119-SJRES-149 Journalist Public Summary
A Senate resolution aims to overturn the CFPB’s 2025 withdrawal of a 2024 advisory opinion that applied Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) protections to “contracts for deed,” with backers saying it would restore home‑buyer safeguards while critics argue the Bureau should rely on formal rulemaking rather than guidance. (govinfo.gov)
Headline Summary
A Senate resolution would nullify the CFPB’s 2025 rule that withdrew a 2024 advisory opinion extending Truth in Lending protections to “contracts for deed,” effectively aiming to restore those buyer safeguards. (govinfo.gov)
What It Does
- The resolution uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove the CFPB’s May 12, 2025 withdrawal of guidance (90 Fed. Reg. 20084). If enacted, the disapproval would make that withdrawal have no force or effect. (govinfo.gov)
- The 2024 advisory opinion said home purchases made via “contracts for deed” generally count as credit covered by Truth in Lending (Regulation Z), triggering key mortgage‑style disclosures and protections. (govinfo.gov)
- Why this niche matters: contracts for deed are common in some lower‑income or credit‑constrained communities and can be risky; CFPB described problems like unclear ownership and forfeiture risks in its 2024 report and press release. (files.consumerfinance.gov)
Who’s For It
- Sponsor: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D‑NY), who introduced S.J.Res. 149 to reverse the withdrawal. (govinfo.gov)
- Consumer‑protection advocates who objected to the 2025 mass withdrawal of CFPB guidance (e.g., Better Markets’ criticism) are likely to back restoring the advisory opinion to keep protections for contract‑for‑deed buyers. (Inference based on their stated opposition to the withdrawal.) (bankingdive.com)
- Rationale from supporters: keeping TILA/Reg Z coverage helps buyers understand costs, interest, and risks before entering these seller‑financed deals. (govinfo.gov)
Who’s Against It
- Some financial‑industry voices and current CFPB leadership who favored withdrawing guidance, arguing that sub‑regulatory documents were overly prescriptive and created compliance burdens; they prefer formal rulemaking. (govinfo.gov)
- Broader concern from opponents of reversal: using the CRA to preserve an advisory opinion could lock in policy via guidance rather than through a full notice‑and‑comment regulation. (congress.gov)
What’s Next
- Status: On April 27, 2026, the measure was taken from committee by petition under the CRA and placed on the Senate’s General Orders calendar, positioning it for floor consideration. (govinfo.gov)
- Process: Under the CRA, the Senate can bring a disapproval resolution to a vote with streamlined procedures after set waiting periods. To take effect, the resolution must pass both chambers and be signed by the President (or enacted over a veto). (congress.gov)
Discussion