On May 20, a massive EF5 tornado whipped through heavily populated Moore, Oklahoma, killing 24 and injuring nearly 400. That tragedy has now shifted into the drudgery of recovery. According to the state’s Insurance Department, claims from the tornado in Moore and a subsequent twister in the city of El Reno have topped 60,000. The damage is expected to reach $2 billion.

But residents of Moore may be shocked when they receive their insurance checks in the coming weeks. Like survivors of previous natural disasters, they will encounter a major obstacle to rebuilding their homes and putting the catastrophe behind them: their mortgage servicer. Turns out the same companies that ripped off homeowners during the foreclosure crisis are, after disasters like the Moore tornado, withholding repair money, often to force homeowners to use the proceeds to pay their mortgage.

The key issue concerns the standard practice for large homeowner’s insurance claims. As laid out in the fine print of mortgage and insurance contracts, the insurance company will make out the check jointly to the homeowner and the homeowner’s mortgage servicer. If the homeowner has a second mortgage on the home with a different servicer, the insurer writes a three-party check. This is intended to protect the lender if the house simply cannot be rebuilt, at which point the proceeds from the insurance claim can get used to pay off the loan. But in all other cases, it means that the homeowner must secure the endorsement of the check from the servicer(s) before they can get the money to pay for repairs.

Only the most fastidious of homeowners know this. The rest learn the hard way—like the residents of Bastrop, Texas. The most destructive wildfires in Texas history tore through the town in September 2011 and destroyed 1,691 homes. Most of these were total losses, and the insurance claims should have gone toward rebuilding. But a survey by the nonprofit consumer advocacy group United Policyholders found that over one-third of respondents were told by mortgage servicers that they would only release funds if the homeowner used them to pay off or pay down their mortgage, rather than make repairs. Though United Policyholders executive director Amy Bach hadn’t seen such a scenario in her 21 years of advocacy, “It made me think that the problem is more common than I realized,” she said. “It’s not like Bastrop is the only time lenders ever overreached.”

Standard mortgages typically say that insurance claims should be used to rebuild, as they are intended to return the home to an undamaged state. Federal regulators routinely put out guidelines asserting that servicers may not withhold policy claims to cover mortgage balances “without the written consent” of the homeowner. But that language offers ample wiggle room for servicers to try to obtain written consent, simply by refusing to release repair funds any other way. And homeowners often don’t know any better. “When a guy in a nice suit and tie tells you that you need to pay down your mortgage, you do it,” said Michael Figgins, executive director of Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma.