12 U.S.C. § 4910

Construction

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

(a) PMI not required

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impose any requirement for private mortgage insurance in connection with a residential mortgage transaction.

(b) No preclusion of cancellation or termination agreements

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preclude cancellation or termination, by agreement between a mortgagor and the holder of the mortgage, of a requirement for private mortgage insurance in connection with a residential mortgage transaction before the cancellation or termination date established by this chapter for the mortgage.

(Pub. L. 105–216, § 11, July 29, 1998, 112 Stat. 908.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 1 year after July 29, 1998, see section 13 of Pub. L. 105–216, set out as a note under section 4901 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2022 · leading case: Fellows v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 710 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fellows v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 710 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 12 U.S.C. § 4910 (b). This provision indicates that Congress did not intend for the HPA to prevent mortgagors from bringing a breach of contract claim to vindicate their contractual right under an agreement with the holder of their mortgage to cancel PMI earlier than allowed…”

Dwoskin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 850 F. Supp. 2d 557 (D. Maryland 2012). “at 404 (citing 12 U.S.C. § 4910 (b)). In Scott , the defendant bank argued the HPA preempted claims for both common law actual fraud and common law constructive fraud.”

Ciolino v. Seterus, Inc., 202 F. Supp. 3d 841 (N.D. Ill. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 12 U.S.C. § 4910 (b); Song, 2016 WL 3914148 , at *4; Fellows, 710 F.”

Augustson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 864 F. Supp. 2d 422 (E.D.N.C. 2012). “Given that the HPA does not “require” private mortgage insurance in connection with a residential mortgage transaction, 12 U.S.C. § 4910 (a), the only source of such a “requirement” in connection with a residential mortgage transaction would be from the prospective mortgagee…”

Abruscato v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortg. (N.D. Ill. 2022). · cites it 2× “The Abruscatos also assert that their contract claim cannot be preempted by the HPA in light of 12 U.S.C. § 4910 (Resp. at 6–7), which states, in relevant part: No preclusion of cancellation or termination agreements Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preclude…”

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.