‘How Can We Catch Up?’ Mortgage Denials Stack the Deck Against Black and Hispanic Buyers

The American dream of homeownership is not an equal opportunity ambition.

Black and Hispanic home buyers are more frequently denied mortgages than white buyers—even when their financial pictures are similar, according to a realtor.com® analysis of 2019 mortgage data. When they are able to secure mortgages, Black and Hispanic borrowers are more likely to pay higher fees and interest rates on their loans than white and Asian borrowers.

“What we call it in my community is the ‘Black tax,'” says Donnell Williams. He is president of the National Association of Real Estate Brokers, an organization for Black real estate professionals, and a broker with Destiny Realty in Morristown, NJ.

“Even if we have a college degree, we’re still getting the same treatment as a white high-school dropout,” he says.

Black buyers were twice as likely to be refused mortgages than whites, according to the realtor.com analysis of 7.2 million loan applications in 2019. Only about 5.5% of whites had their loan applications rejected, compared with 6.8% of Asians, 9.3% of Hispanics, 11.7% of Blacks, and 10.8% of multi-minority race individuals hoping to be approved. These denials were only for applicants where all the data was available for fully completed applications that weren’t withdrawn.

Decades of discrimination against people of color have resulted in lower homeownership rates among minorities than among whites in America. And that has a deep, long-term impact on wide swaths of America, since homeownership is traditionally how generations have catapulted themselves into the middle class, as their properties appreciate in value over time.

Nearly three-quarters of whites, 74.5%, owned their homes in the last quarter of 2020, according to a quarterly report from the U.S. Census Bureau. However, just 44.1% of Blacks, 49.1% of Hispanics, and 59.5% of Asians were homeowners in the last three months of the year.

“There are a lot of obstacles that are working against buyers of color,” says Brett Theodos, a senior fellow at Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research group based in Washington, DC.

On top of racial discrimination, “they’re less likely to get help with the down payment from the bank of Mom and Dad,” says Theodos. “They’ve also [often] entered adulthood with higher student loan debt, less inheritance, and are on average in professions that earn lower wages.”

Many of these problems took root generations ago. Whites who served in World War II were offered low-cost mortgages for single-family homes in newly built suburbs when they returned. Blacks and other minorities were often denied access to these loans. In many cases, Blacks, in particular, were explicitly barred from living in white communities through a toxic combination of racial covenants written in deeds and government-supported redlining.

Black Americans, like these Tuskegee Airmen, served their country in World War II but returned home to face discrimination.
Black Americans, like these Tuskegee Airmen, served their country in World War II but returned home to face discrimination.

Bettmann/Getty Images

So Blacks who wanted to become homeowners often had to buy homes at inflated prices in less desirable areas. If they were able to get mortgages at all, they typically paid more for them. And homes in these areas haven’t appreciated nearly as much as homes in white areas, except in the places that have seen significant gentrification. As homeownership is used to catapult folks into the middle class and build wealth, that’s left many minorities with less money to pass down to future generations in the form of college tuition assistance or a down payment.

“How can we catch up? How can we be on par? We didn’t have that head start of generational wealth,” laments the National Association of Real Estate Brokers’ Williams. “You want a piece of the American dream, and it’s hard. You feel like your efforts are in vain.”

Realtor.com took a hard look at which races are most likely to be denied mortgages and the reasons provided for those rejections as well as who is paying the most for those loans. To do so, we analyzed 2019 mortgage application data available through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. The act, passed in 1975, requires most larger lenders to collect mortgage data and make it public. We looked at only first-lien mortgages on purchases of one- to four-family homes built on site, so manufactured homes wouldn’t be included.

When possible, we compared borrowers with similar financial profiles to see who was getting loans—and who wasn’t. However, our analysis doesn’t take into account certain discrepancies like credit scores.

Blacks most likely to be denied mortgages—even with good-sized down payments

According to our analysis, even aspiring home buyers of color with sizable down payments are more likely to be denied mortgages.

Black borrowers with 10% to 20% to put down were more than twice as likely to be denied than whites offering the same down payments. Lenders rejected 6% of whites and 9% of Asians—compared with 11% of Hispanics and multi-minority race borrowers and 13% of Blacks.

