12 U.S.C. § 2615
Contracts and liens; validity
Nothing in this chapter shall affect the validity or enforceability of any sale or contract for the sale of real property or any loan, loan agreement, mortgage, or lien made or arising in connection with a federally related mortgage loan.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2022 · leading case: In re Anthony, 481 B.R. 602 (D. Neb. 2012).
In re Anthony, 481 B.R. 602 (D. Neb. 2012). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2615 . In short, Anthony’s underlying argument is that she does not have to repay Cattle National for the funds she was loaned— and neither TILA nor RE SPA support such an argument.”
In Re Johnson, 384 B.R. 763 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2615 . The failure of a lender to comply with the requirements of § 2609(b) does not somehow render the mortgage and the promises contained within it unenforceable.”
Wentz v. Saxon Mortg. (In Re Wentz), 393 B.R. 545 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2008). “June 21, 2007), an unreported bankruptcy decision, simply concludes that "failure to comply with RESPA does not adversely affect the validity or enforceability of the Note” and cites to 12 U.S.C. § 2615 which states the same legal proposition.”
Fedewa v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 921 F. Supp. 2d 504 (E.D. Va. 2013). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2615 . The stated purpose of TILA is to provide for the informed use of credit by consumers.”
Layell v. Home Loan & Inv. Bank, F.S.B., 244 B.R. 345 (E.D. Va. 1999). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2615 . The Bankruptcy Court went on to hold, as a matter of law, that the “Official Staff Commentary to the Truth in Lending Act permits a ‘lump sum’, charge for preparation of a bundle of settlement documents to be excluded from the finance charge notwithstanding…”
Svoboda v. Bank of Am., N.A., 964 F. Supp. 2d 659 (W.D. Tex. 2013). “12 U.S.C. § 2615 . The Texas Property Code, and not RESPA, governs the notice requirements for foreclosure proceedings in the state of Texas.”
Lynch v. DeMotte State Bank (N.D. Ind. 2022). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2615 . To the extent the Plaintiff may be alleging that the foreclosure judgment was in error because of alleged fraud perpetrated by DeMotte, her “remedies lie in the Indiana courts.”
Almazon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2615 . Because RESPA violations do not affect the validity or enforceability of a mortgage loan, a RESPA disclosure violation is not a defense to foreclosure, although it is frequently pleaded as a counterclaim in a foreclosure action.”
Nelson v. Acre Mortg. & Fin., Inc. (M.D. Penn. 2022). “May 30, 2008) (citing § 2605(f)); see also 12 U.S.C. § 2615 (providing that there is no right to rescission under RESPA more generally); Bank of Nova Scotia v.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 2021 IL App (1st) 191555-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2615 (West 2018). ¶ 25 The parties make numerous arguments concerning whether the loan at issue is a federal loan, whether the error alleged by the Davises is one of the covered errors in section 1024.”
Sabatino v. Pill (N.D.W. Va. 2017). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2615 ; see also Everbank v. Shrine, No.”
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.