BENNETT et al v. DONOVAN Secretary, Housing and Urban Development | HUD violated 12 U.S.C § 1715z-20(j) when it insured the reverse mortgages of plaintiffs' spouses pursuant to agency regulation, which permitted their loan obligations to come due upon their death regardless of whether their spouses (plaintiffs) were still alive

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

BENNETT et al v. DONOVAN Secretary, HUD | HUD violated 12 U.S.C § 1715z-20(j) when it insured the reverse mortgages of plaintiffs’ spouses pursuant to agency regulation, which permitted their loan obligations to come due upon their death regardless of whether their spouses (plaintiffs) were still alive

BENNETT et al v. DONOVAN Secretary, HUD | HUD violated 12 U.S.C § 1715z-20(j) when it insured the reverse mortgages of plaintiffs’ spouses pursuant to agency regulation, which permitted their loan obligations to come due upon their death regardless of whether their spouses (plaintiffs) were still alive

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT BENNETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.  ……Civil Action No. 11-0498 (ESH)

SHAUN DONOVAN
Secretary, Housing and Urban
Development

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 8, 2011, plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) in his official capacity, alleging that certain regulations implementing the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (“HECM”) program violate the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. Although plaintiffs originally brought four claims against HUD, the parties agree that three of the claims are now moot. Plaintiffs’ sole surviving claim alleges that the Secretary acted contrary to law by failing to protect the spouses of HECM mortgagors from foreclosure. This Court previously dismissed plaintiffs’ case for lack of standing. See Bennett v. Donovan, 797 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2011). The Court of Appeals reversed. See Bennett v. Donovan, 703 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The parties have now filed cross motions for summary judgment. (Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pls.’ Mot.”); Def.’s Combined Mem. in Support of his Mot. for Summ. J. and in Opp. To Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mot.”).) For the reasons stated below, plaintiffs’ motion will be granted, and defendant’s motion will be denied.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8639 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives