SJC Rules that Failure to Send a Postforeclosure Notice Does Not Invalidate A Foreclosure

The Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision this week on postforeclosure notices, and whether the failure to send one invalidates a foreclosure sale.  In Turra v. Deutsche Bank, the Court ruled that the failure to send one of these notices does not void a foreclosure (disclosure: this was my appeal!).  A full copy of the decision is below.

The law in question, G.L. c. 244, § 15A, requires a mortgagee to notify the local municipalities of a foreclosure thirty days after the sale has occurred.  As the Court acknowledged in Turra,  prior court decisions suggested that strict compliance with this law was required to perform a lawful foreclosure.  The question in Turra was whether this was such a requirement, and whether a failure to comply with this step would invalidate a foreclosure.  Turra determined this statute isn’t grounds for challenging foreclosures.

I don’t read Turra to suggest that a failure to comply with a postforeclosure notice requirement can never be used to challenge a foreclosure.  If a homeowner or someone else is actually harmed from a bank’s failure to send such a notice, this violation may potentially be a consumer protection claim.  Turra is clear, however, that such a violation, on its own, is not enough to be a foreclosure defense.

While Turra wasn’t the outcome I wanted, I’m pleased that the Supreme Judicial Court acknowledged the basis for my argument, and conceded  that its prior caselaw suggested this was a plausible defense.  The decision mentions two other decisions where courts came out the oppositie way on this question of law (one of these decisions was one of my other cases using this defense).  You can’t win ’em all!

Turra has an important lesson of wisely choosing a foreclosure defense strategy.  The Internet is filled with foreclosure defense hoaxes and myths that do struggling homeowners more harm than good in trying to save their homes.  A review of unsuccessful foreclosure defense cases in state and federal court shows dozens of cases lost on the same arguments that courts routinely reject.  My strategy in defending homeowners is to make arguments that have a basis in law, and reject arguments that don’t work.  I reject the “kitchen sink” approach to foreclosure defense, where one raises every argument they can think of, irrespective of whether the claim has any hope of succeeding.  It is far better, in my opinion, to stick with arguments that work, and try new approaches.   While not successful in this case, my legal argument on these postforeclosure notices succeeded in several of my other cases, and helped keep a deserving family in their home.  If you find yourself facing foreclosure, don’t rely on an Internet myth to defend yourself: contact an experienced attorney for assistance.

Decision

What is Housing Court in Massachusetts?

Massachusetts has a unique forum for resolving matters involving residential housing: Housing Court.  Understanding what is housing court is essential for landlords, tenants, and former homeowners facing an eviction after foreclosure, as Housing Court is a popular forum for resolving these disputes.

Housing Court is a specialty court for matters involving residential housing.  Evictions makeup the bulk of the cases filed in these courts, but Housing Court can also hear civil lawsuits, criminal cases, and small claim matters (if they concern housing).  A party may file their case directly in Housing Court.  Alternatively,  a party may transfer their case into Housing Court so long as this is done the day before trial.  A transfer to housing court is a simple matter that only requires a party to file a notice of transfer in the court where the case was originally filed, and the appropriate Housing Court.  This is commonly done for eviction cases filed in District Court, where the tenant wishes the matter to be heard in the appropriate Housing Court.

Housing Court isn’t available everywhere in Massachusetts.  Massachusetts has five Housing Court divisions (Boston Housing Court, Northeast Housing Court, Worcester Housing Court, and Western Housing Court) which cover most of the state.  However, there is a large portion of Massachusetts that is not in a geographical jurisdiction of a Housing Court, including many cities in the Greater Boston region (including Somerville, Medford, Revere, and Chelsea).  With the exception of Boston Housing Court, Housing Court divisions sit in multiple locations within its geographical jurisdiction.  Northeast Housing Court, for example, hears cases in courtrooms in Salem, Lynn, Lowell, and Lawrence.  Visit the Housing Court’s website to find out if there is a Housing Court for your dispute.

Housing Court has some important features that make it a good option for resolving housing disputes.  Housing Court has trained mediators in each of their courts who can attempt to help resolve disputes in lieu of trial.  Mediation is particularly useful for evictions, as the majority of these cases are settled and do not go to trial.  District Courts (where evictions are also commonly brought) sometimes have similar mediation services, but these are not always as readily available as the services offered in Housing Court.