These higher denial rates may be due to minority borrowers having lower credit scores, more debt, or some other financial black mark. But lending experts believe that racial discrimination also plays a part.

For example, a loan officer might tell white borrowers to improve their credit before submitting an application, be more understanding of alternative forms of income, such as a family member contributing or a side gig, or wait until mortgage rates fall a little so their monthly payment is lower. The latter would increase such borrowers’ shot at getting a loan. But a loan officer may not do the same for customers of color.

“Some of it is decisions being made by the lending officers,” says sociology professor Lincoln Quillian of Northwestern University in Evanston, IL. “They have powerful stereotypes of who is likely to repay loans.”

Black and Hispanic borrowers often pay more for their mortgages

Black and Hispanic borrowers were more likely to receive higher mortgage interest rates on their loans—which can add up to big money over time.

About 59% of white borrowers and 52% of Asian borrowers received rates within 1 percentage point of the best (i.e., lowest) possible rate. However, only 51% of multi-minority race borrowers, 47% of Hispanics, and 44% of Blacks fared as well. (It’s unknown whether some of these borrowers pre-paid or bought down their interest rates during the closing process.)

Even the smallest differences in rates can really add up. A single percentage point difference can lead to a larger monthly mortgage payment and tens of thousands of dollars more paid out over the life of a 30-year fixed-rate loan. (The exact difference depends on the purchase price of the home, the exact mortgage rates, and the size of the down payment.)

A recent study found that wealthier Blacks were given higher mortgage rates than low-income whites.

Black households making between $75,000 and $100,000 a year were saddled with a median 4.215% mortgage interest rate in 2019, according to a report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. However white households earning $30,000 or less had a lower median mortgage rate of 4.16%. The study looked at 2019 U.S. Census Bureau data.

Even Black households raking in $100,000 a year or more paid slightly higher interest rates, 4.169%, than low-income whites. Whites with six-figure incomes had median 3.946% rates—about 22 basis points less than Blacks who were also earning $100,000 or more.

“We have some deep problems in the mortgage market,” Raheem Hanifa, a research analyst at the center who wrote the study.

“Some of the differences in mortgage [costs] is due to differences in who the lenders are. There’s evidence that Black and Hispanic buyers are more likely to be marketed to by lenders who are higher-cost,” says sociology professor Quillian. “White and Asian borrowers are more likely to go to traditional banks.”

Predatory lending and the proliferation of subprime mortgages doled out to communities of color led to the last housing crash, and plunged the world into a financial crisis more than a decade ago. But at least some of today’s pricier lenders may simply be smaller operations that need to charge more since they’re not dealing with the economies of scale of the bigger banks.

People of color more likely to be denied loans due to debt

Minorities are more likely to be denied mortgages due to their debt. Before deciding whether to grant loans, lenders look closely at potential borrowers’ debt loads. Their goal is to make sure borrowers can afford to pay back their credit card, student loan, car, and other payments—on top of a mortgage.

Only 1.6% of potential whites borrowers had their applications rejected because of their debt loads—compared with 2.5% of Asians, 3.1% of Hispanics, and 3.8% of Blacks. About 3.7% of multi-minority race applicants were also rejected.

While that does not sound like that much of a difference, it means that 1 in 64 white applicants is denied versus 1 in 26 Blacks.

Some minority borrowers may simply carry more debt than white borrowers. Many face discrimination in the workplace that can manifest in lower salaries and fewer promotions. Also, they may not receive the same level of financial help from their families when they get into a tough financial spot.

Black households were more than twice as likely to have student loan debt than white households, according to a recent report from the National Association of Realtors®. About 43% of Black households had student debt, at a median $40,000, compared with 21% of whites, at a median $30,000 in student debt. (The report was based on a survey of more than 8,200 home buyers who purchased a primary home from July 2019 to June 2020.)

Employment and credit histories also led to higher mortgage denial rates for minorities

Blacks and Hispanics were also more likely to be denied a loan due to their employment history. One in 568 white applicants was rejected due to their work history, compared with 1 in 282 Blacks.

“People of color, notably Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics, face higher rates of discrimination in hiring,” says the Urban Institute’s Theodos. “It can be more difficult to be promoted or advanced.”

