Pennsylvania House Bill HB1882

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/26/25
• Refer: 9/26/25
• Refer: 10/27/25
• Report Pass: 10/28/25
• Engrossed: 10/28/25
• Refer: 11/5/25

Caption

In mortgage loan industry licensing and consumer protection, further providing for definitions, for exceptions to license requirements and for general requirements.

Summary

HB1882 amends Pennsylvania’s mortgage lending laws in Title 7 to make three targeted changes to mortgage loan industry licensing and consumer protection rules. First, it revises the definition of “branch manager” so that a branch manager must be a licensed mortgage originator under the chapter. Second, it clarifies an existing licensing exception for affiliates of banks and credit unions by requiring employees who must be licensed as mortgage originators, other than branch managers, to complete prelicensing and continuing education requirements and obtain the proper mortgage originator license. Third, it adds a new consumer-protection requirement for reverse mortgages, directing licensees to ensure that all reverse mortgage contracts and disclosures use a font size of at least 16-point. The bill would affect mortgage lenders, bank and credit union affiliates, mortgage originators, branch managers, and consumers entering reverse mortgage transactions. It tightens compliance obligations for certain affiliated mortgage businesses and creates a specific formatting standard for reverse mortgage documents, which is intended to improve readability and consumer understanding. The act takes effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

HB1882 would amend sections 6102, 6112, and 6121 of Title 7 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. It narrows and clarifies licensing-related definitions and exceptions in the mortgage loan industry, while imposing an additional consumer-protection rule for reverse mortgage contracts and disclosures. The practical effect is to require more licensed oversight in affiliated mortgage operations and to standardize minimum document font size for reverse mortgage materials.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support but not unanimous backing. It advanced through the House Commerce Committee, House Appropriations Committee, and final House passage, with each vote showing a majority in favor but substantial opposition. That pattern suggests the bill was viewed as a consumer-protection and licensing-clarification measure by supporters, while still drawing meaningful concern from some members.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on the added licensing burden for affiliates of banks and credit unions and the scope of the new reverse mortgage disclosure requirement. Opponents may have viewed the bill as increasing compliance costs or imposing unnecessary regulatory detail, while supporters likely emphasized clearer licensing standards, stronger consumer protections, and improved readability for reverse mortgage borrowers. The close vote margins in committee and on the House floor indicate the bill was politically contested even though it ultimately passed the House.