7 C.F.R. § 766.358

Acceleration and foreclosure moratorium

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

(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this subpart, borrowers who file or have filed a program discrimination complaint that is accepted by USDA Office of Adjudication or successor office (USDA), and have been serviced to the point of acceleration or foreclosure on or after May 22, 2008, will not have their account accelerated or liquidated until such complaint has been resolved by USDA or closed by a court of competent jurisdiction. This moratorium applies only to program loans made under subtitle A, B, or C of the Act (for example, CL, FO, OL, EM, SW, or RL). Interest will not accrue and no offsets will be taken on these loans during the moratorium. Interest accrual and offsets will continue on all other loans, including, but not limited to, non-program loans.

(1) If the Agency prevails on the program discrimination complaint, the interest that would have accrued during the moratorium will be reinstated on the account when the moratorium terminates, and all offsets and servicing actions will resume.

(2) If the borrower prevails on the program discrimination complaint, the interest that would have accrued during the moratorium will not be reinstated on the account unless specifically required by the settlement agreement or court order.

(b) The moratorium will begin on:

(1) May 22, 2008, if the borrower had a pending program discrimination claim that was accepted by USDA as valid and the account was at the point of acceleration or foreclosure on or before that date; or

(2) The date after May 22, 2008, when the borrower has a program discrimination claim accepted by USDA as valid and the borrower's account is at the point of acceleration or foreclosure.

(1) The day after all rights offered on the Agency notice of intent to accelerate expire if the borrower does not appeal;

(2) The day after all appeals resulting from an Agency notice of intent to accelerate are concluded if the borrower appeals and the Agency prevails on the appeal;

(3) The day after all appeal rights have been concluded relating to a failure to graduate and the Agency prevails on any appeal;

(4) Any other time when, because of litigation, third party action, or other unforeseen circumstance, acceleration is the next step for the Agency in servicing and liquidating the account.

(d) A borrower is considered to be in foreclosure status under this section anytime after acceleration of the account.

(e) The moratorium will end on the earlier of:

(1) The date the program discrimination claim is resolved by USDA or

(2) The date that a court of competent jurisdiction renders a final decision on the program discrimination claim if the borrower appeals the decision of USDA.

[76 FR 5058, Jan. 28, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: J & L Brown Fam. v. Bradshaw (10th Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

J & L Brown Fam. v. Bradshaw (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “” See also 7 C.F.R. § 766.358 (a) (enabling regulation).”

Cleveland v. United States Dep't of Agric. (E.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 2× “Acceleration and Foreclosure Moratorium 24 Plaintiff also appears to put forward the argument that he is entitled to moratorium relief on a 25 pending foreclosure under 7 C.F.R. § 766.358 , apparently because he has pending a discrimination 26 claim for administrative review.”

Wise v. United States (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 3× “In their motion, Plaintiffs also appear to put forward a new argument that they are entitled to moratorium relief on the pending foreclosure under 7 C.F.R. § 766.358 , apparently because they have pending a discrimination claim for administrative review.”

Wise v. United States, 654 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “2681 ) nor 7 C.F.R. § 766.358 entitles appellants to the'relief they seek.”

Lea v. Sec'y of Agric., Thomas Vilsack (M.D. Tenn. 2025). “§ 1981a(b)(1) and the implementing regulations set out at 7 C.F.R. § 766.358 should have been followed to prevent the USDA from providing the debt relief that was provided to him in 2022 through Section 22006.”

Lea v. Sec'y of Agric., Gary Washington (M.D. Tenn. 2025). “§ 1981a(b)(1) and the implementing regulations set out at 7 C.F.R. § 766.358 should have been followed to prevent the USDA from providing the debt relief that was provided to him in 2022 through Section 22006.”

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.