House Bill 4790 amends West Virginia’s Residential Mortgage Lender, Broker and Servicer Act, specifically the licensing requirements for mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers under §31-17-4. The bill keeps the existing application framework—background checks, fingerprinting, disclosure of litigation and complaints, surety bond requirements, license fees, and annual reporting—but makes a targeted change to the financial documentation a broker applicant may use to prove tangible net worth. Under the bill, broker applicants may show the required net worth of at least $10,000 using the most recent compiled, reviewed, or audited financial statement, rather than being limited to an audited statement.
The measure also preserves and restates the broader licensing standards for lenders and brokers, including registration with the Secretary of State for foreign corporations, bond amounts tied to loan origination volume, and the commissioner’s authority to waive or reduce certain requirements for qualifying nonprofit housing organizations. It continues the per-loan fee of $5 for each residential mortgage loan originated, made, or brokered, and maintains the rule that consumer restitution claims on a bond must be resolved before payments for civil penalties or examination invoices.
The bill’s practical impact is narrow but important for mortgage broker applicants: it lowers a documentation hurdle by allowing additional types of financial statements to demonstrate compliance with the net worth requirement. That change could make licensure more accessible for some brokers while leaving the underlying financial threshold unchanged. It does not materially alter lender requirements, bond structures, or consumer protection provisions already in the statute.
The available context suggests generally neutral or routine support for the bill, with no recorded committee debate, votes, or opposition in the provided materials. The bill was introduced at the request of the Division of Financial Institutions, which indicates an administrative or technical purpose rather than a controversial policy shift. Because there are no transcripts or vote tallies, there is no evidence of significant public disagreement in the record provided.
The main point of potential contention, if any, would be the balance between easing licensing compliance for brokers and maintaining financial safeguards for consumers and regulators. However, the bill does not change the net worth amount, bond requirements, or enforcement authority, so any concern would likely be limited to whether allowing compiled or reviewed statements provides sufficient assurance of broker solvency compared with an audited statement.
HB4790 amends §31-17-4 of the West Virginia Code, which governs applications and qualifications for mortgage lender and mortgage broker licenses. The key statutory change is to permit mortgage broker applicants to satisfy the tangible net worth requirement with a compiled, reviewed, or audited financial statement, rather than requiring only an audited financial statement. The bill leaves intact the existing licensing structure, including background checks, bond requirements, fee schedules, disclosure obligations, and the commissioner’s waiver authority for certain nonprofit entities.
The bill appears to have a neutral-to-supportive reception based on the limited record provided. It was introduced at the request of the Division of Financial Institutions, suggesting the change is administrative and intended to streamline compliance rather than to advance a contested policy agenda. No committee transcripts, recorded votes, or opposition statements were provided, so there is no evidence of significant controversy in the available materials.
There is little explicit contention in the record, but the only likely issue is whether allowing compiled or reviewed financial statements for mortgage broker applicants provides enough assurance of financial stability. Supporters would likely view the change as a practical licensing adjustment that reduces paperwork and cost, while any skeptics might prefer the stricter audited-statement standard as a stronger safeguard. Because the bill does not alter the net worth threshold, bond amounts, or consumer protection rules, any disagreement appears limited and technical rather than ideological.