11) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Disclosure Text Block [Abstract]
11) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies	11) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies Reinsurance The Company follows the procedure of reinsuring risks in excess of a specified limit, which ranges from $25,000 to $100,000. The Company is liable for these amounts in the event such reinsurers are unable to pay their portion of the claims. The Company has also assumed insurance from other companies. Mortgage Loan Loss Settlements Future loan losses can beextremely difficult to estimate.However, management believes that the Company’s reserve methodologyand its current practice of property preservation allow it to estimate its potential losses on loans sold.The estimated liability for indemnification losses is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses and, as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the balances were $3,009,000and $4,046,000, respectively. During the third quarter 2020, the loan loss reserve decreased significantly primarily due to a $3,000,000 settlement that was paid to an investor for loans originated between 2004 and 2007. No additional loss reserves are being held for loans originated between 2004 and 2007. Thus, the Company believes that the final loan loss reserve as of September 30, 2020, represents its best estimate for adequate loss reserves on loans sold. Mortgage Loan Loss Litigation Lehman Brothers Holdings Litigation – Delaware and New York In January 2014, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman Holdings”) entered into a settlement with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) concerning the mortgage loan claims that Fannie Mae had asserted against Lehman Holdings, which were based on alleged breaches of certain representations and warranties by Lehman Holdings in the mortgage loans it had sold to Fannie Mae. Lehman Holdings had acquired these loans from Aurora Bank, FSB, formerly known as Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, which in turn purchased the loans from residential mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage Company (“SecurityNational Mortgage”). A settlement based on similar circumstances was entered into between Lehman Holdings and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) in February 2014. Lehman Holdings filed a motion in May 2014 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York to require the mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage, to engage in non-binding mediations of the alleged indemnification claims against the mortgage loan originators relative to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac settlements with Lehman Holdings. The mediation was not successful in resolving any issues between SecurityNational Mortgage and Lehman Holdings. On January 26, 2016, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a declaratory judgment action against Lehman Holdings in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware. In the Delaware action, SecurityNational Mortgage asserted its right to obtain a declaration of rights in that there are allegedly millions of dollars in dispute with Lehman Holdings pertaining to approximately 136 mortgage loans. SecurityNational Mortgage sought a declaratory judgment as to its rights as it contends that it has no liability to Lehman Holdings as a result of Lehman Holdings’ settlements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lehman Holdings filed a motion in the Delaware court seeking to stay or dismiss the declaratory judgment action. On August 24, 2016, the Court ruled that it would exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction over the action and granted Lehman Holdings’ motion to dismiss. On February 3, 2016, Lehman Holdings filed an adversary proceeding against approximately 150 mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration of rights similar in nature to the declaration that SecurityNational Mortgage sought in its Delaware lawsuit, and for damages relating to the alleged obligations of the defendants under indemnification provisions of the alleged agreements, in amounts to be determined at trial, including interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Lehman Holdings in enforcing the obligations of the defendants. No response was required to be filed relative to the Complaint or the Amended Complaint dated March 7, 2016. A Case Management Order was entered on November 1, 2016. On December 27, 2016, pursuant to the Case Management Order, Lehman Holdings filed a Second Amended Complaint against SecurityNational Mortgage, which eliminates the declaratory judgment claim but retains a similar claim for damages as in the Complaint. Many of the defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, filed a joint motion in the case asserting that the Bankruptcy Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction concerning the matter and that venue is improper. Lehman Holdings’ response memorandum was filed on May 31, 2017 and a reply memorandum of the defendants filing the motion was filed on July 14, 2017. A hearing on the motion was heldon June 12, 2018. On August 13, 2018, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order (“Decision”) denying the motion. On August 27, 2018, a number of the defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, filed a joint motion with the United States District Court (Case No. 18-mc-00392(VEC)) requesting that the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision be treated as findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for the District Court to review the Decision de novo as to jurisdiction. Included with the motion were proposed objections to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision. On September 18, 2018, Lehman Holdings filed its response to the joint motion, and defendants’ reply was filed on October 2, 2018. On September 17, 2018, certain defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, also filed a notice of appeal, and thereafter a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal as to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision pertaining to jurisdiction and improper venue as a “protective” appeal should the District Court decide not to treat the Decision as findings of fact and conclusions of law. Separately, certain other defendants also