Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: remember that we now post every other day.
The posts on Monday 8/3/2026, here and here, reminded that condo review deadline (from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) put lenders (and therefore buyers and sellers) on the clock effective August 3.
For some time now lenders (and therefore buyers and sellers) have been able to take advantage of Fannie and Freddie’s more limited project-review pathways that helped qualifying condominium loans avoid the cost and documentation demands of a Full Review. RIP.
For loan applications dated on or after Aug. 3, Fannie will no longer permit the Limited Review process and Freddie will eliminate its corresponding Streamlined Review option. Some lenders may have adopted the changes earlier, such that the loan application date — and the lender’s internal implementation policy — were critical for condo loans approaching the pipeline.
We discussed these changes in our posts on Friday 4/3/2026, here and here, and Thursday 5/21/2026, here and here, people some time to look ahead. The August 3 deadline shifted attention from the borrower’s financial strength to the financial and physical condition of the condominium project itself. What about existing projects that were previously eligible for an abbreviated review? See the post.
For loan originators, the immediate risk is not necessarily that a borrower will fail to qualify, but rather that the condominium association will not be able or willing to supply the documents now necessary to determine whether the project qualifies, including budgets, reserve funding, insurance policies, inspection reports, and more as listed in the post. Lenders need the information (now more than ever), but condo boards are not always happy (or willing) to provide all of the information. Let’s highlight some changes …
Higher Equity Will No Longer Shorten The Review. Before the changes, Limited and Streamlined Reviews usually allowed certain loans with lower loan-to-value ratios to receive a narrower project evaluation. In turn, that reduced the amount of association documentation lenders needed to examine (although borrowers and properties still had to meet the applicable agency requirements). But beginning Aug. 3, that larger down payment will no longer lead to the abbreviated route.
Fannie Mae has said that established projects previously eligible for Limited Review must now undergo a Full Review or, when applicable, qualify for a Waiver of Project Review. Similarly, Freddie Mac’s Streamlined Review is not an option for applications received on or after Aug. 3.
On the other hand, both Fannie and Freddie expanded their waiver and exempt-from-review options in March to include certain new and established projects containing 10 or fewer units. For projects with 5-10 units, see the post relative to additional restrictions. In essence, therefore, the August 3 deadline does not mean that every condominium loan automatically requires a Full Review. Rather, the deadline removed a widely used pathway for established projects containing more than 10 units.
Industry Warned Of Cost And Credit Effects. When the changes were announced in March, mortgage professionals questioned whether the additional scrutiny would increase transaction costs (see the post for one person’s view) and reduce access to conventional condo financing, especially for entry-level and workforce housing. Again, see our posts of Thursday 5/21/2026, here and here. Let’s look at an example of how the changes will hit.
One mortgage lender supplied the Federal Housing Finance Agency with internal production data showing that more than 750 of its Florida condo loans originated since 2021 used Limited Review. And those loans represented 53% of the lender’s conventional condo production in the state. That’s not all. Approximately 30% of the manually reviewed projects in the lender’s analysis also maintained reserve funding below the 15% threshold that both Fanie and Freddie will require under Full Review beginning Jan. 4, 2027 (yep, the rest of the hammer – see our posts of Friday 4/3/2026, here and here). That lender urged FHFA to monitor whether the new standards materially reduce access to conventional condo financing and to consider refinements if production data show unintended consequences (which should interest the current administration based on its stated desire to address the lack of affordable housing across the nation).
Pipeline Preparation Becomes The Immediate Test. Now lenders must determine which applications could still qualify for Limited or Streamlined Review and which will require Full Review. They may also need to issue a warning to borrowers and real estate agents about the effect on the closing timeline – see the post. And Associations that cannot produce current financial statements, insurance information, or required inspection documents could jeopardize an otherwise viable loan.
This transition may hit Florida particularly hard as condominium associations are already contending with insurance costs, structural inspection requirements, reserve obligations, and special assessments, but the change is not limited to Florida condos.
Another effect of the changes might be creation of additional demand for portfolio and non-warrantable condo products when projects fail agency requirements. That can preserve financing options for some borrowers but generally cuts against more affordable housing (based on the things noted in the post).
A small ray of light is that Fannie and Freddie paired the elimination of abbreviated reviews with other policy changes that provided greater flexibility to lenders (which can only help loan origination) including what is described in the post. Now that the August 3 deadline has passed, we will see if that added flexibility offsets the anticipated higher cost and definitely increased operational burden of more condo transactions going through Full Review (or whether the abbreviated process that once helped loans close has become another financing path lenders have to replace).
