Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Ferrell v. HUD
No. 98-2361 (7th Cir. July 26, 1999). ; Clearinghouse Number: 10056
Description
Low- and Moderate-Income Families Appeal Seventh Circuit Decision Allowing HUD to Suspend Mortgage Assignment Program
Abstract
Plaintiff-appellees challenge a Seventh Circuit holding that the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) no longer
retained authority to run a mortgage assignment program pursuant to
a 20-year-old consent decree. In 1976 HUD agreed to operate the
assignment program to help financially strapped families with
mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration. The
consent decree required HUD to accept the assignment of mortgages
held by families who fell behind in their monthly payments through
no fault of their own and who appeared likely to be able to make
monthly payments within three years. HUD paid the outstanding
principal balance and entered into forbearance agreements with the
homeowners. In 1996 Congress replaced the program with
loss-mitigation (foreclosure-avoidance) measures, offered at the
sole discretion of lenders. The district court ordered the
temporary reinstatement of the assignment program or an equivalent
while it decided whether HUD should reinstate the assignment
program. The Seventh Circuit reversed, agreeing with
defendant-appellant’s argument that the Balanced Budget
Downpayment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-99, eliminated the statutory
authority for the assignment program. In their appeal for rehearing
en banc, plaintiffs argue that the panel misapprehended (1) the
proper standard for ruling on the motion for preliminary
injunction; (2) the limited nature of appellate review of
preliminary injunctive relief; and (3) the impact of the 1998
amendment to section 230 of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C.
§ 1715u. They argue that the court should have remanded the
case for the district court to conduct a full hearing on the
merits.
Additional Information
Files
- Amended motion to hold defendants in civil contempt and for sanctions to effect compliance and afford compensatory relief
- Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of their renewed motion to require HUD to reinstate an assignment program
- Memorandum opinion and order
- Brief of Appellees
- Supplemental Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees
- Petition for rehearing with suggestions for rehearing en banc
- Petition for a writ of cert.