Another benefit of Housing Court is having experienced judges who know and understand housing law.  Housing law is complex, and it is not uncommon to find judges who aren’t familiar with many of the issues that come up in housing cases.  This doesn’t happen in Housing Court: the judges have hear the issues in these cases many times before.

Housing Courts are thought by some to be “tenant friendly”, with a preference towards tenants over landlords (and former homeowners over banks).  I personally believe this perception comes from the fact that Massachusetts’s housing laws are consumer orientated and lean in favor of tenants’ rights.  From my experience in every single one of the Housing Courts in Massachusetts, I believe a party can get a fair decision on their matter.  I do believe, however, that the decision on where to bring a case is an essential decision, and one that an experienced attorney should decide.  Although understanding what is Housing Court and the work it does is important for making the best decision for you, this is no replacement for having a trusted attorney by your side.  If you have a case in Housing Court, contact me for a consultation.

What is a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure?

Understanding what is a deed in lieu of foreclosure is important for knowing all of a homeowner’s options available for foreclosure defense.

Foreclosure defense isn’t always about trying to keep a home.  For some homeowners, getting rid of their home and avoiding foreclosure is a better option than attempting to save a home that the homeowner is not able to afford.  Foreclosure defense is not about getting a free home; if a homeowner has no means to afford a modified mortgage loan payment, foreclosure is almost always inevitable.

With a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the homeowner voluntarily conveys the home to the bank or lender.  The homeowner no longer owns the home, and the bank or lender becomes the record title owner.  This is the same result that occurs in a foreclosure, with the exception that no foreclosure occurs: the homeowner has instead voluntarily given up the property.  A deed in lieu of foreclosure helps a homeowner avoid the stress, hassle, and stigma of foreclosure, and lets them get rid of the property on their own terms.  For a bank or lender, a deed in lieu of foreclosure saves the time and expense of having to do an often lengthy foreclosure proceeding.

Banks or lenders will generally only consider a deed in lieu of foreclosure if there are no encumbrances on the property, such as a lien or second mortgage.  A foreclosure, with few exceptions, provides a foreclosing entity with a “clean” title: all encumbrances second to the lender’s interest are wiped out in a foreclosure.  In contrast, if a lender accepts a property with a lien on it, this lien remains on the property, making it difficult to resell.

Homeowners interested in a deed in lieu of foreclosure can contact their loan servicers to see if this option is available to them.  Compared to a loan modification, a deed in lieu of foreclosure is generally a straightforward process.  Homeowners, however, should still speak with an attorney to review their paperwork and ensure the process is done to their advantage.  It is important, for example, that any potential deficiency judgment coming from the deed in lieu of foreclosure is waived by the lender, and the tax consequences of one of these deals is considered.

MA SJC Issues Important Decision on Consumer Protection Demand Letters

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision on consumer protection demand letters last week, that is of particular importance to Massachusetts foreclosure defense.  The case, Moronta v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC,  is an interpretation of the consumer protection demand letters that are required for Massachusetts’s Consumer Protection Law (a full copy of the decision is below).

Overview of Massachusetts’s Consumer Protection Law

Massachusetts’s Consumer Protection Law (commonly known as “Chapter 93A”) prohibits “unfair and deceptive” practices by businesses.  The scope of this law is broad, and has been used successfully for a variety of consumer protection claims.  For foreclosure defense, Chapter 93A claims have been effective for loan modification denial claims; courts have increasingly allowed these lawsuits based on a loan servicer’s repeated refusal to properly review a loan modification application.

To bring a Chapter 93A claim against a business, a consumer is required to send the business a demand letter and provide them thirty days to make a settlement offer.  These consumer protection demand letters are an essential requirement of this law; courts have thrown out Chapter 93A claims for a claimant’s failure to send one of these letters (or to send a letter that makes a proper demand to the business).

Exceptions to the Demand Letter Requirement

A consumer does not need to send a demand letter if “if the prospective respondent does not maintain a place of business or does not keep assets within the commonwealth.”  The question in Moronta was whether one or both of these two exemptions are needed to avoid sending the demand letter.  As the Court explained: “if the defendant keeps assets in the Commonwealth, but does not maintain a place of business here, must the plaintiff serve a demand letter?”  The Court answered no: either one of these exceptions (no assets or no place of business in the Commonwealth) is an exception to the consumer protection demand letters under Chaper 93A.