That plays a big part in how much they’re earning. In 2019, Asian households had the highest median incomes of $98,174, followed by non-Hispanic white households at $76,057, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Hispanic households had a median income of $56,113, while Black households brought in the least, at $45,438.

Blacks and Hispanics are also more likely to lose out on a loan due to their credit scores. About 0.6% of Asians and 1% of whites were denied due to their credit histories compared with 1.6% of Hispanics, 2.9% of Blacks, and 2.4% of multi-minority races.

Typically, people build good credit by paying off their student loans, car loans, and credit card bills on time each month. However, many lower-income Americans are less likely to have graduated from college or have credit cards. And what folks do pay every month—their rent, utility, and cellphone payments—often aren’t counted toward credit profiles.

“It’s not just discrimination today that is why we see denials at higher rates for Blacks and Hispanics. It’s the byproduct of generations of systemic racism,” says Theodos. “We have a long way to go in overcoming the deep, historical divide of opportunity for people of color in this country.”

Source: realtor.com

How long should small-business, mortgage aid last?

WASHINGTON — Despite calls from the Biden administration for bipartisan action on coronavirus relief, lawmakers remain sharply divided over the scope of stimulus funds for mortgage borrowers, renters and small businesses.

At the center of the partisan disagreement is whether funding for programs like the State Small Business Credit Initiative and Homeowner Assistance Fund would be cut off when the public health emergency is declared over, or would remain in place to mitigate lingering economic effects.

“The fact is the economic crisis will last many, many months perhaps after the health crisis is over,” Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., said Wednesday at a House Financial Services Committee markup of the $1.9 trillion stimulus plan championed by the White House.

Several Republicans on the panel questioned allowing funding for programs that predated the pandemic and proposed amendments to set a deadline on certain appropriations, warning that Democrats shouldn’t take advantage of the crisis to boost government programs. Yet all of their amendments were rejected.

“Bottom line, we need to deliver temporary, targeted, and COVID-related relief to the people who need it most,” McHenry said. “Despite my colleagues’ claims, it is possible to do too much. In fact, there is bipartisan agreement that this additional $1.9 trillion package could overheat the economy.”

“Millions of individuals and families are on the brink of eviction or foreclosure as back rent or mortgage payments pile up through no fault of their own,” said Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

“Millions of individuals and families are on the brink of eviction or foreclosure as back rent or mortgage payments pile up through no fault of their own,” said Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Bloomberg News

The debate indicated that House Democrats are on track to pass the legislation with little to no GOP support. (Congress has yet to act on the stimulus plan despite a Senate vote enabling lawmakers to advance the relief package through the budget reconciliation process.)

The stimulus legislation would provide roughly $25 billion for emergency rental assistance, $5 billion to support people experiencing homelessness, $10 billion for struggling homeowners to make their mortgage payments, and $10 billion to support small businesses, including minority-owned businesses.

The $10 billion in mortgage aid would deliver relief to states and local tribes in the form of direct assistance with mortgage payments, property taxes, property insurance and other housing costs.

Democrats on the committee called for a sweeping approach to ensure that Congress is supporting the economic aftermath of the pandemic.

“Millions of individuals and families are on the brink of eviction or foreclosure as back rent or mortgage payments pile up through no fault of their own,” said Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif. “Across the nation people are struggling to make ends meet, and hunger is growing. Communities of color continue to be the hardest hit.”

Republicans on the committee warned that the legislation would authorize funds to be used well after the pandemic is over.

“If we are going to provide emergency relief, it should be provided through the national pandemic emergency, not out through 2025 and 2030,” said Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo.

Another sticking point is whether Congress should allocate funds for programs that were established outside of the pandemic. Democrats’ proposal includes a reauthorization of an Obama-era program to help states support small businesses, known as the State Small Business Credit Initiative.

“This would codify numerous partisan priorities, including duplicative rental assistance to funnel money toward non-COVID purposes and restarts the ineffective Obama-era State Small Business Credit Initiative,” McHenry said.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, said the program could leverage government funds to spur small-business growth.

“This would help our small businesses, it would help us to leverage money,” Green said. “We can have $1 billion in and it leverages $10 billion. As a matter of fact, when we had the downturn in 2008 we put in $1.5 billion into this program and it leveraged $15 billion.”

