24 C.F.R. § 203.377
Inspection and preservation of properties
The mortgagee, upon learning that a property subject to a mortgage insured under this part is vacant or abandoned, shall be responsible for the inspection of such property at least monthly, if the loan thereon is in default. When a mortgage is in default and a payment thereon is not received within 45 days of the due date, and efforts to reach the mortgagor by telephone within that period have been unsuccessful, the mortgagee shall be responsible for a visual inspection of the security property to determine whether the property is vacant. The mortgagee shall take reasonable action to protect and preserve such security property when it is determined or should have been determined to be vacant or abandoned until its conveyance to the Secretary, if such action does not constitute an illegal trespass. “Reasonable action” includes the commencement of foreclosure within the time required by § 203.355(b) of this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: Sylvia Leszanczuk v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., 21 F.4th 933 (7th Cir. 2021).
Sylvia Leszanczuk v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., 21 F.4th 933 (7th Cir. 2021). “00 inspection fee when it “knew, or should have known,” that she occupied her prop- erty, in purported violation of a HUD regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 203.377 (2021), which Leszanczuk claimed limits the fees Car- rington may charge under the contract and is incorporated into her…”
Njema v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 124 F. Supp. 3d 852 (D. Minnesota 2015). “24 C.F.R. § 203.377 . Wells Fargo contracted with Mortgage Contracting Services (“MCS”) to inspect the Njemas’ property two times a month after they defaulted on their loan.”
In re Brumley, 570 B.R. 287 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2017). “24 C.F.R. § 203.377 (4-Í-16 ed.). Here, of course, there is no question that the Debtor is occupying the property, and in fact is current (except for the default she is permitted to cure under her plan).”
In Re Hibbert, 14 B.R. 891 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1981). “25, 1 and present regulations require monthly inspections of property in default, 24 C.F.R. § 203.377 (1980). Finally, present FHA regulations would allow a mortgagor in default to reinstate his mortgage, but only upon his tender of all the above sums to the mortgagee.”
Taylor v. Friedman, 689 A.2d 59 (Md. 1997). “” 24 C.F.R. § 203.377 states in part as follows: "The mortgagee, upon learning that a property subject to a mortgage insured under this part is vacant or abandoned, shall be responsible for the inspection of such property at least monthly, if the loan thereon is in default.”
In re Ruiz, 501 B.R. 76 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2013). “24 C.F.R. § 203.377 . Debtor alleges that she has always occupied the property.”
Halkiotis v. WMC Mortg. Corp., 144 F. Supp. 3d 341 (D. Conn. 2015). “24 C.F.R. § 203.377 ("The mortgagee, upon learning that a property subject to a mortgage insured under this part is vacant or abandoned, shall be responsible .”
Leszanczuk v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2021). “And she argues that 24 C.F.R. §203.377 prohibits the collection of the inspection fee at issue here, making it by definition unnecessary.”
Leszanczuk v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2020). “The regulation reads: The mortgagee, upon learning that a property subject to a mortgage insured under this part is vacant or abandoned, shall be responsible for the inspection of such property at least monthly, if the loan thereon is in default.”
Mathews v. PHH Mortg. Corp. (N.D. Okla. 2020). “Therefore, the only binding regulation is 24 C.F.R. § 203.377 which provides: The mortgagee, upon learning that a property subject to a mortgage insured under this part is vacant or abandoned, shall be responsible for the inspection of such property at least monthly, if the loan…”
Summers v. Phh Mortg. Corp. (D.N.J. 2023). “2 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, because although Plaintiffs assert only state-law claims, “Plaintiffs’ claims necessarily raise substantial and disputed issues of federal law,” including “regulations and guidelines…”
Wyatt v. Mellon Mortg., Inc.,-east, 36 B.R. 783 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1984). “(See 24CFR 203.377.) a. Delinquencies and defaults occurring in single-family mortgages where the mortgagor’s equity is minimal, should be scrutinized closely for the possibility of abandonment.”
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.