We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Until fairly recently, one of the more difficult problems facing
out-of-state lenders making a loan secured by a mortgage on
Wisconsin real property involved determining their registration and
compliance obligations under the Wisconsin Mortgage Banking Act
(the WMBA) as set forth in Chapter 224 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Prior to the adoption of an amendment to the WMBA in 2008, the WMBA
was drafted in such a way that it seemingly applied to both
residential and commercial loans secured by a mortgage on real
property. As originally drafted, therefore, the WMBA caused
numerous headaches for out-of-state lenders who had to determine
whether they had become subject to the WMBA's registration and
compliance requirements simply by accepting a mortgage on
commercial property in Wisconsin.
Fortunately, the WMBA was amended in 2008 to clarify that it
only applies to loans for personal, family or household purposes
that are secured by a lien or mortgage, or equivalent security
interest, on residential real property located in Wisconsin. As a
result, it is now clear that the WMBA does not apply to loans that
are secured by mortgages on commercial real property in Wisconsin.
To that end, a prudent lender's Wisconsin counsel should
confirm that legal opinions no longer assume away compliance with
the WMBA or similarly qualify opinions regarding such
compliance.
If you have questions about this update, please contact your
Reinhart attorney, John Murphy, Nathan Wautier or any member of the
Reinhart Real Estate Opinion Team.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A senior SEC lawyer has recently encouraged the private equity and hedge fund communities to consider whether certain practices of private fund managers could subject these firms to SEC registration as broker-dealers.
In November 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York preliminarily approved a settlement agreement in the In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.
Federal bank regulatory agencies have served notice that deposit advance products will soon be subject to significant new restrictions and heightened supervisory scrutiny.
