{"id":3630,"date":"2026-03-27T23:52:19","date_gmt":"2026-03-27T23:52:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/?p=3630"},"modified":"2026-03-27T23:52:21","modified_gmt":"2026-03-27T23:52:21","slug":"powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Powell v. Ocwen: ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Powell v. Ocwen Financial Corp.: Implications for ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Underwriting in Mortgage-Backed Securities. My Analysis for Surety and Fidelity Bond Underwriters <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On March 26, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Powell v. Ocwen Financial Corp.<\/a>, No. 23-999, a case that materially reshapes the analytical framework governing ERISA fidelity bond plan assets in the context of structured finance. The decision partially reversed the Southern District of New York\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of mortgage servicers, holding that regular-interest certificates issued by real estate mortgage investment conduit trusts constitute beneficial interests\u2014and therefore equity interests\u2014under the Department of Labor\u2019s plan-asset regulation at 29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2510.3-101. For surety and fidelity bond underwriters, the ruling demands a careful reassessment of how structured investment vehicles are evaluated when pension plans and other ERISA-covered plans hold interests in securitized mortgage pools to be included as ERISA fidelity bond assets covered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Herein, I examine the Powell decision\u2019s factual background, its legal reasoning, and, more critically for practitioners in the surety field, its downstream consequences for ERISA fidelity bond plan assets underwriting. The analysis proceeds through the court\u2019s distinction between indenture-trust notes and REMIC trust certificates, distills the doctrinal principles that drive the plan-asset determination, and concludes with practical underwriting considerations that bond professionals should integrate into their risk-assessment processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Factual and Procedural Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs in Powell were six trustees of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union & Employers Midwest Pension Fund, an ERISA-regulated employee welfare benefit plan. The Plan invested in six classes of residential mortgage-backed securities issued by two distinct categories of trusts. Three Delaware statutory trusts\u2014AHM 2004-4, AHM 2005-3, and HLT 2006-HI1\u2014issued notes pursuant to indenture agreements. Three trusts organized under New York law and structured as REMICs\u2014CSFB 2003-27, MASTR 2003-5, and GSR 2005-7F\u2014issued regular-interest and residual-interest certificates.
The trustees alleged that Ocwen Financial Corporation and its affiliates, which serviced the underlying mortgage pools, breached their ERISA fiduciary duties through mismanagement, self-dealing, and prohibited transactions. They further alleged that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the master servicer for three of the trusts, breached co-fiduciary duties by failing to supervise Ocwen. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the underlying mortgages were not plan assets for purposes of ERISA because both the notes and the regular-interest certificates constituted indebtedness without substantial equity features. The trustees appealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


The Court\u2019s Analytical Framework: Notes Versus Certificates<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Indenture-Trust Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s holding with respect to the three indenture-trust notes. Under the DOL\u2019s plan-asset regulation, an investment triggers the look-through exception\u2014meaning the underlying assets of the entity become plan assets\u2014only if the investment constitutes an \u201cequity interest.\u201d The regulation defines an equity interest as any interest in an entity other than an instrument treated as indebtedness under applicable local law with no substantial equity features. The court found that the indenture notes bore the hallmarks of traditional debt: fixed interest rates, stated principal balances, legal final maturity dates, and an unconditional right to enforce payment. Noteholders held no residual interest in the trust estates. The court declined to treat thin capitalization, subordination to general creditors, or practical dependence on mortgage pool performance as substantial equity features, reasoning that these characteristics reflected ordinary credit risk rather than the performance-linked exposure that distinguishes equity from debt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The REMIC Trust Certificates<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court reached the opposite conclusion with respect to the regular-interest certificates issued by the three REMIC trusts. The Second Circuit focused on the second sentence of the equity-interest definition in 29 C.F.R. \u00a7 2510.3-101(b)(1), which provides that \u201ca beneficial interest in a trust\u201d is an equity interest. The court examined the governing trust agreements under New York law and found that the regular-interest certificates plainly represented beneficial interests: the trust agreements created the trusts \u201cfor the benefit of the Certificateholders,\u201d directed the trustee to collect mortgage payments and hold them in trust for the certificateholders, and identified holders of regular-interest certificates among the trusts\u2019 beneficiaries. Because the certificates constituted beneficial interests in the trusts, the court held that they qualified as equity interests under the regulation, thereby triggering the look-through exception. The underlying mortgages held by those three REMIC trusts were accordingly deemed plan assets for purposes of ERISA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court bolstered this interpretation by reference to the regulation\u2019s structural logic. Section 2510.3-101(i)(1) creates a specific exception from the look-through rule for guaranteed governmental mortgage pool certificates, which are certificates backed by mortgages with government-guaranteed interest and principal. The court reasoned that such an exception would be unnecessary unless certificates entitling holders to interest and principal payments backed by mortgage pools could otherwise qualify as equity interests\u2014confirming the court\u2019s reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications for ERISA Fidelity Bond Underwriting<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 412 of ERISA requires every fiduciary of an employee benefit plan and every person who handles funds or other property of such a plan to be bonded. The bond must protect the plan against loss by reason of acts of fraud or dishonesty on the part of the bonded person. The amount of the bond must be at least ten percent of the amount of funds handled, subject to statutory minimum and maximum thresholds. For underwriters who write ERISA fidelity bonds, the threshold question in sizing the bond obligation has always been the scope and value of what constitutes \u201cplan assets.