TAKEAWAY: Effective August 3 the landscape for condo loans changed; it remains to be seen whether that negatively affects condo affordability or if the flexibility and waivers eliminate some of the pain.
The posts on Wednesday 8/5/2026, here and here, asked: Can you legally inherit a home in a 55+ community (and then live there)?
After a media station reported on a woman fighting to stay in the home she inherited in a 55+ community, viewers flooded social media with one question: How can someone legally inherit a home but not be allowed to live in it? This seems like a no-brainer but actually requires a legal explanation: the answer comes down to the difference between ownership and occupancy.
Bethany Michel, 28, has been battling her homeowners association since her father, a disabled veteran, died in 2023. Michel inherited the home after serving as her father’s caregiver, but the HOA argues that she no longer meets the 55+ community’s age restrictions.
Again, the key: ownership doesn’t automatically mean the right to live there. Onecommunity association attorney said that age-restricted communities that comply with state and federal law are legally permitted to restrict who may live in the neighborhood. Here the community’s declaration distinguishes between owning a home and occupying it. Another provision in the community’s governing documents requires every occupied home to have at least one resident who is 55 or older. And that’s why Michel can legally inherit the property (i.e., own it) but still may be prohibited from living there.
Let’s look at how the federal 80% rule works when it comes to 55+ communities. Under the federal Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA), qualifying age-restricted communities must ensure that at least 80% of occupied homes have at least one resident who is 55 or older. (there is another criteria too as noted in the post). If an association fails to meet both requirements, it could lose its exemption under federal and state fair housing laws.
You might be thinking, “ok, that deals with 80% of the unit so why can’t Michel live there in the other 20%”. Well, it depends (as explained in the post).
Special assessment vote. This legal dispute also prompted a proposed $155,000 special assessment that would help pay the HOA’s legal expenses in the lawsuit against Michel (necessary to retain its legal age-related exemption). Homeowners were being asked to vote on the assessment in mid-July. Whether or not an owner vote was required, or the board could special assess on its own, is discussed in the post.
The HOA previously declined to comment on the lawsuit or the proposed special assessment.
TAKEAWAY: 55+ communities have occupancy requirements, not ownership requirements; knowing the difference, and whether there is a 20% cushion or not, is key. Consult a community association lawyer for assistance.
The posts on Friday 8/7/2026, here and here, alerted to a DOL Opinion Letter: No need to pay for ordinary, midday commutes. Employers and workers alike must know the law.
Here DOL, in a pair of opinion letters released in the second half of July, addressed compensable working time for an employee’s ordinary, midday travel between home and work. The post contains a link to the opinion letters. Last year DOL started issuing (more) opinion letters again, allowing people to request interpretations of how employment laws apply in specific situations (hopefully before stepping on a legal mine). Employers also could (potentially) use the opinion letters as a defense to litigation.
DOL’s letter on midday commutes, FLSA2026-9 (also linked in the post), was in response to a question from an employer with a large, nonexempt workforce. The employees don’t regularly travel as part of their job duties and can work from home when business needs permit. But they have not been allowed to work in more than one location in a single workday because of concerns that the Fair Labor Standards Act would require pay for commuting from one location to another in the middle of the workday. That even included the situation described in the post which is what the employer wanted to be able to provide if it would not involve additional compensation.
In its response DOL said that the FLSA would not require pay in that scenario. DOL’s quote is in the post. But Dol also cautioned that employees may be due pay for other circumstances such as that noted in the post. DOL also warned employers that this opinion should not be construed as a departure from its longstanding position that travel from worksite to worksite during the workday is compensable.
The other opinion letter, FLSA2026-10 (yep, also linked in the post) responded to a compensation question from an MRI engineer who worked at client sites from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. but received service requests at home and scheduled the day’s client appointments before their shift. The employee then drove an employer-provided vehicle to job sites, often making work-related phone calls during the drive.
In this second scenario, DOL concluded that the time spent receiving requests was not compensable as it was incidental to the use of an employer-provided vehicle for commuting. But the time spent scheduling appointments was compensable. And how if at all did the scheduling affect compensability of the drive time? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: It can be tricky to determine whether employee travel time is compensable. DOL fact sheets and opinion letters offer some guidance, but (as borne out by the latest opinion letters) the decision often requires a detailed look at each specific scenario. Get assistance from an employment lawyer too.