An act to amend Sections 3273.23 and 3273.24 of the Civil Code, relating to wildfire relief.
AB 1847 expands California’s wildfire-related mortgage forbearance protections for borrowers whose residential mortgage loans were affected by the January 2025 wildfire disaster and related state/federal emergency declarations. Under current law, eligible borrowers could request up to 12 months of forbearance; this bill increases the maximum forbearance period to 36 months and extends the deadline to request relief until January 7, 2029, or six months after the state of emergency ends, whichever is earlier. The bill also requires mortgage servicers to provide clearer notice and response timelines, including notice of approval or denial within 10 business days and an opportunity to cure certain application defects within 21 days.
The bill further limits borrower costs during forbearance by prohibiting late fees and default-rate interest, and it requires servicers to treat prior disaster-related forbearance periods as part of the new maximum period. It also addresses credit reporting by directing servicers not to report the account as being in forbearance during the relief period and to report the account as current in specified circumstances, while preserving delinquent status for borrowers who were already delinquent before entering the plan unless they later bring the account current. In addition, the bill requires servicers to disclose repayment obligations at the start of forbearance and, unless investor rules prohibit it, to offer borrowers the option to defer repayment of forborne amounts to the end of the loan term through a loan deferral or similar loss-mitigation option.
The bill’s impact on state law is to amend Civil Code Sections 3273.23 and 3273.24, expanding and clarifying the wildfire mortgage forbearance framework for affected homeowners and the mortgage servicers that service their loans. It also declares itself an urgency statute, meaning it would take effect immediately upon enactment, and it is framed as a state-mandated local program because of the bill’s perjury-related provisions. The measure states that no reimbursement is required for local agencies or school districts.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears supportive, with the bill advancing out of committee on strong margins, including unanimous support in one committee vote and a larger majority in another. The urgency clause and the stated purpose of preventing economic and social harm suggest the bill is being treated as a disaster-relief measure intended to provide immediate assistance to wildfire-affected borrowers. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader opposition.
The main point of contention implied by the text is the balance between borrower relief and lender/investor constraints. The bill gives borrowers longer relief and more flexible repayment options, while also preserving servicers’ ability to deny relief when investor contracts or servicing guidelines prohibit it. Another possible issue is the administrative burden on servicers, who must provide detailed denial notices, cure periods, and credit-reporting treatment. However, the available vote history suggests these concerns did not generate substantial committee opposition.
AB 1847 would amend Civil Code Sections 3273.23 and 3273.24 to expand wildfire mortgage forbearance rights for eligible California homeowners, increasing the maximum forbearance period from 12 months to 36 months and extending the request deadline to January 7, 2029. It would also impose new notice, cure, repayment, and credit-reporting requirements on mortgage servicers, while preserving limits based on investor contracts and servicing guidelines. Because it is an urgency statute, it would take effect immediately upon enactment.
The bill appears to have broad support in committee, advancing with strong vote margins and no recorded committee transcript indicating organized opposition. Its urgency language and disaster-relief framing suggest lawmakers viewed it as a timely response to wildfire-related housing and financial distress. The available history shows no significant recorded dissent beyond the normal committee process.
The principal tension in AB 1847 is between providing extended relief to wildfire-affected borrowers and respecting mortgage investor and servicing constraints. Supporters are focused on longer forbearance, clearer notices, and more flexible repayment options, while the bill still allows denials where investor rules prohibit relief. A secondary point of concern is the added compliance burden on servicers, including detailed denial explanations, cure windows, and credit-reporting rules, but the committee votes suggest these issues were not enough to derail the measure.