42 U.S.C. § 3605

Discrimination in residential real estate-related transactions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general

It shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction, or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

(b) “Residential real estate-related transaction” definedAs used in this section, the term “residential real estate-related transaction” means any of the following:(1) The making or purchasing of loans or providing other financial assistance—(A) for purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling; or(B) secured by residential real estate.(2) The selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property.(c) Appraisal exemption

Nothing in this subchapter prohibits a person engaged in the business of furnishing appraisals of real property to take into consideration factors other than race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, or familial status.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title VIII, § 805, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 83; Pub. L. 93–383, title VIII, § 808(b)(2), Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 729; Pub. L. 100–430, § 6(c), Sept. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1622.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–430 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: “After December 31, 1968, it shall be unlawful for any bank, building and loan association, insurance company or other corporation, association, firm or enterprise whose business consists in whole or in part in the making of commercial real estate loans, to deny a loan or other financial assistance to a person applying therefor for the purpose of purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling, or to discriminate against him in the fixing of the amount, interest rate, duration, or other terms or conditions of such loan or other financial assistance, because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such person or of any person associated with him in connection with such loan or other financial assistance or the purposes of such loan or other financial assistance, or of the present or prospective owners, lessees, tenants, or occupants of the dwelling or dwellings in relation to which such loan or other financial assistance is to be made or given: Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall impair the scope or effectiveness of the exception contained in section 3603(b) of this title.”

1974—Pub. L. 93–383 inserted “, sex” after “religion”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–430 effective on 180th day beginning after Sept. 13, 1988, see section 13(a) of Pub. L. 100–430, set out as a note under section 3601 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 224 cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 8× “She charges that in so doing, they violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3605 , and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.”

Webster Bank v. Oakley, 830 A.2d 139 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 16× “Indeed, discrimination in mortgage foreclosures is addressed solely by a different section of the FHAA, namely, 42 U.S.C. § 3605 . 18 Put differently, the defendant’s proposed application of § 3604 is precluded by the existence of § 3605.”

Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). · cites it 2× “§3604 (Fair Housing Act; Discrimi- nation in the Sale or Rental of Housing and Other Prohibited Practices)  42 U. S. C. §3605 (Fair Housing Act; Discrimi- nation in Residential Real Estate-Related Transactions)  42 U.”

Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “" 42 U.S.C. § 3605 (a). The district court held that Boykin's complaint was insufficiently pleaded, stating: While Plaintiff generally alleges that KeyBank discriminated against her based on her race and sex, the Complaint contains no specific facts supporting her claims.”

Peter M. Gaona Annah M. Gaona v. Town & Country Credit the Chase Manhattan Bank, 324 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). · cites it 5× “See 42 U.S.C. § 3605 (2000); 24 C.F.R. § 100.”

Eva v. Midwest Nat'l Mortg. Banc, Inc., 143 F. Supp. 2d 862 (N.D. Ohio 2001). · cites it 6× “Furthermore, the Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 3605 by Defendants Clabes and Denight, and Defendant USMR are denied.”

People ex rel. Madigan v. Wildermuth, 2017 IL 120763 (Ill. 2017). · cites it 3× “1992) ( American Family Mutual ) (property insurance does not constitute "financial assistance" within the meaning of section 3605 of the FHA ( 42 U.S.C. § 3605 (1988) )), United States v.”

Jordan v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 91 F. Supp. 3d 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). · cites it 3× “See 42 U.S.C. § 3605 . In the July 31 Opinion, the Court dismissed some of Jordan’s FHA claims as time-barred and others as unrelated to residential real-estate transactions.”

Inclusive Cmtys. Proj., Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. Co., 920 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 2019). “42 U.S.C. § 3605 (a). 6 The Supreme Court's modification of the HUD standard is further evidenced by its omission of any discussion of deference, pursuant to Chevron, U.”

Matthews v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 185 F. Supp. 2d 874 (S.D. Ohio 2002). · cites it 5× “42 U.S.C. § 3605 The Plaintiffs have also alleged that New Century violated § 805 of the FHA, 42 U.”

Nat'l Fair Hous. All., Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 208 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 3605 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs contend that the emphasized portions of these provisions of the FHA are proper *55 ly construed to prohibit racial discrimination in the sale of homeowners insurance.”

Clearing House Ass'n, LLC v. Cuomo, 510 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “[4] In his Answer, the Attorney General asserted that racial disparities reflected in the HMDA data "established a prima facie case, under the federal Fair Housing Act," 42 U.S.C. § 3605 (a), as well as under New York State Executive Law § 296-a.”

Show all 224 citing cases →

— 42 U.S.C. § 3605(c) — 1 case

Am. Ins. Ass'n v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 74 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2014).

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.