How Does Moronta Affect Massachusetts Foreclosure Defense?

Moronta is of particular importance for Massachusetts foreclosure defense.  Because Massachusetts is a non-judicial foreclosure state (where a bank does not need to go to court to do a foreclosure), homeowners often need to go on “the offense” in avoiding foreclosure, through a civil action.  The demand letter requirement under Chapter 93A can be a burden for borrowers who have less than thirty days before a scheduled foreclosure to pursue a legal action.  Moronta will be a help for homeowners with cases against national banks and loan servicers, many of which do not have offices in Massachusetts, and would trigger the exception to the demand letter requirement.

Despite the benefit of Moronta for consumers, I caution consumers (especially homeowners with foreclosure defense claims) from pursuing Chapter 93A claims without the benefit of legal counsel.  Chapter 93A may be intended to help consumers, but consumer protection claims are often still too complicated for a non-lawyer to take on.  Consult an attorney if you believe you have a viable cause of action.

12042

 

Speak to a Lawyer for Legal Advice

Happy 2017!  I hope the new year is a good one for you.  In this post, I want to discuss why you should speak to a lawyer for legal advice; advice that will serve you well in this new year (and for years to come).

If I had to guess, I would say that more mistakes in law are made from people who receive “legal advice” from non-lawyers.  The biggest culprit, of course, is the Internet: today, it is easier than ever to create a official looking website that claims to be the authority on an area of law.  This occurs for all different types of legal matters, but especially for foreclosure defense: the Internet is filled with websites that attempt to explain foreclosure defense myths to vulnerable homeowners.

As the old adage goes, “saying something doesn’t make it so.”  Merely creating a website, or offering purported “legal advice”, does not make that information truthful.  Many times, such advice—while well intended—is flat out wrong.  The results can be devastating: I have seen claimants lose cases (and their homes) from relying upon advice with no basis in law.

Those offering such “legal advice” won’t tell you what I will write here: law is difficult.  TV lawyers may make our work seem easy, but the truth is that lawyering requires enormous time, effort, and yes, training.  Training is the key part of this: we require lawyers to attend law school and pass bar examination for a reason.  No, law school alone doesn’t fully prepare someone to practice law, but a legal education is essential for making tough legal decisions.  With this in mind, you should never, never, never trust anyone but a licensed lawyer for legal advice.  Speak to a lawyer for legal advice, and avoid the inevitable problems that come from taking poor advice from a non-lawyer.  The picture above is a coffee mug available for sale on Amazon; it is meant as a “gag gift”, but its slogan has an essential message: don’t replace the advice of a trained attorney with something found on a random website.

This post isn’t meant to discard the use of reputable websites and information sources that assist those with legal needs.  I am proud that this blog has helped many homeowners and other lawyers in making important decisions on legal matters.  This blog, however (like any similar legal resource) is merely an aid towards helping those with legal needs get the assistance they need (a reason why I encourage anyone with help in defending against a foreclosure to consult an attorney).

Fee for a Tenant Attorney

Courtroom

Many tenants in need of legal assistance, as well as landlords involved in legal cases with tenants, often ask about the fee for a tenant attorney.  Most people are familiar with the general model for hiring an attorney: the attorney takes an upfront amount of money and bills the client for their time.  The other common type of billing is a contingency fee, where the attorney takes a fixed percentage of the amount recovered from the case.  In Massachusetts, another type of payment for legal services is also available to tenants: fee shifting.

Fee shifting is a provision in a law that requires the losing party to pay the other side’s legal fees.  Generally, under the American Rule for legal fees, each side bears their own legals fees in a legal matter.  If you spend $10,000 in legal fees to recover a judgment of $5,000, you only get $5,000 in the end (and will have lost the remaining amount spent on the case).  A fee shifting requirement in a law allows the prevailing party to recover these attorney fees if their case is successful.  Many landlord/tenant laws contain such a provision, where the tenant is awarded reasonable legal fees if the claim is successful.  Importantly, many of these laws do not require the tenant to have accrued the legal fee.  In other words, there is no requirement that the tenant had actually spent money towards paying the attorney: the fee for a tenant attorney is still permitted if the underlining claim is successful.