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo., attempted to amend the State Small Business Credit Initiative reauthorization, requiring all funding to be used within six months after the end of the national health emergency. But the amendment was rejected by Democrats.

“The SSBCI provision of the bill is clearly written to give states money well into the future with little immediate benefit to workers and job creators,” Leutkemeyer said. “This program is being touted as helping small businesses make it through the pandemic yet does not require all the funding to go out for five years and allows states to sit on that funding for up to 10 years.”

Source: nationalmortgagenews.com

CFPB makes it clear: fair servicing is back, for real this time

A new presidential administration and a clarion call from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has transformed fair servicing from a seemingly remote risk into a front and center mandate.

After the 2008 financial crisis, regulators enhanced long-standing fair lending examination guidelines to incorporate the concept of fair servicing. They began to scrutinize potential discriminatory loss mitigation and foreclosure practices and threatened to hold mortgage servicers accountable if such impermissible practices were identified.

Mortgage servicers prepared for the scrutiny, conducted fair servicing risk assessments, and brought in the quants to analyze their servicing portfolio for risk of disparate treatment and disparate impact — but the big discrimination actions did not follow.

Today’s regulatory environment feels different as COVID-19 has struck communities of color harder than others and equity and inclusion are at the heart of the Biden administration’s financial oversight initiatives. Whereas in the past it may have been acceptable for servicers to treat all borrowers uniformly, today, servicers are being pushed to double-down on active outreach.

Accordingly, it is crucial to refresh that fair servicing policy and create a fair servicing program, with attendant procedures, that reflects the environmental moment.

Honest Conversations — a podcast on minority homeownership

Join HousingWire this February as we aim to provide listeners with a greater perspective on how race, housing and wealth intersect, and what experts are doing to close the homeownership gap. Tune into HousingWire Daily every Wednesday to listen to our new miniseries, Honest Conversations, a show that will examine the state of minority homeownership.

Biden Means Business

On Jan. 26, President Biden signed an executive order committing to revitalize enforcement of fair lending laws to address the “ongoing legacies of residential segregation and discrimination [that] remain ever-present in our society.” The order pointed to the current racial gap in homeownership and the persistent undervaluation of properties owned by families of color as two such legacies.

Two days later, Acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio told staff the bureau’s twin priorities were protecting consumers facing financial hardship due to COVID-19 and racial equity.

This announcement promised additional supervisory and enforcement resources to ensure a “healthy docket intended to address racial equity.” It was accompanied by criticisms of mortgage servicer performance during the pandemic (even as servicers themselves disrupted by COVID-19 moved to remote operations and quickly began implementing new procedures to comply with a wave of requirements from regulators, legislators, and investors).

So What’s a Servicer to Do?

To be sure, mortgage servicers did not get a pass after the last financial crisis; the hammer dropped, but through a different legal vehicle. Regulators relied not on antidiscrimination laws, but on their sweeping authority to prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices to attack loss mitigation and foreclosure activities.

In so doing, the population of consumers who became focal points was broader, encompassing both members of protected classes and many others who were financially vulnerable.

Today’s cultural moment is potentially different than it was 10 years ago, and it is anticipated regulators will deploy the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act, and even state anti-discrimination laws, in novel ways to nudge servicers to do their part to support the equity agenda.

To that end, mortgage servicers should:

