies In The Struggle

For weeks after Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik followers seized power in November 1917, conservative newspapers gleefully predicted their downfall. Arthur Ransome – better known today as an author of children’s books, including the childhood idyll Swallows and Amazons – and Morgan Philips Price of the Manchester Guardian both stand out as two who correctly predicted that the Bolshevik regime would endure.

They were curious, both spoke good Russian, and had extensive contacts in political circles. Reporters could speak to revolutionaries, workers and peasants. Diplomats did not have the same freedoms, so they were slower to appreciate that the Tsar’s dynasty was doomed.

Philips Price and Ransome were not unbiased observers. Nor was John Reed, the charismatic young author of  Ten Days that Shook the World , which was about the revolution. He admitted as much when he wrote: “My sympathies in the struggle were not neutral.”

Correspondence in the Guardian’s archives shows the length to which the paper later went to distance itself from Philips Price. A pamphlet which he wrote was deemed so inspiring by the Bolsheviks that they used it as propaganda to dissuade British troops who had entered Russia to reverse the revolution. As for Ransome, he clearly admired Lenin, and later married Leon Trotsky’s secretary.

Correspondents who were so impressed by Lenin found their counterparts in later admirers of Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev. In the 1930s, the king of Moscow correspondents was Walter Duranty of the New York Times. His 1990s biographer, SJ Taylor, declared him  Stalin’s apologist .

The recent film  Mr Jones  remembers Duranty’s refusal to report the famine in Ukraine in the 1930s. His playing down of the mass starvation kept him in favour with Stalin’s regime, and he later took credit for the US’s diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union.

Another pioneering correspondent could not believe what seemed to be astonishing luck as she crossed into Russia at its border with Poland without the right papers and was still able to make her way to Moscow. Marguerite Harrison, hailed by the New York Times as a “brilliant news writer”, called her 1936 autobiography  Born For Trouble .

One trouble in her case was that she was not just a great reporter. She was also an American spy. In her defence, Harrison’s gender had prevented her from getting the journalistic assignment, so she agreed to work for US military intelligence too. She ended up in a Moscow prison cell, but her luck held out long enough for her to get an interview with Trotsky. Her excellent access was later explained by the fact that the Soviets knew what she was up to, and wanted to keep an eye on her.

‘Hostile actors’

The sense of press freedom – the “window on the country” that Weir remembers – endured through the first chaotic decade of post-Soviet Russia. It no longer does. Western correspondents “are seen more as hostile actors”, Matthew Chance, who has reported from Russia for CNN since the late 1990s, told me. In an age when Russia’s relations with the west – especially the UK – are worse than at any time since the cold war, correspondents face great challenges. Access “is negligible”, Chance argues.

Journalism itself is in crisis: criticized not only by leaders in countries where the media has rarely been free, but also ignored and chastised by governments in the west. Russia’s media policy in recent years shows a shift towards wanting to tell its own story, through RT and its other international media platforms, rather than engaging with western media. Still, recent  verbal assaults  and veiled threats to the Financial Times and New York Times over their reporting of coronavirus statistics shows that international coverage can still sting.

The brightest correspondents who have covered Russia have always tried to understand the country, its language, history and culture. Their insight has sometimes – as in the case of Ransome and Philips Price – enabled them to guess what was coming.

My generation of correspondents may have witnessed, and understood, the factors that delivered Putin’s initial popularity: his tough line on fighting separatists in Chechnya and his determination to bring Russia’s new tycoons – the oligarchs – under the Kremlin’s control.

I see now that I did not realise fully what I was witnessing that day in May 2000. Looking back two decades later, it feels like the start of yet another revolutionary period in Russia’s history. What seemed then like a peaceful transition of power was the beginning of a new system – the Putin system – that endures to this day, and may last yet longer: giving Moscow correspondents plenty more to write about.

Share this:

• All Articles
• Books & Reviews
• Anthologies
• Audio Content
• Author Directory
• This Day in History
• War in Ukraine
• Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
• Artificial Intelligence
• Climate Change
• Biden Administration
• Geopolitics
• Benjamin Netanyahu
• Vladimir Putin
• Volodymyr Zelensky
• Nationalism
• Authoritarianism
• Propaganda & Disinformation
• West Africa
• North Korea
• Middle East
• United States
• View All Regions

Article Types

• Capsule Reviews
• Review Essays
• Ask the Experts
• Reading Lists
• Newsletters
• Customer Service
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Subscriber Resources
• Group Subscriptions
• Gift a Subscription

The July/August issue is now available online

Browse book reviews by:

• Magazine Issue

Assignment Moscow: Reporting on Russia From Lenin to Putin

Reviewed by maria lipman, by james rodgers.

Rodgers, a British journalist who has worked in Russia at various times since the 1990s, writes about the plight of the English-speaking correspondents who have covered Russia, going all the way back to the Russian Revolution in 1917. That their task was not easy is hardly surprising, yet Rodgers repeatedly emphasizes the difficulties they faced (the word “difficult” is used to describe their job at least two dozen times): strict censorship (foreign journalists were forced to clear their dispatches with Soviet authorities until 1961), travel restrictions, limited access to senior officials and ordinary people alike, and the government’s suspicion that Anglo-American correspondents were spies in disguise. Even Rodgers’s discussion of the American journalist Hedrick Smith—who, despite the restrictions, famously managed to produce exceptionally rich and insightful coverage of the Soviet Union and its people in the 1970s—is reduced to Smith’s reflections on how difficult his work was. Rodgers’s narrative rests on an enormous number of articles in Anglo-American media, books by and about journalists, and his own interviews with many Moscow correspondents. He quotes some of them as saying that journalists knew and understood Russia better than diplomats or policymakers did. This may or may not be true. Unfortunately, Rodgers doesn’t give the diplomats and policymakers a chance to respond.

• More By Maria Lipman

More from Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Republics

Nested Nationalism: Making and Unmaking Nations in the Soviet Caucasus

By krista a. goff, a short history of russia: from the pagans to putin, by mark galeotti, weak strongman: the limits of power in putin’s russia, by timothy frye.