COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	20. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Matters On March 1, 2023, Sandstrom Partners, Inc. filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah alleging the Company failed to pay for its services pursuant to an agreement entered into on October 16, 2019. The complaint sought damages of $245,000, plus a judicial declaration, due to Eastside’s failure to pay for the services. Eastside believes that it paid for services rendered. On October 28, 2024, Eastside signed a term sheet to settle the case for $0.1 million paid in 2024 and $0.1 million in stock to be paid of 13,115 shares of common stock that was subsequently issued in February 2025. These settlement expenses are included in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31, 2024. On December 15, 2020, Grover Wickersham filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Eastside. Mr. Wickersham, the former CEO and Chairman of the Board of Eastside, has asserted causes of action for fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, interference with economic advantage, elder financial abuse, and dissemination of false and misleading proxy materials. During June 2024, this case was settled for $0.3 million that was subsequently paid in September 2024. Beeline Holdings, Inc. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2024 and 2023 The Company is not currently subject to any other material legal proceedings; however, it could be subject to legal proceedings and claims from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, or legal proceedings it considered immaterial may in the future become material. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can, among other things, be time consuming and expensive to resolve, and can divert management resources. Government Regulations Affecting Mortgage Loan Origination Beeline operates in a heavily regulated industry that is highly focused on consumer protection. The extensive regulatory framework to which Beeline is subject includes U.S. federal and state laws and regulations. Governmental authorities and various U.S. federal and state agencies have broad oversight and supervisory authority over all aspects of Beeline’s business. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) was established to ensure, among other things, that consumers receive clear and accurate disclosures regarding financial products and to protect consumers from hidden fees and unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB’s jurisdiction includes those persons producing or brokering residential mortgage loans. It also extends to Beeline’s other lines of business title insurance. The CFPB has broad supervisory and enforcement powers with regard to non-depository institutions, such as Beeline, that engage in the production and servicing of home loans. As part of its enforcement authority, the CFPB can order, among other things, rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of moneys or the return of real property, restitution, disgorgement or compensation for unjust enrichment, the payment of damages or other monetary relief, public notifications regarding violations, remediation of practices, external compliance monitoring and civil money penalties. The CFPB has been active in investigations and enforcement actions and has issued large civil money penalties since its inception to parties the CFPB determines have violated the laws and regulations it enforces. Effective October 1, 2022, the CFPB revised the definition of a qualified mortgage (“QM”) which permits mortgage lenders to gain a presumption of compliance with the CFPB’s ability to repay requirements if a loan meets certain underwriting criteria. Lenders are now required to comply with a new QM definition in order to receive a safe-harbor or rebuttable presumption of compliance under the ability-to-repay requirements of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and its implementing Regulation Z. The revision to the QM definition created additional compliance burdens and removed some of the legal certainties afforded to lenders under the prior QM definition. Specifically, the revised QM rule eliminated the previous requirement limiting QMs to a 43% debt-to-income ratio (“DTI”) and replaced it with pricing-based thresholds. Loans at 150 basis points or less over the average prime offer rate (“APOR”) as of the date the interest rate is set, receive a safe harbor presumption of compliance, while loans between 151 and 225 basis points over the APOR benefit from a rebuttable presumption of compliance. The new rule also created new requirements for a lender to “consider” and “verify” a borrower’s income and debts and associated DTI, along with several other underwriting requirements. Additionally, the new QM definition eliminated a path to regulatory compliance that was available for originating loans that were eligible to be sold to GSEs, which was heavily relied upon by a large segment of the mortgage industry. Due to the transition to the new QM definition, there may be residual compliance and legal risks associated with the implementation of these new underwriting obligations. The CFPB’s loan originator compensation rule prohibits compensating loan originators based on a term of a transaction, prohibits loan originators from receiving compensation directly from a consumer or another person in connection with the same transaction, imposes certain loan originator qualification and identification requirements, and imposes certain loan originator compensation recordkeeping requirements, among other things. Beeline is also supervised by regulatory agencies under state law. From time-to-time, Beeline receives examination requests from the states in which Beeline is licensed. State attorneys general, state mortgage licensing regulators, state insurance departments, and state and local consumer protection offices have authority to investigate consumer complaints and to commence investigations and other formal and informal proceedings regarding Beeline’s operations and activities. In addition, the government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, the Federal Housing Authority (the “FHA”), the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), and others subject Beeline to periodic reviews and audits. This broad and extensive supervisory and enforcement oversight will continue to occur in the future. Beeline Holdings, Inc. Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements December 31, 2024 and 2023 Beeline maintains dedicated staff on the legal and compliance team to ensure timely responses to regulatory examination requests and to investigate consumer complaints in accordance with regulatory regulations and expectations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

20. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

On March 1, 2023, Sandstrom Partners, Inc. filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah alleging the Company failed to pay for its services pursuant to an agreement entered into on October 16, 2019. The complaint sought damages of $245,000, plus a judicial declaration, due to Eastside’s failure to pay for the services. Eastside believes that it paid for services rendered. On October 28, 2024, Eastside signed a term sheet to settle the case for $0.1 million paid in 2024 and $0.1 million in stock to be paid of 13,115 shares of common stock that was subsequently issued in February 2025. These settlement expenses are included in general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31, 2024.

