12 U.S.C. § 2616
State laws unaffected; inconsistent Federal and State provisions
This chapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this chapter from complying with, the laws of any State with respect to settlement practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this chapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. The Bureau is authorized to determine whether such inconsistencies exist. The Bureau may not determine that any State law is inconsistent with any provision of this chapter if the Bureau determines that such law gives greater protection to the consumer. In making these determinations the Bureau shall consult with the appropriate Federal agencies.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Boston v. Carol S. Greenwald, Etc., 591 F.2d 417 (1st Cir. 1979).
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Boston v. Carol S. Greenwald, Etc., 591 F.2d 417 (1st Cir. 1979). “Indeed, it alleged that the Massachusetts statute is explicitly recognized as valid by § 18 of RES-PA, 12 U.S.C. § 2616 , which provides that any state law with respect to settlement practices that gives protection to the consumer greater than that provided by federal law shall…”
Johnson v. Matrix Fin. Servs. Corp., 820 N.E.2d 1094 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “) 12 U.S.C. § 2616 (2000). Under section 2616, it is possible for a broker to comply with the mandates of RESPA and, yet, still be liable under state law if that law “gives greater protection to the consumer.”
Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass'n, FA, 307 F. Supp. 2d 565 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “12 U.S.C. § 2616 (emphasis added). Accordingly, plaintiffs claim that the payment of interest on escrow accounts is a “settlement practice” under RESPA and therefore the Secretary may not preempt the New York law that gives greater protection to the consumer.”
Bergkamp v. New York Guardian Mortgagee Corp., 667 F. Supp. 719 (D. Mont. 1987). “Section 18 of the Act ( 12 U.S.C. § 2616 ) provides that state laws shall apply except to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.”
Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 158 F. Supp. 3d 91 (D. Conn. 2016). “12 U.S.C. § 2616 , Among Smith’s allegations are claims that Wells Fargo should have itemized certain costs on the loan documents that it provided to her.”
In Re First Escrow, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. 1992). “Further, I fully concur in the conclusion that attorneys employed by escrow companies may not provide legal services to the escrow company's customers. NOTES [1] Best Escrow argues that the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, 12 U.”
Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc. v. Herrera (In Re Herrera), 422 B.R. 698 (9th Cir. BAP 2010). “12 U.S.C. § 2616 (emphasis added). Likewise, RESPA cannot be seen to occupy the field of mortgage creditor reports to debtors to the exclusion of other federal laws.”
Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass'n, FA, 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005). “We have considered the Flaggs' argument that 12 U.S.C. § 2616 bars preemption. For those reasons stated that deal with the general relationship between RESPA and HOLA, we find this argument to be without merit.”
Wood v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (N.D. Ala. 2008). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2616 . Moreover, it is without question that such a minimal state-law limiting provision does not rise to the level of complete preemption (also sometimes referred to as “super-preemption”) in which all claims must be heard in federal court.”
Munoz v. Fin. Freedom Senior Funding Corp., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “12 U.S.C. § 2616 (emphasis added). Thus, under Bank of America and Silvas , the anti-preemption clause of RESPA does not foreclose preemption under HOLA.”
Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Padgett, 268 B.R. 309 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “12 U.S.C. § 2616 . 7 . The Court notes that in its briefs on appeal, Chase does not dispute the application of RESPA or section 501.”
In Re Dominique, 368 B.R. 913 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2007). “See 12 U.S.C. § 2616 and 24 C.F.R. § 3500.13 .”
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.