12 U.S.C. § 2801

Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Findings of Congress

The Congress finds that some depository institutions have sometimes contributed to the decline of certain geographic areas by their failure pursuant to their chartering responsibilities to provide adequate home financing to qualified applicants on reasonable terms and conditions.

(b) Purpose of chapter

The purpose of this chapter is to provide the citizens and public officials of the United States with sufficient information to enable them to determine whether depository institutions are filling their obligations to serve the housing needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which they are located and to assist public officials in their determination of the distribution of public sector investments in a manner designed to improve the private investment environment.

Nothing in this chapter is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, encourage unsound lending practices or the allocation of credit.

(Pub. L. 94–200, title III, § 302, Dec. 31, 1975, 89 Stat. 1125.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 94–200, title III, § 301, Dec. 31, 1975, 89 Stat. 1125, provided that: “This title [this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975’.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: City of Miami Gardens v. Wells Fargo & Co., 931 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Miami Gardens v. Wells Fargo & Co., 931 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2019). “To identify "high-cost loans," Ayres relied on the standards adopted by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2801 - 11. Under the then-applicable regulation, *1289 12 C.”

Bank of Louisiana v. F.D.I.C., 919 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 2019). “7 12 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq. 8 42 U.S.C. § 4001 et seq.”

T I Fed. Credit Union v. DelBonis, 72 F.3d 921 (1st Cir. 1995). “; Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2801 ; and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.”

Macauley v. Est. of Nicholas, 7 F. Supp. 3d 468 (E.D. Pa. 2014). · cites it 2× “, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq. Ma-cauley requests the following relief: one million dollars, interest, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, threefold damages, and punitive damages.”

Swartz v. City Mortg., Inc., 911 F. Supp. 2d 916 (D. Haw. 2012). · cites it 2× “, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2801 , et seq., (“Count XVIII”).”

Thomas v. First Fed. Sav. Bank of Indiana, 653 F. Supp. 1330 (N.D. Ind. 1987). · cites it 2× “” Finally, plaintiffs submitted as evidence copies of mortgage loan disclosure statements prepared by First Federal for the years 1983 and 1984 pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq. and 12 C.F.R. §§ 203.”

Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. John G. Heimann, Individually & in His Off. Capacity as Comptroller of the Currency, 589 F.2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “251 (1976)); the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2801 , 89 Stat. 1125 (1975); the Consumer Leasing Act of 1976, 15 U.”

Laufman v. Oakley Bldg. & Loan Co., 408 F. Supp. 489 (S.D. Ohio 1976). “Congress gave final approval on December 18, 1975, to Public Law 94r-200, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, 12 U.S.C. § 2801 , et seq. This Court, ever mindful of its function to interpret the law and not legislate, has carefully considered this new legislation to…”

City of Cleveland v. Ameriquest Mortg. Sec., Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d 513 (N.D. Ohio 2009). “, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq., the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act, 12 U.”

Adkins v. Stanley, 307 F.R.D. 119 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “Plaintiffs define “Combined-Risk loans” 3 as loans that are “high-cost” as defined by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2801 et seg., 4 and contain two or more of eight risk factors that, they allege, increase the risk of default.”

Off. of the Comptroller of the Currency v. Spitzer, 396 F. Supp. 2d 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “The Attorney General’s inquiry began with a review of data made available pursuant to the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2801 — 2810, which requires residential real estate lenders to compile certain information regarding their mortgage lending activities and…”

Clearing House Ass'n, LLC v. Spitzer, 394 F. Supp. 2d 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “As recounted in the related action, a preliminary analysis by the Attorney General of home loan pricing data made publicly available pursuant to the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2801 — 2810, led the Attorney General to conclude that the data established a…”

Show all 27 citing cases →

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.