Richard S. Arvai & Ellen M. Arvai v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 698 F.2d 683 (1st Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard S. Arvai & Ellen M. Arvai v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 698 F.2d 683 (1st Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Williams v. Standard Fire Insurance (pamd, 2012-08-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Standard Fire Insurance
M.D. Penn. · 2012 · confidence medium
Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 698 F.2d 683, 684 (4th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Laurent v. Flood Data Servs., Inc., 146 Ohio App.3d 392 , 766 N.E.2d 221 (2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Highmark Federal Credit Union v. Hunter
S.D. · 2012 · confidence medium
Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 698 F.2d 683, 684 (4th Cir.1983); Till v. Unifirst Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wentwood Woodside I v. GMAC Cmercl Mtge
5th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 698 F.2d 683, 684 (4th Cir. 1983); Mid-America Nat’l Bank of Chicago 28 v. First Sav. & Loan Ass’n of South Holland, 737 F.2d 638, 642 (7th Cir.) cert. denied 105 S. Ct. 911 (1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wentwood Woodside I, Lp v. Gmac Commercial Mortgage Corporation Royal Indemnity Company
5th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 698 F.2d 683, 684 (4th Cir.1983); Mid-America Nat’l Bank of Chicago v. First Sav. & Loan Ass’n of South Holland, 737 F.2d 638, 642 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1160 , 105 S.Ct. 911 , 83 L.Ed.2d 924 (1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fleischer v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
S.D. Tex. · 1997 · confidence medium
Sav. & Loan Assn., 698 F.2d 683, 684 (4th Cir.1983); Till v. Unifirst Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Virgin Islands Tree Boa v. Witt
D.V.I. · 1996 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Arvai v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 698 F.2d 683, 684 (4th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (concluding that no private cause of action existed for borrowers to bring suit against lenders for failure to comply with NFIA requirements); Segall v. Rapkin, 875 F.Supp. 240, 241 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (concluding that NFIA creates neither an express nor implied private cause of action for homeowners to sue government contractors for errors in the contractors’ flood insurance studies). 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Virgin Islands Tree Boa v. Witt
D.V.I. · 1996 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Arvai v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 698 F.2d 683, 684 (4th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (concluding that no private cause of action existed for borrowers to bring suit against lenders for failure to comply with NFIA requirements); Segall v. Rapkin, 875 F. Supp. 240, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (concluding that NFIA creates neither an express nor implied private cause of action for homeowners to sue government contractors for errors in the contractors' flood insurance studies). 2.
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. North Carolina (3×)
E.D.N.C. · 1996 · confidence medium
The plaintiff must begin by identifying the specific employment practice that is challenged.” Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 656 , 109 S.Ct. 2115, 2124 , 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989), quoting Watson, 487 U.S. at 994, 108 S.Ct. at 2788-89; Walls v. City of Petersburg, 895 F.2d 188, 191 (4th Cir.1990). 9 “Our disparate-impact cases have always focused on the impact of particular hiring practices on employment opportunities ... a plaintiff must demonstrate that it is the application of a specific or particular employment practice that has created the disparate impact under at…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tate v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
8th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
The appellate court simply wants “the assurance that the trial court has come to grips with apparently irreconcilable conflicts.” See E.E.O.C. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 698 F.2d 683, 640 (4th Cir.1983), petition for cert, granted sub nom., Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, _ U.S. _, 104 S.Ct. 334 , 78 L.Ed.2d 305 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" Segall v. Rapkin
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Arvai v. First Federal, 698 F.2d 683 (4th Cir.1983) (no private right of action by a borrower against a lender for failure to comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §§ 4012 and 4104); Till v. Unifirst Fed.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Elizabeth Graham Flowers Frankie Dukes v. Tandy Corporation, and William Lee Flowers Martha Floyd Graham
4th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Arvai v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 539 F.Supp. 921, 924 (D.S.C.1982), aff'd 698 F.2d 683 (4th Cir.1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard S. ARVAI and Ellen M. Arvai, Appellants,
v.
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellee
82-1394.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Jan 20, 1983.
698 F.2d 683
Roger L. Couch, Spartanburg, S.C. (Henderson, Lister, Couch, Brandt & Ackermann, Spartanburg, S.C., on brief), for appellants., Mason A. Goldsmith, Greenville, S.C. (Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, Greenville, S.C., on brief), for appellee.
Phillips, Chapman, Butzner.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs Richard S. and Ellen M. Arvai appeal the dismissal of their action under the National Flood Insurance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001 et seq., against defendant First Federal Savings & Loan Association. The Arvais alleged that First Federal failed to comply with the provisions of § 4012a(b) and § 4104(a) of the Act. The district court held that no private right of action existed under the Act and accordingly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.

The general mandate of § 4012a(b) is that federally regulated lenders shall not make loans secured by improved realty located in flood hazard areas unless the property is covered by flood insurance. Similarly, § 4104(a) requires these same lenders to notify purchasers that the improved realty is located in a flood hazard area. The facts, taken in the light most favorable to the Arvais, are that they purchased flood-prone property with funds secured by the property and obtained from a federally regulated lender, First Federal. First Federal failed to comply with the requirements of § 4012a(b) and § 4104(a). The Arvais’ property was subsequently flooded and suffered non-insured flood damage. The Arvais sought monetary relief against First Federal for its noncompliance under the Act.

Because the Act, by its terms, does not expressly grant plaintiffs a private cause of action, the Arvais proceeded on the theory that the Act created an implied private action. The district court correctly analyzed this claim under the standard of Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), and its progeny. After scrutinizing the language and legislative history of the Act, the district court found that the Arvais as borrowers were not in a class for whose especial benefit the Act was passed. The court further found no specific congressional intent to allow a private action for damages, and concluded that no private action for damages existed under the Act. The court was aided in its dissection of the Act by the opinion of the Fifth Circuit in Till v. Unifirst Federal Savings and Loan Association, 653 F.2d 152 (5th Cir.1981), which also held that no private damage action existed under the Act.

Like the district court, we are persuaded by the reasoning of Till. Having studied the briefs and record and considered oral argument of counsel, we affirm the district court’s judgment on the basis of its well-reasoned order dismissing the Arvais’ complaint for failure to state a remediable claim. Arvai v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 539 F.Supp. 921 (D.S.C.1982).

AFFIRMED.