\u201d Powell significantly expands the universe of assets that may fall within the ERISA fidelity bond plan assets calculus when a covered plan holds interests in securitized trusts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before Powell, many market participants and their advisors operated under the assumption that regular-interest RMBS certificates functioned economically like debt and therefore fell outside the look-through exception. The district court\u2019s decision reinforced that view. The Second Circuit\u2019s reversal disrupts this assumption for trusts organized under state law where governing documents designate certificateholders as trust beneficiaries\u2014a common structural feature in REMIC transactions. For the fidelity bond underwriter, the immediate consequence is that ERISA fidelity bond plan assets may now include not merely the face value of the certificates a plan holds, but also an undivided interest in every mortgage loan sitting in the underlying trust pool. This look-through treatment potentially multiplies the notional value of assets attributable to the plan, which in turn may increase the bond amount required under Section 412.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Underwriting Techniques and Risk-Assessment Adjustments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether and to what degree an underwriter should adjust pricing, terms, or capacity in response to Powell depends on several contextual factors. The decision does not announce a blanket rule that all mortgage-backed securities are plan assets. Rather, it draws a careful line between instruments structured as indenture notes\u2014which remain outside the look-through exception\u2014and trust certificates that confer beneficial interests under applicable state law. Underwriters should therefore adopt a document-driven approach rather than a product-label approach when evaluating ERISA fidelity bond plan assets exposure in a plan\u2019s investment portfolio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bond underwriter<\/a> should require disclosure of whether the plan\u2019s RMBS holdings take the form of notes issued under indenture agreements or certificates issued by pass-through trusts. Where the plan holds indenture notes, Powell provides comfort that the underlying loan pools will not be treated as plan assets, and the bond exposure calculation can be limited to the face value of the notes themselves. Where the plan holds trust certificates\u2014particularly those issued by REMICs or similar pass-through vehicles organized under New York or analogous state law\u2014the underwriter must investigate whether the governing documents confer beneficial-interest status on the plan\u2019s certificateholders. If they do, the underwriter should anticipate that regulators and litigants will invoke the look-through exception, potentially expanding the plan-asset base.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Underwriters should consider the servicer risk dimension introduced by the decision. Powell opens the door for plan trustees to assert fiduciary-duty claims against mortgage servicers under ERISA with respect to the REMIC trust mortgages. This means that the conduct of third-party servicers may now generate loss exposure that falls within the scope of an ERISA fidelity bond. Underwriters should evaluate the operational quality, regulatory history, and financial stability of the servicers managing pools in which the bonded plan holds beneficial certificate interests. This decision instructs attention to the specific state law governing each trust. The Second Circuit\u2019s analysis depended on New York trust law principles to determine whether the regular-interest certificates constituted beneficial interests. Trusts organized under other jurisdictions may define beneficiary status differently, which could affect whether the look-through exception applies. Underwriters evaluating complex structured-finance portfolios should consult with ERISA counsel to assess how different state-law regimes may influence the ERISA fidelity bond plan assets determination for each investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opinion\u2019s remand on the question of Ocwen\u2019s fiduciary status leaves open significant downstream uncertainty. If the district court determines on remand that a mortgage servicer qualifies as a fiduciary under ERISA, the bonding obligations under Section 412 could extend to the servicer itself, or at a minimum, the servicer\u2019s conduct could become a source of covered loss under the plan\u2019s fidelity bond. Underwriters should monitor the remand proceedings closely and adjust their risk models as the fiduciary-status question is resolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Powell v. Ocwen Financial Corp. represents the most consequential Second Circuit opinion in recent years on the scope of ERISA plan assets in structured finance. By holding that regular-interest REMIC trust certificates are beneficial interests, and therefore equity interests that trigger the DOL\u2019s look-through exception, the court has expanded the potential perimeter of ERISA fidelity bond plan assets for any covered plan investing in pass-through certificate structures. The decision does not require wholesale changes to underwriting practice, but it does demand that fidelity bond underwriters adopt a more granular, document-level analysis of structured-finance holdings. Distinguishing between indenture notes and trust certificates, evaluating governing-document language under applicable state trust law, and monitoring the resolution of open fiduciary-status questions will be essential disciplines for any underwriter writing bonds for plans exposed to mortgage-backed securities. The prudent underwriter will treat Powell not as a reason to withdraw capacity, but as a catalyst for more rigorous and informed risk selection in this evolving area of ERISA fidelity bond<\/a> plan assets jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

