The pandemic inspired millions of workers to make a break for it and leave their offices and jobs behind -- many to start their own businesses or try part-time work.

But COVID-19 also led the two largest suppliers of money for home loans to tighten their underwriting standards, making it more difficult for so-called "gig workers" to qualify for financing.

Now, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the government-sponsored enterprises that purchase loans from primary lenders and bundle them into securities for sale to investors -- have lifted some of their more onerous requirements. As a result, funding should be more plentiful.

Indeed, California mortgage broker Jeff Lazerson believes that once the word is out, a flood of people who employ themselves or work part-time jobs will soon enter the homebuying scrum.

Gig workers are defined as independent contractors, on-call workers and temporary workers. Typically, they enter into formal agreements with on-demand companies to provide services to the company's clients. Musicians are gig workers, as are Lyft drivers, some tax preparers -- even syndicated housing columnists.

Prior to the pandemic, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated there would be 10.3 million of these workers by 2026. But since COVID struck, it's likely that figure will have risen much higher. Pew Research recently put the number at 16 million.

During the pandemic, lenders were required to obtain a year-to-date profit-and-loss statement reporting revenue, expenses and net income from self-employed borrowers if they wanted to sell their loans to Fannie and Freddie, as most do. Borrowers also had to present their most recent bank statements.

That didn't work for those gig workers who were paid cash, did not use banks or had no accountant to prepare the required documents. But now, those rules are gone and some lenders, perhaps sensing a grand opportunity to boost market share, are targeting gig workers directly.

Perhaps the most prominent lender in the country, Detroit-based Rocket Mortgage, is one of those. It advises self-employed borrowers to keep a careful eye on their all-important debt-to-income ratios. It also wants them to keep their credit in check and keep business expenses separate from personal expenses.

Another top lender, United Wholesale Mortgage, is offering bank statement loans for the self-employed. The Pontiac, Michigan-based wholesale lender does not originate loans directly; rather, it funds loans written by local mortgage brokers.

UWM recently told its lender-clients that it will allow "qualified borrowers" to provide their personal or business bank statements, as opposed to their tax returns, to qualify for a loan up to $3 million. The company's bank statement loans also allow down payments as low as 10%, and there is no need for mortgage insurance, a significant add-on many lenders charge when the down payment is less than 20%.

Smaller lenders that offer specialty mortgages are also reaching out to the self-employed. A typical one, Sprout Mortgage of Port Saint Lucie, Florida, makes a direct appeal, touting loans based on bank statements rather than W-2s or tax returns.

"We understand you love your freedom, you appreciate flexibility and you're ready to purchase a home, but you don't have all the documentation a typical mortgage requires," the company says on its website.

Meanwhile, in an indication this lending niche is growing, technology is catching up. For example, Freddie Mac has launched a new feature that analyzes direct deposit data to help underwriters make better decisions. According to Freddie, 97% of all workers, both full- and part-time, now use direct deposits.

At the same time, LoanLogics, a Jacksonville, Florida, technology firm, is supporting Freddie's initiative to expand "rep and warranty" relief eligibility. It does so by providing IRS data to be used to check the accuracy and integrity of the tax return data used to calculate borrower qualifying income. The insurance-like program protects lenders from data errors that can result in the miscalculation of income, which in turn could force lenders to buy back loans.

One of the big problems with gig workers is accounting for their sometimes-spotty, sometimes-seasonal and otherwise irregular incomes and debts. But LoanLogics' product will assist underwriters in calculating self-employment and nontraditional income from any source, the company says.

Fannie Mae is also expanding its verification process, albeit manually. When the required data is not instantly available digitally, underwriters now will be able to keep the process moving by turning to credit reporting agency Equifax for verification requirements.

Of course, not all gig workers drive part-time for DoorDash or sleep in their parents' basements. "Gig economy workers generally have full-time employment, are college educated, use the gig economy to supplement their income and make about $50,000 or more per year in total," a Fannie report says.

Still, there is a downside to lending to those who work in the gig economy. Jobs can end quickly and unexpectedly. Freelancers, for example, are usually let go before staffers. There's some uncertainty about how and when gig workers will be paid, and important benefits like health insurance and bonuses are all but nonexistent.