filed a notice of appeal and motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal with respect to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision concerning improper venue. Lehman Holdings filed its response on October 22, 2018, and defendants filed a joint reply to Lehman Holdings’ response on November 26, 2018. The motions to file appeals were consolidated before Valerie Caproni, U.S. District Court Judge, Case No. 18-cv-08986 (VEC). Case No. 18-mc-00392 (VEC) was also before Judge Caproni. On May 8, 2019, Judge Caproni issued her Opinion and Order denying the motion for an interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court’s ruling relative to jurisdiction and venue. Further, the judge denied the motion for immediate de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s ruling indicating that de novo review can be left for the future. On October 1, 2018, Lehman Holdings filed a motion for leave to fileThird Amended Complaints against numerous defendants including SecurityNational Mortgage. In addition to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac related loans, the amendments and supplements include additional mortgage loans sold to Lehman Holdings that were packaged for securitization (“RMBS loans”). The RMBS loans had allegedly been sold by defendants to Lehman Bank that, in turn, sold them to Lehman Holdings. The allegations pertaining to the RMBS loans include, e.g., purported breaches of representations and warranties made to the securitization trusts by Lehman Holdings. Lehman Holdings asserts that it made representations and warranties purportedly based in part by representations and warranties made to Lehman Bank by loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage. The alleged RMBS loans in dispute with SecurityNational Mortgage allegedly involve millions of dollars pertaining to approximately 577 mortgage loans in addition to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac related loans. Lehman Holdings also moved the Court to simultaneously allow alternative dispute resolution procedures to take place including potential mediation. Over objections, at a hearing on October 29, 2018, the Court granted Lehman Holdings’ motion to amend or supplement its complaints adding the RMBS loans, and also to mandate alternative dispute resolution procedures affecting many defendants including SecurityNational Mortgage. Instead of filing a Third Amended Complaint to include the RMBS loans referenced above, Lehman Holdings filed the matter against SecurityNational Mortgage as a new complaint ("RMBS Complaint") (United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Adversary Proceeding 18-01819) pertaining to the approximately 577 RMBS loans, in addition to theSecond Amended Complaint already on file. The RMBS Complaint seeks alleged damages relating to obligations under alleged contractual indemnification provisions in an amount to be determined at trial, interest, costsand expenses incurred by LBHI in enforcing alleged obligations, including attorneys' fees and costs and any expert witness fees incurred in litigation; and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. In response to a Court order, certain defendants referenced in the Second Amended Complaint and the RMBS Complaints negotiated with Lehman Holdings concerning an amended case management order pertaining to certain case procedures and management for both lawsuits including, but not limited to, timing for filing motions and answering the complaints, and provisions concerning discovery such as a document production,taking depositions, and use of experts. At a hearing held on March 7, 2019, the Court considered differences of the parties as to the content of an amended case management order, and thereafter signed an amended case management order dated March 13, 2019.SecurityNational Mortgage filed an answer and amended answer in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac case, and in the RMBS case. Discovery is in process. Lehman Holdings sent an Indemnification Alternative Dispute Resolution Notice to SecurityNational Mortgage dated August 1, 2019. SecurityNational Mortgage sent its Statement of Position to Lehman Brothers Holdings dated September 3, 2019 in response to the notice. Thereafter, Lehman Holdings sent its Reply dated October 2, 2019 to SecurityNational Mortgage. On January 9, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage submitted further information to the mediator. Mediation was set to take place on January 23, 2020 in New York. In view of a motion of SecurityNational Mortgage dated January 15, 2020, Lehman Holdings requested that the mediation be continued. On January 15, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a motion to dismiss Lehman Holdings’ RMBS action in the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing. It was not filed in the Bankruptcy Court but in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for general pretrial, which “includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement,” as well as for “a Report and Recommendation” as to the pending motion. The final disposition of the motion will be with the District Court judge. Lehman Holdings asked the District Court to transfer the case to one of two other judges allegedly due to related matters. No action has been taken by the District Court to transfer the case. However, Lehman Holdings filed its response brief to the motion and SecurityNational Mortgage filed its reply. On July 10, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed a report and recommendation with the District Court judge recommending that SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion to dismiss be denied on the procedural basis that the motion should not be in the District Court, but the Bankruptcy Court. SecurityNational Mortgage filed an objection to the report and recommendation to which Lehman Holdings responded. The District Court entered an order on August 10, 2020 adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion be denied on the procedural basis that the matter should not be in the District Court at present, and that the Bankruptcy Court may recommend on an interlocutory basis whether there is subject matter jurisdiction and standing, and that later in the proceedings the District Court could then review the recommendation as to subject matter jurisdiction and standing. On September 15, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court be ordered to presently resolve SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion as its motion is filed in the proper court. No action has yet to be taken by the Second Circuit. Earlier, on March 17, 2020, Lehman Holdings filed a motion for partial summary judgment against dozens of defendants asserting that sufficient notice was given defendants concerning the settlement of the RMBS claims so that Lehman Holdings, as an indemnitee, would not have to prove that it (Lehman Holdings) had liability to the RMBS Trustees, but only that its settlement was reasonable and in good faith. Defendants involved filed a response brief that for various reasons Lehman Holdings cannot establish sufficient notice as required by law. Certain defendants, excluding SecurityNational Mortgage, also filed a cross motion to seek an affirmative ruling on the issue of Lehman Holdings’ motion. Thereafter, Lehman Holdings filed a reply brief in support of its motion, and also a response brief to certain defendants’ cross motion. Defendants that filed a cross motion filed a reply brief in support of the cross motion.The motions are now under advisement with the Bankruptcy Court. Even if Lehman Holdings were to prevail on its motion, it does not absolve Lehman Holdings of its burden to prove indemnity liability to the defendants. SecurityNational Mortgage denies any liability to Lehman Holdings and intends to vigorously protect and defend its position. Debt Covenants for Mortgage Warehouse Lines of Credit The Company, through its subsidiary SecurityNational Mortgage, has a $150,000,000 line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank N.A. The agreement charges interest at the 1-Month LIBOR rate plus 2.1% and matures on June 24, 2021. SecurityNational Mortgage is required to comply with covenants for adjusted tangible net worth, unrestricted cash balance, the ratio of indebtedness to adjusted tangible net worth, andthe liquidity overhead coverage ratio, and a quarterly gross profit of at least $1.00. The Company, through its subsidiary SecurityNational Mortgage, also uses a line of credit with Texas Capital Bank N.A. This agreement with the bank allows SecurityNational Mortgage to borrow up to $175,000,000 for the sole purpose of funding mortgage loans. The agreement charges interest at the 1-Month LIBOR rate plus 3% and matures on November 15, 2021. The Company is required to comply with covenants for adjusted tangible net worth, unrestricted cash balance, and minimum combined pre-tax income (excluding any changes in the fair value of mortgage servicing rights) of at least $1.00 on a rolling four-quarter basis. The Company through its subsidiary SecurityNational Mortgage, also uses a line of credit with Comerica Bank. This agreement with the bank allows SecurityNational Mortgage to borrow up to $90,000,000 for the sole purpose of funding mortgage loans. The agreement charges interest at the 1-Month LIBOR rate plus 2.5% and matures on May 27, 2021. The Company is required to comply with covenants for adjusted tangible net worth, unrestricted cash balance, and minimum combined pre-tax income (excluding any changes in the fair value of mortgage servicing rights) of at least $1.00 on a rolling twelve months. The Company, through its subsidiary EverLEND Mortgage, also uses a line of credit with Texas Capital Bank N.A. This agreement with the bank allows EverLEND Mortgage to borrow up to $5,000,000 for the sole purpose of funding mortgage loans. The agreement charges interest at the 1-Month LIBOR rate plus 2.5% and matures on August 1, 2021. The Company is required to comply with covenants for adjusted tangible net worth, unrestricted cash balance, and minimum combined pre-tax income (excluding any changes in the fair value of mortgage servicing rights) of at least $1.00 on a rolling four-quarter basis. The agreements for warehouse lines include cross default provisions in that a covenant violation under one agreement constitutes a covenant violation under the other agreement. As of September 30, 2020, the Company believes that it was in compliance with all debt covenants. Other Contingencies and Commitments The Company has entered into commitments to fund construction and land development loans and has also provided financing for land acquisition and development. As of September 30, 2020, the Company’s commitments wereapproximately$187,305,000 for these loans, of which $124,409,000had been funded. The Company will advancefunds once the work has been completed and an independent inspection is made. The maximum loan commitment ranges between 50% and 80% of appraised value. The Company receives fees and interest for these loans andthe interest rate is generally fixed 5.50% to 8.00% per annum. Maturities range between six and eighteen months. The Company belongs to a captive insurance group for certain casualty insurance, worker compensation and liability programs. Insurance reserves are maintained relative to these programs. The level of exposure from catastrophic events is limited by the purchase of stop-loss and aggregate liability reinsurance coverage. When estimating the insurance liabilities and related reserves, the captive insurance management considers a number of factors, which include historical claims experience, demographic factors, severity factors and valuations provided by independent third-party actuaries. If actual claims or adverse development of loss reserves occurs and exceed these estimates, additional reserves may be required. The estimation process contains uncertainty since captiveinsurance management must use judgment to estimate the ultimate cost that will be incurred to settle reported claims and unreported claims for incidents incurred but not reported as of the balance sheet date. The Company is a defendant in various other legal actions arising from the normal conduct of business. Management believes that none of the actions will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Based on management’s assessment and legal counsel’s representations concerning the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, no amounts have been accrued for the above claims in the consolidated financial statements. The Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings outside the ordinary course of business or to any other legal proceedings, which, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

11) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2020

11) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies

Reinsurance

The Company follows the procedure of reinsuring risks in excess of a specified limit, which ranges from $25,000 to $100,000. The Company is liable for these amounts in the event such reinsurers are unable to pay their portion of the claims. The Company has also assumed insurance from other companies.

Mortgage Loan Loss Settlements

Future loan losses can beextremely difficult to estimate.However, management believes that the Company’s reserve methodologyand its current practice of property preservation allow it to estimate its potential losses on loans sold.The estimated liability for indemnification losses is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses and, as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the balances were $3,009,000and $4,046,000, respectively.

During the third quarter 2020, the loan loss reserve decreased significantly primarily due to a $3,000,000 settlement that was paid to an investor for loans originated between 2004 and 2007. No additional loss reserves are being held for loans originated between 2004 and 2007.

Thus, the Company believes that the final loan loss reserve as of September 30, 2020, represents its best estimate for adequate loss reserves on loans sold.

Mortgage Loan Loss Litigation

Lehman Brothers Holdings Litigation – Delaware and New York

In January 2014, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman Holdings”) entered into a settlement with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) concerning the mortgage loan claims that Fannie Mae had asserted against Lehman Holdings, which were based on alleged breaches of certain representations and warranties by Lehman Holdings in the mortgage loans it had sold to Fannie Mae. Lehman Holdings had acquired these loans from Aurora Bank, FSB, formerly known as Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, which in turn purchased the loans from residential mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage Company (“SecurityNational Mortgage”). A settlement based on similar circumstances was entered into between Lehman Holdings and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) in February 2014.

Lehman Holdings filed a motion in May 2014 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York to require the mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage, to engage in non-binding mediations of the alleged indemnification claims against the mortgage loan originators relative to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac settlements with Lehman Holdings. The mediation was not successful in resolving any issues between SecurityNational Mortgage and Lehman Holdings.