Fee shifting provides a powerful incentive for tenants to pursue claims against landlords.  Without fee shifting, tenants and lawyers have little incentive to consider taking on claims against landlords.  The damages that could be recovered from one of these claims may be too small to make it worth the trouble.  With fee shifting, however, the fee for a tenant attorney becomes part of the case, and can be recovered through settlement or a judgment from the court.

With this in mind, both tenants and landlords should keep in mind the potential fee for a tenant attorney in evaluating a potential landlord/tenant claim.  The potential for damages in one of these cases is an important factor for both sides in attempting to resolve one of these matters.

Guest Blog Post: How To Preserve Your Right to Challenge a Wrongful Foreclosure in Massachusetts

photo

The Massachusetts Foreclosure Law Blog is proud to have Attorney Uri Strauss guest blog on the Massachusetts foreclosure title clearing bill and its upcoming December 31, 2016 deadline for homeowners who have lost their homes to foreclosure.  Uri Strauss is an attorney at Community Legal Aid in Springfield, MA. He has been a Massachusetts attorney since 2010, and has focused on foreclosure law since 2011.  He may be reached at ustrauss@cla-ma.org.

HOW TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE A WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE IN MASSACHUSETTS

If your Massachusetts home has been unlawfully foreclosed, you may need to act very soon to preserve your ability to challenge it.

On November 25, 2015, Governor Baker signed into law An Act Clearing Title to Foreclosed Properties, which amended, among other laws, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 244, Section 15. In a nutshell, the act aims to force homeowners who have left their homes after a foreclosure to bring their case to court within three years, or lose the right to do so against bona fide buyers. This is a reduction of the previous 20-year period during which people could challenge foreclosures that failed to comply with the power of sale.

The deviltry is in the details of this confusing law. This post aims to clear up some of the confusion, and especially to help homeowners identify if they need to act before December 31, 2016 when the first set of people will lose their rights. The other point of this post is to warn people against misinformation about what they need to do to preserve their rights. In all cases, you should consult an attorney, if possible, about your particular situation. I am offering guidance in general, not legal advice for your particular situation.

My aim is to respond to three questions: Who needs to act before December 31? How does a homeowner need to act to preserve his or her rights? And who is entitled to challenge the foreclosure?

Who needs to act before December 31?

If it has been fewer than three years since the foreclosure affidavit has been recorded in your registry of deeds, you do not need to act before December 31 to preserve your rights. You will have until at least three years after the recording of the affidavit. However, if you are already in court in a foreclosure challenge, it is a good idea to record your pleadings. See below for details about the foreclosure affidavit, and about what it takes to challenge the foreclosure.

If it has been three or more years since the foreclosure affidavit was recorded, you need to act to preserve your rights if you fall in one of the following three categories.

  1. People who have moved out of their homes, without the validity of the foreclosure ever being litigated.
  2. People who are currently in litigation over the validity of their foreclosure.
  3. People who have litigated the validity of their foreclosure and won, when there is no deed granting the property back to the owner after foreclosure.

Please note that most lenders and servicers will also conduct a foreclosure by entry at the same time as the foreclosure auction, and that foreclosure is effective after 3 years if it is not opposed. Foreclosure by entry is a whole separate and complicated topic, and I won’t get into it here. If you intend to challenge a foreclosure, be certain to contact your local anti-foreclosure group and/or an attorney about it well before three years have passed.

If you are currently in litigation, do not assume that you are protected. Do not assume that your attorney has thought to take the necessary steps to protect you. Raise the issue with them. Depending on how courts interpret the law, you might get away with missing the deadline if you win your case, but it is risky to rely on it.

You may notice, if you read the amended M.G.L. Chapter 244, Section 15, that only bona fide third party buyers, and not the lender or related organizations like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, have the benefit of the new law. Do not rest assured just because the bank or a related entity has bought your property at foreclosure and has not sold it. As I read the law, your failure to act by the deadline, followed by a sale to a third party, eliminates your right to challenge the foreclosure once it is sold. In other words, your title can be laundered while in the bank’s control, then sold clean to a third party buyer.