All in all, though, more gig workers will be able to enjoy the perks of self-employment without worrying that its quirks will prevent them from becoming homeowners.

-- Freelance writer Mark Fogarty contributed to this column.

Ask most agents what they charge to sell a house, and you'll get the standard response: that their fees are negotiable. Ask any agent what they charge to help you find and buy a house, and they'll say the fee is set by the seller's agent and comes out of that agent's commission.

Only the latter statement is true: The agents that buyers use to visit houses and write up a contract are paid their share of the sales commission by the seller's agent. They are paid whatever the seller's agent offers -- usually half of whatever the seller's agent charges.

As far as the listing agent goes, commissions are negotiable -- at least in theory. In practice, though, they hardly ever are, according to a hard-hitting report from the Consumer Federation of America.

In its analysis of 17,800 home sales in 35 cities throughout the country, the CFA found that in 10 cities, at least 87% of sales had identical commission rates. And in 18 others, 70% had the same rate.

In a competitive marketplace, that wouldn't be the case. Rather, the report says, commissions would "vary considerably" because agents have different skill sets and experience levels. They might have to work harder to sell some properties than others, and would likely charge accordingly.

In that perfect world, "it would be very unusual for more than half of all service providers to be charging the same rate for their services," reads the report.

Says CFA Senior Fellow Stephen Brobeck, the report's author, "this rate uniformity is striking evidence of the lack of price competition."

Of course, the industry as a whole does not engage in price setting; that would be patently illegal. Instead, rates are set by individual brokerage firms, Brobeck says. If an agent wants to charge less, they have to seek individual approval from their broker/boss. And if they are given the OK, they usually have to absorb the entire difference.

"Prices are not set in smoked-filled rooms," Brobeck says, hearkening to bygone days of the industry, "... but the effect on consumers is still the same. When an agent tries to deviate from the norm, he runs into difficulty."

Brobeck says sellers' agents also run into trouble if they try to cut into a buyer's agent's fee, because some agents tend not to show houses on which they make less money. Even if the buyer's agent's fee is raised to draw interest, showings diminish because an agent doesn't want to be seen as only taking buyers to places where he or she will make more money.

The way out of this conundrum is to "uncouple" the buyer-side portion of the commission from the seller-side, the CFA report advocates. Previous reports have argued similarly: that allowing each side to pay their own agents will improve the bargaining position of both.

As a rule, listing agents -- technically, the brokers under whose names they hang their licenses -- decide how much the buyer's agent receives. Splits are all over the ballpark, depending on whatever deal the agent and broker can strike. But usually, the broker takes half the fee the listing agent earns, and the buyer's agent splits the remaining half with their own broker.

Because the listing agent sets the other agent's fee, it effectively denies buyers the ability to bargain with their own agents. So says the CFA report -- and so do several lawsuits, including one in Missouri that has been certified as a class action. The Department of Justice is also investigating the situation.

Most multiple listing services require that all brokers specify what cut the buyer-side agent will receive. And that, says the report, is the "linchpin" of a system with uniform commissions. All agents can see the buyer-side fee offered on all listings, which tends to "reinforce the legitimacy" of standard rates, as well as discipline agents who are tempted to deviate from the norm.

"Uncoupling" commissions is not likely to happen anytime soon. The powerful 1.4-million member National Association of Realtors maintains if it happened, buyers would have to pay more at closing. That's true; the buyer would have to pay their agent's fee at settlement.

But the CFA does not find that argument very persuasive. Since commissions tend to be added to homes' asking prices, Brobeck believes the final sales price would be that much lower if there was no buyer-side fee. It may also be possible to add the charge to the buyer's loan amount.

Until an uncoupling day arrives, if it ever does, buyers can ask their agents to rebate a portion of their share of the commission. While a large majority of agents don't offer rebates, some do.

In March, the CFA asked 1,040 buyers if they had sought such a rebate. Sixteen percent did, but only 7% actually received one. Of those who bought in the past five years, 29% asked, but only 6% received. Moreover, nine states -- Alabama, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon and Tennessee -- have seen fit to outlaw these rebates.

Still, you can ask, and should. You never know. If enough buyers request rebates, says Brobeck, maybe the industry will sit up and take notice.