On January 26, 2016, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a declaratory judgment action against Lehman Holdings in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware. In the Delaware action, SecurityNational Mortgage asserted its right to obtain a declaration of rights in that there are allegedly millions of dollars in dispute with Lehman Holdings pertaining to approximately 136 mortgage loans. SecurityNational Mortgage sought a declaratory judgment as to its rights as it contends that it has no liability to Lehman Holdings as a result of Lehman Holdings’ settlements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lehman Holdings filed a motion in the Delaware court seeking to stay or dismiss the declaratory judgment action. On August 24, 2016, the Court ruled that it would exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction over the action and granted Lehman Holdings’ motion to dismiss.

On February 3, 2016, Lehman Holdings filed an adversary proceeding against approximately 150 mortgage loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration of rights similar in nature to the declaration that SecurityNational Mortgage sought in its Delaware lawsuit, and for damages relating to the alleged obligations of the defendants under indemnification provisions of the alleged agreements, in amounts to be determined at trial, including interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Lehman Holdings in enforcing the obligations of the defendants. No response was required to be filed relative to the Complaint or the Amended Complaint dated March 7, 2016. A Case Management Order was entered on November 1, 2016.

On December 27, 2016, pursuant to the Case Management Order, Lehman Holdings filed a Second Amended Complaint against SecurityNational Mortgage, which eliminates the declaratory judgment claim but retains a similar claim for damages as in the Complaint. Many of the defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, filed a joint motion in the case asserting that the Bankruptcy Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction concerning the matter and that venue is improper. Lehman Holdings’ response memorandum was filed on May 31, 2017 and a reply memorandum of the defendants filing the motion was filed on July 14, 2017. A hearing on the motion was heldon June 12, 2018.

On August 13, 2018, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order (“Decision”) denying the motion. On August 27, 2018, a number of the defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, filed a joint motion with the United States District Court (Case No. 18-mc-00392(VEC)) requesting that the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision be treated as findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for the District Court to review the Decision de novo as to jurisdiction. Included with the motion were proposed objections to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision. On September 18, 2018, Lehman Holdings filed its response to the joint motion, and defendants’ reply was filed on October 2, 2018.

On September 17, 2018, certain defendants, including SecurityNational Mortgage, also filed a notice of appeal, and thereafter a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal as to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision pertaining to jurisdiction and improper venue as a “protective” appeal should the District Court decide not to treat the Decision as findings of fact and conclusions of law. Separately, certain other defendants also filed a notice of appeal and motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal with respect to the Bankruptcy Court’s Decision concerning improper venue. Lehman Holdings filed its response on October 22, 2018, and defendants filed a joint reply to Lehman Holdings’ response on November 26, 2018. The motions to file appeals were consolidated before Valerie Caproni, U.S. District Court Judge, Case No. 18-cv-08986 (VEC). Case No. 18-mc-00392 (VEC) was also before Judge Caproni.

On May 8, 2019, Judge Caproni issued her Opinion and Order denying the motion for an interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court’s ruling relative to jurisdiction and venue. Further, the judge denied the motion for immediate de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s ruling indicating that de novo review can be left for the future.

On October 1, 2018, Lehman Holdings filed a motion for leave to fileThird Amended Complaints against numerous defendants including SecurityNational Mortgage. In addition to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac related loans, the amendments and supplements include additional mortgage loans sold to Lehman Holdings that were packaged for securitization (“RMBS loans”). The RMBS loans had allegedly been sold by defendants to Lehman Bank that, in turn, sold them to Lehman Holdings. The allegations pertaining to the RMBS loans include, e.g., purported breaches of representations and warranties made to the securitization trusts by Lehman Holdings. Lehman Holdings asserts that it made representations and warranties purportedly based in part by representations and warranties made to Lehman Bank by loan originators, including SecurityNational Mortgage.

The alleged RMBS loans in dispute with SecurityNational Mortgage allegedly involve millions of dollars pertaining to approximately 577 mortgage loans in addition to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac related loans. Lehman Holdings also moved the Court to simultaneously allow alternative dispute resolution procedures to take place including potential mediation. Over objections, at a hearing on October 29, 2018, the Court granted Lehman Holdings’ motion to amend or supplement its complaints adding the RMBS loans, and also to mandate alternative dispute resolution procedures affecting many defendants including SecurityNational Mortgage.