  • Clearly define the commitment to serving borrowers in a fair and equitable way. A clear fair servicing policy setting forth the expectations of the board, or management, is a must, ideally accompanied by a written fair servicing program detailing roles, responsibilities, and controls. Off-the-shelf training reciting the basics of ECOA, the FHA, and other anti-discrimination laws may check the box, but consider whether you’ll be proud showing that to the regulator when asked for your fair servicing training materials.
  • Confirm the sufficiency of outreach. At least one study has shown that borrowers in regions with a higher likelihood of COVID-19-related economic shocks and minority populations were more likely to obtain debt relief, but such results may not be sufficient to quell previously expressed policymaker concerns that investor and agency response has been insufficient to assist minority communities. The CARES Act forbearance requirements eliminated discretion regarding whether to offer forbearance, and on what terms, but servicers will undoubtedly be called upon to demonstrate that they engaged in sufficient outreach to offer borrowers of all races and ethnicities appropriate loss mitigation.
  • Lock in your LEP strategy. On her way out the door, former CFPB Director Kraninger issued guidance on how financial institutions should engage the millions of U.S. consumers for whom English is a second language. The challenge is significant, given the complexities inherent to explaining mortgage servicing, but servicers who have not thought through the process do so at their own peril, and will no doubt be called to account for a lack of preparation.
  • Document the great service you offered borrowers before making that referral to foreclosure. Hopefully a foreclosure tsunami like the one that hit during the last financial crisis can be avoided, but a backlog will surface given that foreclosures have essentially been frozen for almost a year. A good pre-referral checklist that documents outreach, consideration for a range of loss-mitigation options, and satisfaction of borrower concerns, will be critical for those called on to demonstrate to regulators their equitable treatment of borrowers. Servicers with sufficient account volume may also benefit from conducting fair lending statistical analytics regarding assistance and loss mitigation outcomes.

Mortgage servicers tend to focus on the detailed operational and technical challenges associated with regulatory requirements. Compliance with fair lending laws requires a different mindset — one that mortgage originators have long dealt with, but one that may be new to servicing operations. 

The Biden administration has made clear it will chart a course quite unlike its predecessor, and concerns over equity are likely to require servicers to build, or at least enhance, the many components of a fair servicing program.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Sarah Wheeler at swheeler@housingwire.com

Source: housingwire.com

Housing, civil rights groups ask Congress for $25B

A large partnership of housing and civil rights organizations reached out on Monday to congressional leaders advocating for further relief for homeowners in the next COVID-19 stimulus package.  

The letter was signed by representatives of more than 350 housing and civil rights organizations, including American Bankers Association, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Realtors, National Association of Home Builders and the Housing Policy Council, the NAACP, National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance and National Consumer Law Center.

The letter calls for $25 billion in direct assistance to homeowners facing hardships as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, at least $100 million for housing counseling, and just under $40 million for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Of the approximately 3.8 million homeowners past due on their mortgages, over half of them are persons of color, according to Census Bureau.

Recent homebuyers that relied on low- or no-down payment loans from FHA, VA or the Rural Housing Service are at particular risk, the group contends, noting that even six months of forbearance can put borrowers underwater on their mortgages, owing more than their home is worth.

“Moreover, these borrowers are predominantly Black and Latinx families, first-time buyers and low to moderate-income families,” the letter says. “Mortgage payments assistance will be critically important to the nearly 3 million borrowers that remain in long-term forbearance plans from their mortgage servicers. We cannot begin to tackle the racial homeownership and wealth gaps if we do not take steps to prevent a wave of COVID-induced foreclosures and loss of home equity.”

The group is hoping the bulk of the requested $25 billion comes through the recently reintroduced Homeowner Assistance Fund, which can be used by state housing finance agencies. In the letter to Congress, the group states that the HAF can help homeowners by providing direct assistance with mortgage payments and get into affordable loan modifications, while assisting with utility payments, property tax and insurance payments, homeowner association dues and other support to prevent the loss of home equity.

The outreach from housing and civil rights groups comes at a pivotal time for the American housing industry. Recently appointed Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said she will play a key role in pushing the Biden administration’s economic agenda on Capitol Hill – which includes aggressive aid distribution in order to avoid an even longer recession.

President Joe Biden has repeatedly said his administration is focused on providing aid for those in need of affordable housing, and his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan was recently voted into the budget reconciliation process in order to speed up passage. The plan calls for an additional $30 billion in funding for emergency rental, energy and water assistance for hard-hit households, plus $5 billion in emergency assistance to people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

All of this at a time in the country where Black homeownership has declined year-over-year, according to a recent Census Bureau report, and the percentage of Americans experiencing housing insecurity has risen to 9.5% – up from 7.2% in late 2020.

“A critical lesson of the Great Recession is that the communities most impacted need targeted, early intervention,” the group wrote in the letter. “Acting now to include these key provisions in the pending COVID-19 relief package will help stem what could be a damaging housing crisis in the U.S. concentrated in low income communities and communities of color.”