On December 15, 2020, Grover Wickersham filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Eastside. Mr. Wickersham, the former CEO and Chairman of the Board of Eastside, has asserted causes of action for fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, interference with economic advantage, elder financial abuse, and dissemination of false and misleading proxy materials. During June 2024, this case was settled for $0.3 million that was subsequently paid in September 2024.

Beeline Holdings, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2024 and 2023

The Company is not currently subject to any other material legal proceedings; however, it could be subject to legal proceedings and claims from time to time in the ordinary course of its business, or legal proceedings it considered immaterial may in the future become material. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can, among other things, be time consuming and expensive to resolve, and can divert management resources.

Government Regulations Affecting Mortgage Loan Origination

Beeline operates in a heavily regulated industry that is highly focused on consumer protection. The extensive regulatory framework to which Beeline is subject includes U.S. federal and state laws and regulations.

Governmental authorities and various U.S. federal and state agencies have broad oversight and supervisory authority over all aspects of Beeline’s business.

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) was established to ensure, among other things, that consumers receive clear and accurate disclosures regarding financial products and to protect consumers from hidden fees and unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices. The CFPB’s jurisdiction includes those persons producing or brokering residential mortgage loans. It also extends to Beeline’s other lines of business title insurance. The CFPB has broad supervisory and enforcement powers with regard to non-depository institutions, such as Beeline, that engage in the production and servicing of home loans.

As part of its enforcement authority, the CFPB can order, among other things, rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of moneys or the return of real property, restitution, disgorgement or compensation for unjust enrichment, the payment of damages or other monetary relief, public notifications regarding violations, remediation of practices, external compliance monitoring and civil money penalties. The CFPB has been active in investigations and enforcement actions and has issued large civil money penalties since its inception to parties the CFPB determines have violated the laws and regulations it enforces.

Effective October 1, 2022, the CFPB revised the definition of a qualified mortgage (“QM”) which permits mortgage lenders to gain a presumption of compliance with the CFPB’s ability to repay requirements if a loan meets certain underwriting criteria. Lenders are now required to comply with a new QM definition in order to receive a safe-harbor or rebuttable presumption of compliance under the ability-to-repay requirements of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and its implementing Regulation Z. The revision to the QM definition created additional compliance burdens and removed some of the legal certainties afforded to lenders under the prior QM definition. Specifically, the revised QM rule eliminated the previous requirement limiting QMs to a 43% debt-to-income ratio (“DTI”) and replaced it with pricing-based thresholds. Loans at 150 basis points or less over the average prime offer rate (“APOR”) as of the date the interest rate is set, receive a safe harbor presumption of compliance, while loans between 151 and 225 basis points over the APOR benefit from a rebuttable presumption of compliance. The new rule also created new requirements for a lender to “consider” and “verify” a borrower’s income and debts and associated DTI, along with several other underwriting requirements. Additionally, the new QM definition eliminated a path to regulatory compliance that was available for originating loans that were eligible to be sold to GSEs, which was heavily relied upon by a large segment of the mortgage industry. Due to the transition to the new QM definition, there may be residual compliance and legal risks associated with the implementation of these new underwriting obligations.

The CFPB’s loan originator compensation rule prohibits compensating loan originators based on a term of a transaction, prohibits loan originators from receiving compensation directly from a consumer or another person in connection with the same transaction, imposes certain loan originator qualification and identification requirements, and imposes certain loan originator compensation recordkeeping requirements, among other things.

Beeline is also supervised by regulatory agencies under state law. From time-to-time, Beeline receives examination requests from the states in which Beeline is licensed. State attorneys general, state mortgage licensing regulators, state insurance departments, and state and local consumer protection offices have authority to investigate consumer complaints and to commence investigations and other formal and informal proceedings regarding Beeline’s operations and activities. In addition, the government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, the Federal Housing Authority (the “FHA”), the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), and others subject Beeline to periodic reviews and audits. This broad and extensive supervisory and enforcement oversight will continue to occur in the future.

Beeline Holdings, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

December 31, 2024 and 2023

Beeline maintains dedicated staff on the legal and compliance team to ensure timely responses to regulatory examination requests and to investigate consumer complaints in accordance with regulatory regulations and expectations.