Deborah Foss is a 67-year-old grandmother in New Bedford, Massachusetts, who survives on a small fixed income from Social Security. She has several medical conditions, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, COPD and neuropathy.

She used to be a homeowner, but now resides in her car.

She no longer has a roof over her head -- largely because an investor in tax liens took the equity she had in her home. But with the help of a nonprofit legal group, she is fighting back.

Foss has filed suit against Massachusetts, challenging a law that allows private investors to confiscate all the equity owners have in their homes -- above and beyond what they owe in back taxes and interest on the unpaid balance.

Pacific Legal Foundation is the nonprofit representing Foss, as well as homeowners in other states who have suffered the same fate. Between 2014 and 2020, according to PLF, Massachusetts has allowed the taking of some $37 million more than what owners owed in property taxes. In Foss' case, she was delinquent on roughly $30,000 in back taxes, yet the private investor who purchased her tax lien foreclosed, taking a house that was valued at $241,600.

That's what makes investing in tax liens so profitable. Though PLF does not have an exact count, "it's fairly safe to say" investors have raked in "hundreds of millions" nationally, senior attorney Christina Martin told me. She called the practice "despicable."

While it's entirely legal to collect on tax liens, PLF argues that collecting more than what's owed amounts to "equity theft." Says Martin: "We believe it's not only unconstitutional, but excessive punishment." And the Sacramento-based legal group is having none of it.

PLF, which defends people from government overreach, says 11 states -- Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Oregon -- allow this sort of thing, which can affect commercial and residential property owners alike. A handful of other states have loopholes that allow the practice.

But a few states have seen the folly of legalized tax lien thievery and changed their rules. Last month, Wisconsin modified its law to ensure that property taxes are paid, while providing that former homeowners receive whatever is left over from the sale of their property. North Dakota and Montana have done the same.

In Michigan, meanwhile, the state's supreme court found the old lien law violated the state's constitution, ruling that people have a right to any surplus equity in their homes after back taxes are settled. In the case that spurred that ruling, Oakland County sold Uri Rafaeli's house at auction for $24,500 because he underpaid his property tax by $8.41. The county took all of the proceeds.

Nevertheless, PLF is now working with eight homeowners in their suit against the same county Michigan's high court ruled against. They are seeking to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity lost when the county treasurer took their homes as payment for tax debts totaling only a fraction of their value.

According to PLF, the city of Southfield, Michigan (where Rafaeli lived), took advantage of a loophole in the state law that lets cities buy foreclosed homes from the county for the cost of the tax debt -- while not paying former owners the difference. While this scheme is a boon to some well-connected businesses in the area, it perpetuates the predatory seizure of home equity, says attorney Martin.

"When the government takes private property, it must pay just compensation, no matter how it acquires the property," she says. "The government has compensated homeowners with forgiveness of debts worth only a fraction of the homes that the government took. That is unconstitutional and unjust."

In New Jersey, the group is aiding an East Orange property owner who is challenging a state tax scheme that allowed the city to take her commercial property because she paid her taxes late. The property was worth about $80,000 more than she owed.

Lynette Johnson purchased the property in 2014 but claims she never received her tax bill for that year. Unbeknownst to her, the city purchased a lien on her property, foreclosed and sold the property to private investors for $101,000 in 2018. The city kept every penny from the sale, leaving Johnson with nothing.

"Although the government can take property to settle back taxes, it isn't entitled to anything more than it's owed," says David Deerson, the PLF attorney representing Johnson. "When the government takes more than someone owes, it's stealing, and it's wrong."

Even in places where owners are allowed to keep what's left over, state and local jurisdictions can sell tax liens to investors, usually for pennies on the dollar. Not only can those investors force the sale of the property, they can often charge whatever interest rate they want until the lien is finally satisfied.

Still, the news isn't all bad, says Martin, citing Florida as an example. The Sunshine State requires investors to compete on the interest rates they charge. The winning bidder is the one offering the lowest rate, meaning delinquent owners will owe less interest. Investors can still foreclose to satisfy liens in the state, but what's left over must be returned to the former owner.

There are several lessons here, with No. 1 being, "Pay your taxes." States aren't the only entities that can take your house in lieu of payment: Private investors can, too. So can Uncle Sam, if you don't pay your income taxes.