~\u00a0C. Constantin Poindexter, MA, JD, CPCU, AFSB, ASLI, ARe, AINS, AIS, CPLP<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Powell v. Ocwen Financial Corp.: Implications for ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Underwriting in Mortgage-Backed Securities. My Analysis for Surety and Fidelity Bond Underwriters On March 26, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its… Continue Reading →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3632,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[2785,250,5,6,2831,2832,1728,51,2716],"yoast_head":"\nPowell v. Ocwen: ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Analysis • Surety One, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Powell v. Ocwen Financial: Implications for ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets to Underwriting. My Analysis for ERISA Bond Underwriters\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Powell v. Ocwen: ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Analysis • Surety One, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Powell v. Ocwen Financial: Implications for ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets to Underwriting. My Analysis for ERISA Bond Underwriters\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Surety One, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Surety1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Surety1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-03-27T23:52:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-27T23:52:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/ERISA-Fidelitiy-Bond-Underwriting-1.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"667\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@SuretyOne\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@SuretyOne\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"C. Poindexter\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Surety One, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Our Blog\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/ERISA-Fidelitiy-Bond-Underwriting-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/ERISA-Fidelitiy-Bond-Underwriting-1.png\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":667,\"caption\":\"ERISA Fidelitiy Bond Underwriting post-Ocwen\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/\",\"name\":\"Powell v. Ocwen: ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Analysis • Surety One, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-27T23:52:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-27T23:52:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d34de27c146d5df3d1fb94d9b0c04605\"},\"description\":\"Powell v. Ocwen Financial: Implications for ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets to Underwriting. My Analysis for ERISA Bond Underwriters\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Powell v. Ocwen: ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Analysis\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d34de27c146d5df3d1fb94d9b0c04605\",\"name\":\"C. Poindexter\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.SuretyOne.com\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Surety1\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/SuretyOne\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Powell v. Ocwen: ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Analysis • Surety One, Inc.","description":"Powell v. Ocwen Financial: Implications for ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets to Underwriting. My Analysis for ERISA Bond Underwriters","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Powell v. Ocwen: ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Analysis • Surety One, Inc.","og_description":"Powell v. Ocwen Financial: Implications for ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets to Underwriting. My Analysis for ERISA Bond Underwriters","og_url":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/","og_site_name":"Surety One, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Surety1\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Surety1","article_published_time":"2026-03-27T23:52:19+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-27T23:52:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1000,"height":667,"url":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/ERISA-Fidelitiy-Bond-Underwriting-1.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary","twitter_creator":"@SuretyOne","twitter_site":"@SuretyOne","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"C. Poindexter","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/","name":"Surety One, Inc.","description":"Our Blog","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/ERISA-Fidelitiy-Bond-Underwriting-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/ERISA-Fidelitiy-Bond-Underwriting-1.png","width":1000,"height":667,"caption":"ERISA Fidelitiy Bond Underwriting post-Ocwen"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/","name":"Powell v. Ocwen: ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Analysis • Surety One, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2026-03-27T23:52:19+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-27T23:52:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d34de27c146d5df3d1fb94d9b0c04605"},"description":"Powell v. Ocwen Financial: Implications for ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets to Underwriting. My Analysis for ERISA Bond Underwriters","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/powell-v-ocwen-erisa-fidelity-bond-plan-assets-analysis\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Powell v. Ocwen: ERISA Fidelity Bond Plan Assets Analysis"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/d34de27c146d5df3d1fb94d9b0c04605","name":"C. Poindexter","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.SuretyOne.com","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Surety1","https:\/\/twitter.com\/SuretyOne"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3630"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3630"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3630\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3633,"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3630\/revisions\/3633"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3632"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suretyone.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}