C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER XVIII—RURAL HOUSING SERVICE, RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE, AND RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER H—PROGRAM REGULATIONS › PART 1900—GENERAL › Subpart B—Adverse Decisions and Administrative Appeals

7 C.F.R. § 1900.53

Applicability

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Appeals of adverse decisions covered by this subpart will be governed by 7 CFR part 11.

(b) The provisions of this subpart apply to adverse decisions concerning direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants under the following programs: RUS Water and Waste Disposal Facility Loans and Grants Program; RHS Housing and Community Facilities Loan Programs; RBS Loan, Grant, and Guarantee Programs and the Intermediary Relending Program; and determinations of the Rural Housing Trust 1987-1 Master Servicer.

(c) This subpart does not apply to decisions made by parties outside an agency even when those decisions are used as a basis for decisions falling within paragraph (b) of this section, for example: decisions by state governmental construction standards-setting agencies (which may determine whether RHS will finance certain houses); Davis-Bacon wage rates; flood plain determinations; archaeological and historical areas preservation requirements; and designations of areas inhabited by endangered species.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1983–1997 · leading case: Coleman v. Block, 562 F. Supp. 1353 (D.N.D. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Coleman v. Block, 562 F. Supp. 1353 (D.N.D. 1983). · cites it 2× “Apparently, 7 C.F.R. 1900.53 would bar an appeal of a moratorium denial.”
Arcoren v. Farmers Home Admin., 770 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1985). · cites it 9× “4 See 7 C.F.R. § 1900.53 (1980). In Bivens the Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution affords a private cause of action against a federal official for violation of the plaintiff’s rights under the amendment.”
Hanson v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 519 (Ct. Cl. 1987). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs claim these submissions 6 violated their rights under 7 C.F.R. § 1900.53 (f) and (g). After the denial of the third loan application, FmHA partially refused to release the proceeds from plaintiffs’ milk sales for operating and living expenses.”
Schuerman v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 420 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “See 7 C.F.R. § 1900.53 ; part 1900, Exhibit B-l (1993).”
Coleman v. Block, 580 F. Supp. 194 (D.N.D. 1984). “” This provision apparently bars all FmHA appeals based on section 1981a. Instead, the agency decision can be set aside if it was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Travis Rickey Childress, Slaton Jenkins Childress, Gary Dennis Childress v. Small Bus. Admin., A.G. McClearen & Clyde Rice, Jr., 825 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1987). “The Chil-dresses were not provided written notice of the cancellation, nor were they informed of their right to appeal the decision in accordance with 7 C.F.R. § 1900.53 (1981). The Childresses subsequently defaulted on their previous loans and other creditors have foreclosed…”
United States v. Henry L. Henderson & Earnestine W. Henderson, 707 F.2d 853 (5th Cir. 1983). “While we believe that notice of the right to an administrative appeal was also adequate, we do entertain serious doubts about the failure to specify in the notice the availability of a stay of foreclosure pending appeal, as required by 7 C.F.R. § 1900.53 (a)(4) of the 1979…”
Arcoren v. Peters, 627 F. Supp. 1513 (D.S.D. 1986). “The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that “the FmHA administrative appeals process set forth in 7 CFR § 1900.53 (1980), under the unique circumstances of this case, does not defeat an action brought directly under the fifth amendment to the United…”
Cottrell v. United States (In Re Cottrell), 213 B.R. 33 (M.D. Ala. 1997). “§ 6912 (e); 3 7 C.F.R. § 1900.53 (b). 4 Second, Cottrell argues that rejecting her lawsuit on the grounds of exhaustion is unjust, noting that dismissal by this court will deny her any remedy, since she is too late to pursue any administrative process.”
United States v. Shields, 733 F. Supp. 776 (D. Vt. 1989). “7 C.F.R. § 1900.53 (1986). These rights included a hearing before a body other than that which made the initial decision to accelerate.”
— 7 C.F.R. § 1900.53(a) — 2 cases
Coleman v. Block, 580 F. Supp. 194 (D.N.D. 1984). “” This provision apparently bars all FmHA appeals based on section 1981a. Instead, the agency decision can be set aside if it was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Coleman v. Block, 562 F. Supp. 1353 (D.N.D. 1983). “Apparently, 7 C.F.R. 1900.53 would bar an appeal of a moratorium denial.”
— 7 C.F.R. § 1900.53(f) — 1 case
Hanson v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 519 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “Plaintiffs claim these submissions 6 violated their rights under 7 C.F.R. § 1900.53 (f) and (g). After the denial of the third loan application, FmHA partially refused to release the proceeds from plaintiffs’ milk sales for operating and living expenses.”
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.