Instead of filing a Third Amended Complaint to include the RMBS loans referenced above, Lehman Holdings filed the matter against SecurityNational Mortgage as a new complaint ("RMBS Complaint") (United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, Adversary Proceeding 18-01819) pertaining to the approximately 577 RMBS loans, in addition to theSecond Amended Complaint already on file. The RMBS Complaint seeks alleged damages relating to obligations under alleged contractual indemnification provisions in an amount to be determined at trial, interest, costsand expenses incurred by LBHI in enforcing alleged obligations, including attorneys' fees and costs and any expert witness fees incurred in litigation; and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

In response to a Court order, certain defendants referenced in the Second Amended Complaint and the RMBS Complaints negotiated with Lehman Holdings concerning an amended case management order pertaining to certain case procedures and management for both lawsuits including, but not limited to, timing for filing motions and answering the complaints, and provisions concerning discovery such as a document production,taking depositions, and use of experts. At a hearing held on March 7, 2019, the Court considered differences of the parties as to the content of an amended case management order, and thereafter signed an amended case management order dated March 13, 2019.SecurityNational Mortgage filed an answer and amended answer in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac case, and in the RMBS case. Discovery is in process.

Lehman Holdings sent an Indemnification Alternative Dispute Resolution Notice to SecurityNational Mortgage dated August 1, 2019. SecurityNational Mortgage sent its Statement of Position to Lehman Brothers Holdings dated September 3, 2019 in response to the notice. Thereafter, Lehman Holdings sent its Reply dated October 2, 2019 to SecurityNational Mortgage. On January 9, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage submitted further information to the mediator. Mediation was set to take place on January 23, 2020 in New York. In view of a motion of SecurityNational Mortgage dated January 15, 2020, Lehman Holdings requested that the mediation be continued.

On January 15, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a motion to dismiss Lehman Holdings’ RMBS action in the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing. It was not filed in the Bankruptcy Court but in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for general pretrial, which “includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement,” as well as for “a Report and Recommendation” as to the pending motion. The final disposition of the motion will be with the District Court judge. Lehman Holdings asked the District Court to transfer the case to one of two other judges allegedly due to related matters. No action has been taken by the District Court to transfer the case.

However, Lehman Holdings filed its response brief to the motion and SecurityNational Mortgage filed its reply. On July 10, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed a report and recommendation with the District Court judge recommending that SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion to dismiss be denied on the procedural basis that the motion should not be in the District Court, but the Bankruptcy Court. SecurityNational Mortgage filed an objection to the report and recommendation to which Lehman Holdings responded. The District Court entered an order on August 10, 2020 adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion be denied on the procedural basis that the matter should not be in the District Court at present, and that the Bankruptcy Court may recommend on an interlocutory basis whether there is subject matter jurisdiction and standing, and that later in the proceedings the District Court could then review the recommendation as to subject matter jurisdiction and standing.

On September 15, 2020, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court be ordered to presently resolve SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion as its motion is filed in the proper court. No action has yet to be taken by the Second Circuit.

Earlier, on March 17, 2020, Lehman Holdings filed a motion for partial summary judgment against dozens of defendants asserting that sufficient notice was given defendants concerning the settlement of the RMBS claims so that Lehman Holdings, as an indemnitee, would not have to prove that it (Lehman Holdings) had liability to the RMBS Trustees, but only that its settlement was reasonable and in good faith. Defendants involved filed a response brief that for various reasons Lehman Holdings cannot establish sufficient notice as required by law. Certain defendants, excluding SecurityNational Mortgage, also filed a cross motion to seek an affirmative ruling on the issue of Lehman Holdings’ motion.

Thereafter, Lehman Holdings filed a reply brief in support of its motion, and also a response brief to certain defendants’ cross motion. Defendants that filed a cross motion filed a reply brief in support of the cross motion.The motions are now under advisement with the Bankruptcy Court. Even if Lehman Holdings were to prevail on its motion, it does not absolve Lehman Holdings of its burden to prove indemnity liability to the defendants. SecurityNational Mortgage denies any liability to Lehman Holdings and intends to vigorously protect and defend its position.

