(a) Personal contact with the borrower before acceleration and foreclosure or repossession. The lender shall undertake foreclosure or repossession of the property securing a Title I loan that is in default only after the lender has serviced the loan in a timely manner and with diligence in accordance with the requirements of this part, and has taken all reasonable and prudent measures to induce the borrower to bring the loan account current. Before taking action to accelerate the maturity of the loan, the lender or its agent shall contact the borrower and any co-maker or co-signer, either in a face-to-face meeting or by telephone, to discuss the reasons for the default and to seek its cure. If the borrower and the co-makers or co-signers cannot be located, will not discuss the default, or will not agree to its cure, the lender may proceed to take action under paragraph (b) of this section. The lender shall document the results of its efforts to contact the borrower and any co-maker or co-signer, and shall place in the loan file a copy of any modification agreement or repayment plan that has been offered.
(b) Notice of default and acceleration. Unless the borrower cures the default or agrees to a modification agreement or repayment plan, the lender shall provide the borrower with written notice that the loan is in default and that the loan maturity is to be accelerated. In addition to complying with applicable State or local notice requirements, the notice shall be sent by certified mail and shall contain:
(1) A description of the obligation or security interest held by the lender;
(2) A statement of the nature of the default and of the amount due to the lender as unpaid principal and earned interest on the note as of the date 30 days from the date of the notice;
(3) A demand upon the borrower either to cure the default (by bringing the loan current or by refinancing the loan) or to agree to a modification agreement or a repayment plan, by not later than the date 30 days from the date of the notice;
(4) A statement that if the borrower fails either to cure the default or to agree to a modification agreement or a repayment plan by the date 30 days from the date of the notice, then, as of the date 30 days from the date of the notice, the maturity of the loan is accelerated and full payment of all amounts due under the loan is required;
(5) A statement that if the default persists the lender will report the default to an appropriate credit reporting agency; and
(6) Any other requirements prescribed by the Secretary.
(c) Reinstatement of the loan. The lender may rescind the acceleration of maturity after full payment is due and reinstate the loan only if the borrower brings the loan current, executes a modification agreement, or agrees to an acceptable repayment plan.
(d) Notice to credit reporting agency. If the loan maturity is accelerated and the loan is not reinstated, the lender shall report the default to an appropriate credit reporting agency.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2502-0328)
[50 FR 43523, Oct. 25, 1985, as amended at 52 FR 33407, Sept. 3, 1987; 56 FR 52434, Oct. 18, 1991; 57 FR 6480, Feb. 25, 1992]
Notes of Decisions
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Martz, 2013 Ohio 4555 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Bank failed to comply with the required HUD regulations, specifically 24 C.F.R. 201.50(a) (“[b]efore taking action to accelerate the maturity of the loan, the lender or its agent shall contact the borrower and any co-maker or co-signer, either in a face-to-face meeting or by…”
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Liggins, 2016 Ohio 3528 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“237 – Requirements for assignments of mortgages, 24 CFR §201.50 Acceleration and Notification, and 24 CFR 203.”
Montalvo v. Bank of Am. Corp., 864 F. Supp. 2d 567 (W.D. Tex. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Acknowledging that the HUD regulations cited in the complaint do not apply, Plaintiff sought to change the reference to the applicable HUD regulations from 24 C.F.R. § 201.50 to 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 .”
JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Burden, 2014 Ohio 2746 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
“More particularly, the Burdens argue Chase failed 6 to comply with 24 C.F.R. 201.50 and 203.604 because Chase did not send its notice letter by certified mail or attempt to have a face-to-face meeting with them.”
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Cathcart, 2014 Ohio 620 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “{¶4} Appellant responded that appellee failed to present evidence of compliance with conditions precedent set forth in 24 CFR § 201.50 , which requires a face-to-face meeting or telephone meeting before taking action to accelerate the loan and also requires that written notice…”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hazel, 2016 Ohio 305 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “The magistrate also found that Hazel had established "a plausible meritorious defense claiming that [Wells Fargo] did not comply with" HUD regulations pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 201.50—specifically, Hazel's assertion that Wells Fargo did not serve notice of acceleration via certified…”
Liberty Savs. Bank, F.S.B. v. Bowie, 2014 Ohio 1208 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Under 24 C.F.R. 201.50(b), a foreclosing lender must provide the borrower with a written notice sent via certified mail that the loan is in default and that the balance will be accelerated.”
Bank of Am. v. Curtin, 2014 Ohio 5379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, it is the law of this jurisdiction that a mortgage provision that the “Security Instrument shall be governed by federal law” does not render the mortgage subject to 24 C.F.R. 201.50 and 24 C.F.R. 203.604. Martz, 2013-Ohio-4555, at ¶ 16 .”
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burd, 2016 Ohio 7706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“Compare 24 C.F.R. 201.50(a) (requiring a lender to discuss the reasons for default and seek a cure in a face-to-face meeting or by telephone before taking action to accelerate the maturity of a manufactured home loan).”
Mtglq Investors v. Witherspoon, 2023 OK 62 (Okla. 2023).
“See supra note 1; 24 C.F.R. § 201.50 . Deceleration is also referred to as deacceleration, de-acceleration, revocation of the right to accelerate, and abandonment of acceleration.”
Christiana Trust v. Berter, 2020 Ohio 727 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
“24 C.F.R. 201.50(b)(4). Yet the notice of default letter in the summary judgment record indicates that Selene provided the Berters with notice that they were in default and provided them with 45 days to cure the default.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 201.50(a) — 5 cases
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Martz, 2013 Ohio 4555 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
“Bank failed to comply with the required HUD regulations, specifically 24 C.F.R. 201.50(a) (“[b]efore taking action to accelerate the maturity of the loan, the lender or its agent shall contact the borrower and any co-maker or co-signer, either in a face-to-face meeting or by…”
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burd, 2016 Ohio 7706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“Compare 24 C.F.R. 201.50(a) (requiring a lender to discuss the reasons for default and seek a cure in a face-to-face meeting or by telephone before taking action to accelerate the maturity of a manufactured home loan).”
Bank of Am. v. Curtin, 2014 Ohio 5379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
“Moreover, it is the law of this jurisdiction that a mortgage provision that the “Security Instrument shall be governed by federal law” does not render the mortgage subject to 24 C.F.R. 201.50 and 24 C.F.R. 203.604. Martz, 2013-Ohio-4555, at ¶ 16 .”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hazel, 2016 Ohio 305 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“The magistrate also found that Hazel had established "a plausible meritorious defense claiming that [Wells Fargo] did not comply with" HUD regulations pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 201.50—specifically, Hazel's assertion that Wells Fargo did not serve notice of acceleration via certified…”
— 24 C.F.R. § 201.50(b) — 2 cases
Liberty Savs. Bank, F.S.B. v. Bowie, 2014 Ohio 1208 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
“Under 24 C.F.R. 201.50(b), a foreclosing lender must provide the borrower with a written notice sent via certified mail that the loan is in default and that the balance will be accelerated.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hazel, 2016 Ohio 305 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“The magistrate also found that Hazel had established "a plausible meritorious defense claiming that [Wells Fargo] did not comply with" HUD regulations pursuant to 24 C.F.R. 201.50—specifically, Hazel's assertion that Wells Fargo did not serve notice of acceleration via certified…”
— 24 C.F.R. § 201.50(b)(4) — 1 case
Christiana Trust v. Berter, 2020 Ohio 727 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
“24 C.F.R. 201.50(b)(4). Yet the notice of default letter in the summary judgment record indicates that Selene provided the Berters with notice that they were in default and provided them with 45 days to cure the default.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.