15 U.S.C. § 1639f
Requirements for prompt crediting of home loan payments
In connection with a consumer credit transaction secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling, no servicer shall fail to credit a payment to the consumer’s loan account as of the date of receipt, except when a delay in crediting does not result in any charge to the consumer or in the reporting of negative information to a consumer reporting agency, except as required in subsection (b).
If a servicer specifies in writing requirements for the consumer to follow in making payments, but accepts a payment that does not conform to the requirements, the servicer shall credit the payment as of 5 days after receipt.
Section effective on the date on which final regulations implementing such section take effect, or on the date that is 18 months after the designated transfer date if such regulations have not been issued by that date, see section 1400(c) of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 Amendment note under section 1601 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Elena Fridman v. NYCB Mortg. Co. LLC, 780 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2015).
Elena Fridman v. NYCB Mortg. Co. LLC, 780 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2015). “15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a). This provision’s implementing regulation, known as Regula- tion Z, essentially repeats this requirement.”
James v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (S.D. Ala. 2015). “That cause of action is pleaded as follows: “Fannie Mae, as creditor, was required by 15 U.S.C. § 1639f to promptly and accurately credit the Plaintiffs’ account with the payments received.”
Tonea v. Bank of Am., N.A., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (N.D. Ga. 2014). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a). Defendant argues, however, that Plaintiff has failed to allege any failure to receive prompt credits for any payment and so fails to state a claim under TILA.”
Cawood v. Seterus, Inc. (In re Cawood), 577 B.R. 538 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2017). “06 and a request pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(2) to determine the validity and amount of the lien; (2) breach of contract; (3) intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation; (4) negligence; (5) failure to credit payments upon receipt in violation of 15…”
Kier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 122 F. Supp. 3d 786 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “36 (c)(1)®; see also, 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a) (imposing same requirement).”
Fiecke-Stifter v. MidCountry Bank (D. Minnesota 2023). “Sandra’s second theory is that a different federal statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a), “mandates that [loan] servicers credit periodic payments on consumer credit transaction[s] secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling as of the date of receipt.”
Vu Nguyen v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 614 F. App'x 881 (9th Cir. 2015). “No party suggested the. statute applied retroactively. 4. Nguyen failed to plead a plausible cause of action for a violation of the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 (“UCL”).”
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Cawood (E.D. Tenn. 2019). “He asserts causes of action for (1) an objection to Seterus’s claim; (2) breach of contract; (3) intentional or negligent misrepresentation; (4) negligence; (5) failure to credit payments in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1639f; and (6) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices…”
Ditech Holding Corp. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2024). “15 U.S.C. §§ 1639f, 1666c(a). TILA applies to credit transactions, like the Purchase Contract, involving loans where the creditor takes a security interest in the real or personal property intended for use as the borrower’s principal dwelling.”
Sandra Fiecke-Stifter v. MidCountry Bank (8th Cir. 2026). “Fiecke-Stifter sued MidCountry Bank and its attorney Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, alleging, as relevant, that MidCountry violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a), and Taft violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.”
Vuyyuru v. Bank of North Am., Inc. (D.D.C. 2022). “§ 1639 , and by failing to credit him surplus proceeds from the foreclosure sale, see 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a). See SAC ⁋⁋ 58–61. TILA claims like those are “subject to a one-year statute of limitations period.”
In re Wells Fargo Forbearance Litig. (N.D. Cal. 2023). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1639f 25 (“[N]o servicer shall fail to credit a payment to the consumer’s loan account as of the date of 26 receipt, except when a delay in crediting does not result in any charge to the consumer or in the 27 reporting of negative information to a consumer…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a) — 13 cases
Elena Fridman v. NYCB Mortg. Co. LLC, 780 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2015). “15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a). This provision’s implementing regulation, known as Regula- tion Z, essentially repeats this requirement.”
Tonea v. Bank of Am., N.A., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1331 (N.D. Ga. 2014). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a). Defendant argues, however, that Plaintiff has failed to allege any failure to receive prompt credits for any payment and so fails to state a claim under TILA.”
Kier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 122 F. Supp. 3d 786 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “36 (c)(1)®; see also, 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a) (imposing same requirement).”
Cawood v. Seterus, Inc. (In re Cawood), 577 B.R. 538 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2017). “06 and a request pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(2) to determine the validity and amount of the lien; (2) breach of contract; (3) intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation; (4) negligence; (5) failure to credit payments upon receipt in violation of 15…”
Fiecke-Stifter v. MidCountry Bank (D. Minnesota 2023). “Sandra’s second theory is that a different federal statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a), “mandates that [loan] servicers credit periodic payments on consumer credit transaction[s] secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling as of the date of receipt.”
— 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(b) — 1 case
Sandra Fiecke-Stifter v. MidCountry Bank (8th Cir. 2026). “Fiecke-Stifter sued MidCountry Bank and its attorney Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, alleging, as relevant, that MidCountry violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1639f(a), and Taft violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.”
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.