(a) For mortgages insured pursuant to this part, except those mortgages insured on Indian Land pursuant to section 248 of the National Housing Act:
(1) The mortgagee must conduct a meeting with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full monthly installments due on the mortgage are unpaid and at least 30 days before foreclosure is commenced, or at least 30 days before assignment is requested if the mortgage is insured on Hawaiian homelands pursuant to section 247 of the National Housing Act. The meeting with the mortgagor must be conducted in a manner as determined by the Secretary.
(i) If default occurs on a repayment plan, the mortgagee must conduct a meeting with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, no later than 30 days after such default.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) A meeting with the mortgagor is not required if:
(i) The mortgagor has clearly indicated that they will not cooperate in the meeting;
(ii) The mortgagor is on a repayment plan to bring the mortgage current, and the mortgagor is meeting the terms of the repayment plan; or
(iii) A reasonable effort to arrange a meeting with the mortgagor is unsuccessful.
(3) A reasonable effort to arrange a meeting with the mortgagor shall consist of, at a minimum, two verifiable attempts to contact the mortgagor utilizing methods determined by the Secretary.
(b) For mortgages insured on Indian Land pursuant to section 248 of the National Housing Act:
(1) The mortgagee must conduct a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full monthly installments due on the mortgage are unpaid and at least 30 days before assignment is requested.
(i) If default occurs on a repayment plan arranged other than during a face-to-face meeting, the mortgagee must have a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, within 30 days after default or at least 30 days before assignment is requested.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) A face-to-face meeting is not required if:
(i) The mortgagor has clearly indicated that they will not cooperate in the meeting;
(ii) The mortgagor is on a repayment plan to bring the mortgage current, and the mortgagor is meeting the terms of the repayment plan; or
(iii) A reasonable effort to arrange a meeting with the mortgagor is unsuccessful.
(3) A reasonable effort to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the mortgagor shall include at a minimum, one letter sent to the mortgagor certified by the Postal Service as having been dispatched and at least one trip to see the mortgagor at the mortgaged property. In addition, the mortgagee must document that it has made at least one telephone call to the mortgagor for the purpose of trying to arrange a face-to-face meeting. The mortgagee may appoint an agent to perform its responsibilities under paragraph (b) of this section.
(4) The mortgagee must also:
(i) Inform the mortgagor that HUD will make information regarding the status and payment history of the mortgagor's loan available to credit bureaus and prospective creditors;
(ii) Inform the mortgagor of other available assistance, if any; and
(iii) Inform the mortgagor of the names and addresses of HUD officials to whom further communications may be addressed.
[89 FR 63098, Aug. 2, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Mathews v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 724 S.E.2d 196 (Va. 2012).
· cites it 22× “We also consider the prerequisites to foreclosure set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 and whether they are incorporated as conditions precedent in a deed of trust.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Goebel, 2014 Ohio 472 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 23× “Specifically, he argues that factual disputes exist regarding (1) Wells Fargo’s standing to seek foreclosure and (2) Wells Fargo’s compliance with the face-to-face interview requirement of 24 C.F.R. §203.604 , which Goebel claims is a condition precedent to foreclosure.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Edwards, 2017 Ohio 4343 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 16× “Bank of America argues that the court erred in its decision because (1) the foregoing regulation constitutes an affirmative defense rather than a condition precedent to foreclosure, (2) the Edwards failed to adequately plead its alleged noncompliance with the foregoing…”
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y v. Salahuddin, 2020 Ohio 6934 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 13× “) Wilmington also addressed Salahuddin's claim regarding Wilmington's failure to schedule a face-to-face meeting as required by 24 C.F.R. 203.604. Wilmington argued it was in compliance with the FHA regulations for face-to-face meetings, and stated in pertinent part: Further,…”
Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Graf, 2018 Ohio 2411 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 15× “Of critical importance to this action is 24 C.F.R. 203.604, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) The mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full monthly installments due on…”
Kersey v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 682 F. Supp. 2d 588 (E.D. Va. 2010).