The three-year clock starts ticking when the mortgagee records an affidavit of sale in the registry of deeds. The affidavit of sale you are looking is usually recorded together with the foreclosure deed as a document type called “Foreclosure Deed/Affidavit”. It might be titled something different than “Affidavit of Sale.” The affidavit identifies the mortgage that was foreclosed, says that the conditions of the mortgage were not performed, and states that notices were published in a newspaper on three dates and sent by mail to the required parties. A copy of the newspaper publication is attached to it as an exhibit. Do not confuse this affidavit with other affidavits that may have been filed, such as an affidavit concerning the note (also called an “Eaton” affidavit), an affidavit concerning compliance with M.G.L. chapter 244, section 35B, an affidavit certifying compliance with 209 C.M.R. section 18.21A, or an affidavit concerning the right to cure (also called an “Pinti” affidavit).

It is the opinion of some respected attorneys that the affidavits of sale typically filed by mortgagees do not start the clock running, because they do not, as the law requires, “fully and particularly stat[e] the acts” done to foreclose the property. The affidavits are usually brief, do not fully state the facts, state legal conclusions instead of facts, and are made by people who do not have firsthand knowledge of the facts. I believe that this is a mistake, and that the courts will accommodate this failure by the banks to comply with the law, just as they have done with almost every other failure that they have considered.

How does a homeowner need to act in order to preserve his or her rights? 

To preserve your right to challenge your foreclosure, it is necessary to record the relevant *pleadings* in the registry of deeds. It is not enough to record an *affidavit* in the registry, as the Massachusetts Alliance Against Predatory Lending (MAAPL) has been informing people. The law is very clear that pleadings must be filed.

What is the difference? An affidavit is a sworn statement of facts based on personal knowledge. A pleading is a document filed in court in which legal claims are made. The purpose of the new law is to force people to litigate their claims by the deadline, not simply to make a sworn statement and record it in the registry of deeds. If your deadline is coming up and there is no existing litigation, you need to create litigation by filing a lawsuit. What is more, if you want to actually succeed, you need to file a good case. That means that you need to have a good argument based on your particular circumstances. It will not do to use far-fetched theories of the kind that often circulate on the internet. It is important to speak to an attorney to determine whether you have a good legal argument.

Note that to be valid, the pleadings should be from a court case from a court of competent jurisdiction. In my view, if you challenged the foreclosure as a defense to foreclosure proceedings in Housing Court, that is definitely an appropriate court. If it was in a state district court, that is almost certainly an appropriate court. If you were the plaintiff and you filed your case in Superior Court, Land Court, or the federal District Court, you are probably fine. If it was any other court, consult an attorney about whether it was a court of competent jurisdiction.

That means that if you fall into category (1) above, you need to file a lawsuit in the next few weeks, and record an attested copy of your complaint, to avoid losing your home. If you are in categories (2) or (3), your task is easier. You need to get an attested copy of your complaint, if you were the plaintiff, or of your answer, if you were the defendant, from the clerk’s office of the court in which the litigation is taking place or took place. If the complaint or answer was amended, make sure to get the most recent version, since the complaint or answer should state the foreclosure challenge that the court ruled on, or that you hope the court will rule on.

If you have fought and won your case, you still need to record the *pleadings*, rather than the court’s judgment, in the registry. You might think it makes more sense to record the judgment, in which the court states that it finds in your favor. I would agree, but that is not what the law says you need to do.

According to the law, you need to record a “true and correct” copy of the pleading in the registry of deeds. Does this mean that you can rely on just a photocopy of the pleading? In my view, yes – but the challenge is to get the registry of deeds to record it. The registry is not required to accept any piece of paper you hand to it. The new law requires registries of deeds to accept and record attested copies of pleadings, and this is what I recommend. “Attested” here presumably means attested by the court in which the case is being decided. It may be possible to preserve your rights under the act by signing an affidavit under M.G.L. Chapter 183, section 5B, attaching the pleading is an exhibit, swearing that it is a true and correct copy of a document filed in the court, and having it certified by an attorney as bearing on title – but I recommend getting an attested copy to be on the safe side.

