Reverse Mortgages are not available to me until I am 62 years old. Is this age discrimination? Why not?

Equal protection under the law and other American principles should allow adults of any age to participate in any economic activity. I wonder if this has ever been challenged legally.Reverse Mortgages are not available to me until I am 62 years old. Is this age discrimination? Why not?
By your reasoning, a bankrupt 22 year old should be allowed to purchase stocks on credit. This is not age discrimination anymore than Social Security when you hit 62 is. This is part of the great stew/jig saw puzzle called balancing the economy. If we can get the retirees to care for themselves, then it costs everybody less. And naturally, banks participate because it is to their fiscal advantage.Reverse Mortgages are not available to me until I am 62 years old. Is this age discrimination? Why not?
Very interesting question! I am an attorney and owner of the website http://www.reversemortgagepage.com and think that age discrimination arguments are very weak. Moreover, age discrim falls under strict scrutiny, but there is an overwhelming purpose for this. Keep house-rich cash-poor seniors in their homes. I agree with the other poster who drew social security comparisons.
I don't think it would be considered discrimination because the required age (i don't know what age) to qualify for reverse mortgage is the same for everyone. If you met the age requirement and they said no, then it may be discrimination depending on the circumstances.
A privatley owned company, or public corporation can do business as they wish. Under your concept of equal protection, I should be able to come to your house and make you sell me your garage, just because you put up a sign that said ';garage sale';. Business' have the right to determine how they do business.
Reversed Mortages are basically you selling your house to the lender. They then are paying you a monthly sum and allowing you to still live in the house until your death. At that time the house transfers to them and they can do what they like with it. It's not discrimination, it's a product DESIGNED for older homeowners.
Why don't you just get a home equity loan. It is the same thing except you will receive the loan in a lump sum, the reverse mortgage is paid in monthly installments.
It's not discrimination.





It's a benefit for those who aer on their deathbeds and have their houses paid off (actually, a scam in my opinion).
To be eligible for a HUD reverse mortgage, HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) requires that the borrower is a homeowner, 62 years of age or older; own your home outright, or have a low mortgage balance that can be paid off at the closing with proceeds from the reverse loan; and must live in the home.





This is HUD's (Housing and Urban Development) program. You would need to fight your battle in Federal court, against the US Federal Government if you believe you could win.





This is similar to VA loans, if you are not a veteran you do not qualify.





http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/hecm/鈥?/a>





You may find additional helpful information at www.paynotaxesforlife.com
Limgrn_maria's response is a common misconception. The house does not transfer to the lender. The house still belongs to the estate, just like always. The heirs can choose to sell the home or refinance the reverse mortgage, just like a regular mortgage.





You do not get monthly payments only. You may also choose a lump sum or a line of credit.





Now, to answer the original question: I suppose you'd have to challenge Social Security and the federal regulations governing retirement plans, since they also age discriminate.





Rick


http://www.homepropertysolutions.com