Debt Covenants for Mortgage Warehouse Lines of Credit

The Company, through its subsidiary SecurityNational Mortgage, has a $150,000,000 line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank N.A. The agreement charges interest at the 1-Month LIBOR rate plus 2.1% and matures on June 24, 2021. SecurityNational Mortgage is required to comply with covenants for adjusted tangible net worth, unrestricted cash balance, the ratio of indebtedness to adjusted tangible net worth, andthe liquidity overhead coverage ratio, and a quarterly gross profit of at least $1.00.

The Company, through its subsidiary SecurityNational Mortgage, also uses a line of credit with Texas Capital Bank N.A. This agreement with the bank allows SecurityNational Mortgage to borrow up to $175,000,000 for the sole purpose of funding mortgage loans. The agreement charges interest at the 1-Month LIBOR rate plus 3% and matures on November 15, 2021. The Company is required to comply with covenants for adjusted tangible net worth, unrestricted cash balance, and minimum combined pre-tax income (excluding any changes in the fair value of mortgage servicing rights) of at least $1.00 on a rolling four-quarter basis.

The Company through its subsidiary SecurityNational Mortgage, also uses a line of credit with Comerica Bank. This agreement with the bank allows SecurityNational Mortgage to borrow up to $90,000,000 for the sole purpose of funding mortgage loans. The agreement charges interest at the 1-Month LIBOR rate plus 2.5% and matures on May 27, 2021. The Company is required to comply with covenants for adjusted tangible net worth, unrestricted cash balance, and minimum combined pre-tax income (excluding any changes in the fair value of mortgage servicing rights) of at least $1.00 on a rolling twelve months.

The Company, through its subsidiary EverLEND Mortgage, also uses a line of credit with Texas Capital Bank N.A. This agreement with the bank allows EverLEND Mortgage to borrow up to $5,000,000 for the sole purpose of funding mortgage loans. The agreement charges interest at the 1-Month LIBOR rate plus 2.5% and matures on August 1, 2021. The Company is required to comply with covenants for adjusted tangible net worth, unrestricted cash balance, and minimum combined pre-tax income (excluding any changes in the fair value of mortgage servicing rights) of at least $1.00 on a rolling four-quarter basis.

The agreements for warehouse lines include cross default provisions in that a covenant violation under one agreement constitutes a covenant violation under the other agreement. As of September 30, 2020, the Company believes that it was in compliance with all debt covenants.

Other Contingencies and Commitments

The Company has entered into commitments to fund construction and land development loans and has also provided financing for land acquisition and development. As of September 30, 2020, the Company’s commitments wereapproximately$187,305,000 for these loans, of which $124,409,000had been funded. The Company will advancefunds once the work has been completed and an independent inspection is made. The maximum loan commitment ranges between 50% and 80% of appraised value. The Company receives fees and interest for these loans andthe interest rate is generally fixed 5.50% to 8.00% per annum. Maturities range between six and eighteen months.

The Company belongs to a captive insurance group for certain casualty insurance, worker compensation and liability programs. Insurance reserves are maintained relative to these programs. The level of exposure from catastrophic events is limited by the purchase of stop-loss and aggregate liability reinsurance coverage. When estimating the insurance liabilities and related reserves, the captive insurance management considers a number of factors, which include historical claims experience, demographic factors, severity factors and valuations provided by independent third-party actuaries. If actual claims or adverse development of loss reserves occurs and exceed these estimates, additional reserves may be required. The estimation process contains uncertainty since captiveinsurance management must use judgment to estimate the ultimate cost that will be incurred to settle reported claims and unreported claims for incidents incurred but not reported as of the balance sheet date.

The Company is a defendant in various other legal actions arising from the normal conduct of business. Management believes that none of the actions will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Based on management’s assessment and legal counsel’s representations concerning the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, no amounts have been accrued for the above claims in the consolidated financial statements.

The Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings outside the ordinary course of business or to any other legal proceedings, which, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.