To get an attested copy of your pleading, first call ahead to the court in which your case is being heard and let them know you want this. They might ask for a couple of hours to create an attested copy. Then show up and get your copy. It currently costs $2.50 per page to get attested copies of court documents. If you are poor, low-income or on state assistance, you may qualify for a waiver of fees – ask the court about it. Then go in person to the Registry of Deeds in your district, and ask them to record it. Take a printed copy of the statute – Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 244, Section 15, Subsection (d) – with you. Registries of Deeds have not historically accepted attested copies of pleadings for recording, so you may need to show them the law that says they need to. I believe the cost of recording the document is $75. You can ask the Registry of Deeds about waiver of fees for poor, low-income or state-assisted people as well.

Who is entitled to challenge the foreclosure?

To be eligible to challenge the foreclosure, you need to be a person entitled to a notice of foreclosure, which means that you need to be the person who gave a mortgage to the lender (which is not necessarily the same as the person who obtained the loan), or else a person who held an interest in the property junior to the mortgage more than thirty days before the foreclosure sale. Based on this statute, you are not entitled to challenge the foreclosure if you are the spouse of the mortgagor, the child of the mortgagor, or the tenant of the mortgagor, unless you yourself are a mortgagor, or you happen to have a junior lien on the property.

This represents an apparent change in the law. It used to be the case that if a foreclosure was void, any person whose rights were affected by it – a spouse, a child, a tenant, a long-term guest – could challenge its validity. The new law clearly restricts it so that only persons entitled to notice can challenge the foreclosure.

What about after the pleadings are recorded?

If you have recorded your pleadings challenging a foreclosure within the time limit, do you have the benefit of the previous 20 year rule? Not necessarily. There are at least two ways a foreclosure can be undone by a court. A foreclosure is void if it is not conducted strictly in accordance with the power of sale, or if it fails to comply with preconditions to foreclosure stated in the mortgage. Void foreclosures can be challenged up to 20 years afterwards. A foreclosure is voidable if the power of sale and the preconditions in the mortgage are complied with, but the manner in which it was conducted was fundamentally unfair or perhaps violated some other law. In all likelihood, you need to assert a claim to undo a voidable foreclosure within the statute of limitations of some other law. For example, if you have a claim under the consumer protection statute, M.G.L. section 93A, there is a four year statute of limitations from the time of the unfair or deceptive act. If you have a tort claim, you may have to bring the case within three years. You should consult an attorney about whether your unlawful foreclosure claim is a claim that the foreclosure was void or voidable.

Everything in this article is directed at what it takes to preserve your claim of illegal foreclosure. Of course, it is not enough to have your case in court. You need to actually win your case in order to undo the foreclosure. The legislature has set up a tough procedure for illegally foreclosed homeowners to undo the harm that was done to them. It might seem very unfair that a bank can abuse you, deceive you, and illegally foreclose on you without going to court, yet you have to go to court and follow an unclear procedure just to avoid losing your home. For better or worse, this is the process that your elected representatives have chosen to impose on you, so you need to take care to comply with it.

President-Elect Trump and the Foreclosure Crisis

white-house

President-Elect Trump’s selection of Steven Mnuchin to head the Department of Treasury has raised a troubling story about this nominee’s involvement with OneWest Bank, a national financial institution (which has since been acquired by CIT Bank).  OneWest is reported to have foreclosed a 90-year-old-woman’s home for a $0.27 payment error.   OneWest Bank has also been alleged to have made a mess out of reviewing borrowers for loan modifications and proceeding with foreclosure while loss mitigation options have been under review.  All of these raise questions regarding President-Elect Trump and the Foreclosure Crisis, namely, how the new administration will assist struggling  homeowners trying to avoid foreclosure.

The federal Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) is set to expire at the end of 2016, and the Trump Administration will need to decide whether to extend this program, or offer another federal program in its place.  HAMP has done little to help the many homeowners in need of this assistance, and it will be interesting to see whether the new administration keeps the program, replaces it, or eliminates this type of assistance all together.

Another important policy matter for the Trump Administration will be whether the President-Elect keeps many of the Obama Administration’s consumer protection efforts, namely the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (“CPFB”) and its regulations for banks and loan servicers.  The CFPB has issued numerous regulations on how loan servicers are to review loan modification applications and deal with borrower’s concerns about their accounts.  Regulations are issued by a president’s administration, unlike laws, which Congress must pass.  Because of this, regulations are subject to change when a new president comes into office.  Time will tell whether President-Elect Trump keeps in place many of these rules, or goes in a different direction than the previous administration.  Stay tuned!