· cites it 31× “One such regulation incorporated into the terms of the Deed of Trust is 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 that provides in relevant part as follows: “The mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full…”
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burd, 2016 Ohio 7706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 24× “The trial court denied Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Burd.”
PNC Mtge. v. Garland, 2014 Ohio 1173 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 11× “On appeal, Garland asserts that summary judgment was improper because there are genuine issues of material fact about whether PNC Mortgage complied with the face-to-face meeting requirements in 24 C.F.R. 203.604 and 203.605 prior to initiating foreclosure and whether PNC…”
US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. McMullin, 55 Misc. 3d 1053 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 11× “Among the pre-foreclosure obligations established by part 203 is a face-to-face meeting: “The mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full monthly installments due on the mortgage are…”
Donahue v. FNMA, 980 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 2020).
· cites it 8× “complaint alleged that the defendants had failed to satisfy regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development that her mortgage contract had incorporated and that created a number of conditions precedent to foreclosure, including that the mortgagee…”
PNC Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Wilson, 2017 IL App (2d) 151189 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 6× “604, of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 (2014)), which requires a lender, before bringing a foreclosure action against a defaulting borrower, either to have a face-to-face meeting with the borrower or make “a reasonable effort” to arrange a face-to-face…”
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(B) — 1 case
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(C) — 1 case
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(a) — 1 case
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(b) — 36 cases
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Edwards, 2017 Ohio 4343 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
“Bank of America argues that the court erred in its decision because (1) the foregoing regulation constitutes an affirmative defense rather than a condition precedent to foreclosure, (2) the Edwards failed to adequately plead its alleged noncompliance with the foregoing…”
Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Graf, 2018 Ohio 2411 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
“Of critical importance to this action is 24 C.F.R. 203.604, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) The mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full monthly installments due on…”
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y v. Salahuddin, 2020 Ohio 6934 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
“) Wilmington also addressed Salahuddin's claim regarding Wilmington's failure to schedule a face-to-face meeting as required by 24 C.F.R. 203.604. Wilmington argued it was in compliance with the FHA regulations for face-to-face meetings, and stated in pertinent part: Further,…”
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burd, 2016 Ohio 7706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“The trial court denied Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Burd.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(c) — 7 cases
Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Graf, 2018 Ohio 2411 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
“Of critical importance to this action is 24 C.F.R. 203.604, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b) The mortgagee must have a face-to-face interview with the mortgagor, or make a reasonable effort to arrange such a meeting, before three full monthly installments due on…”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Edwards, 2017 Ohio 4343 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
“Bank of America argues that the court erred in its decision because (1) the foregoing regulation constitutes an affirmative defense rather than a condition precedent to foreclosure, (2) the Edwards failed to adequately plead its alleged noncompliance with the foregoing…”
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burd, 2016 Ohio 7706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“The trial court denied Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Burd.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(c)(1) — 2 cases
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burd, 2016 Ohio 7706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“The trial court denied Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Burd.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(c)(2) — 3 cases
Mathews v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 724 S.E.2d 196 (Va. 2012).
“We also consider the prerequisites to foreclosure set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 and whether they are incorporated as conditions precedent in a deed of trust.”
Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y v. Salahuddin, 2020 Ohio 6934 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
“) Wilmington also addressed Salahuddin's claim regarding Wilmington's failure to schedule a face-to-face meeting as required by 24 C.F.R. 203.604. Wilmington argued it was in compliance with the FHA regulations for face-to-face meetings, and stated in pertinent part: Further,…”
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(c)(5) — 2 cases
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burd, 2016 Ohio 7706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“The trial court denied Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Burd.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(d) — 10 cases
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Edwards, 2017 Ohio 4343 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
“Bank of America argues that the court erred in its decision because (1) the foregoing regulation constitutes an affirmative defense rather than a condition precedent to foreclosure, (2) the Edwards failed to adequately plead its alleged noncompliance with the foregoing…”
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Burd, 2016 Ohio 7706 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
“The trial court denied Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Burd.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 203.604(e)(2) — 1 case
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.