Source: housingwire.com

New CFPB boss vows to get tough on military lending, pandemic relief laws

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new leader is vowing to move quickly to penalize mortgage servicers, banks and other financial companies that have failed to provide relief to military veterans and others during the pandemic.

The bureau will expedite enforcement investigations tied to the Military Lending Act and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act to ensure that the industry “gets the message that violations of law during this time of need will not be tolerated,” acting Director Dave Uejio wrote in a blog post Thursday.

Helping consumers who are suffering financially from the coronavirus pandemic is one of the CFPB’s top priorities, along with enforcement of fair lending laws and identifying unlawful conduct that disproportionately harms communities of color and other vulnerable populations, he said.

“The CFPB will take aggressive action to ensure that regulated companies follow the law and meet their obligations to assist consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Uejio said. “In some cases, penalties may be necessary.”

Uejio reiterated that the CFPB, as part of its attention to matters of racial equity, will focus on banks that only took applications for the Paycheck Protection Program from preexisting customers; such decisions have had a “disproportionate negative impact” on minority-owned businesses, in the eyes of some critics.

“The country is in the middle of a long overdue conversation about race, and as we all know, practices and policies of the financial services industry have both caused and exacerbated racial inequality,” Uejio said.

The CFPB, under the new Biden administration, is breaking from recent policy tied to the Military Lending Act. Three years ago, the Trump administration refused to supervise banks and financial firms for compliance with the MLA, claiming that further legislation was necessary. The Department of Defense and roughly 30 military and veterans groups opposed the Republican position on the act, which imposes a 36% annual percentage interest rate cap for active-duty military members and their dependents.

“This is great news for our troops and their families,” Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in a press release. “The Military Lending Act makes an enormous difference for active duty members of the military, and I am pleased the CFPB will fully uphold the law once more and use the tools at their disposal to shield our troops from abusive practices,” said Reed, a member of the Banking Committee.

On COVID-19-related issues, Uejio cited six recent examples of violations of the CARES Act.

The bureau plans to investigate whether banks tapped consumers’ stimulus and unemployment insurance benefits to cover bank fees and other debts.

A crackdown also is expected on mortgage servicers that gave consumers inaccurate information about forbearances, failed to process forbearance requests and assessed late fees on borrowers. Some servicers were found to have taken payments from borrowers who had received deferments of their mortgages, Uejio said.

Student loan servicers also are in the CFPB’s crosshairs. One student loan servicer denied thousands of forbearance extensions, Uejio said.

In addition, he said, companies across many markets have misreported borrowers to the credit bureaus in violation of the CARES Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

More changes at the CFPB are on the way.

“Over the coming weeks, we will also be reversing policies of the last administration that weakened enforcement and supervision,” Uejio said. “And we are planning to rescind public statements conveying a relaxed approach to enforcement of the laws in our care.”

Source: nationalmortgagenews.com

Unemployment Archives – MintLife Blog

Source: mint.intuit.com

NBA Star Kyrie Irving Buys a House for George Floyd’s Family

The basketball star Kyrie Irving has bought George Floyd‘s family a house.

The Brooklyn Nets guard has been a strong supporter of the Black Lives Matter and other social justice movements. Floyd died on Memorial Day after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes.

Floyd’s 7-year-old daughter, Gianna, is “getting so much love from not just us, but from people all around the world who are showing support,” the former NBA player Stephen Jackson said on “The Rematch” podcast. Jackson and Floyd were childhood friends, and had remained close.

“I had a lot of my friends—Kyrie Irving bought them a house. Lil Wayne’s manager bought them a Mercedes-Benz. Barbra Streisand gave them stock in Disney.”

Irving’s publicist, Ashley Blackwood, confirmed to CNN that Irving had bought the home for Floyd’s family. She did not provide any additional details on the home or its location.

Irving “wanted to help George’s family, and I let him know that a house was what they needed at that time, and he made it happen in a heartbeat,” Jackson said in a statement obtained by CNN.

It’s not the first time Irving has become involved in a case of racial injustice. In July, he appeared in a TV special with the rapper Common, to seek action in the death of Breonna Taylor.

Taylor, another unarmed Black person, died after police officers entered her Louisville, KY, home in the middle of the night. Three officers have been fired since September in relation to the shooting, but no one has been charged in her death.

Source: realtor.com