U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 50— AGRICULTURAL CREDIT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

7 U.S.C. § 1981d

Notice of loan service programs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Requirement

The Secretary shall provide notice by certified mail to each borrower who is at least 90 days past due on the payment of principal or interest on a loan made or insured under this chapter.

(b) ContentsThe notice required under subsection (a) shall—(1) include a summary of all primary loan service programs, preservation loan service programs, debt settlement programs, and appeal procedures, including the eligibility criteria, and terms and conditions of such programs and procedures;(2) include a summary of the manner in which the borrower may apply, and be considered, for all such programs, except that the Secretary shall not require the borrower to select among such programs or waive any right in order to be considered for any program carried out by the Secretary;(3) advise the borrower regarding all filing requirements and any deadlines that must be met for requesting loan servicing;(4) provide any relevant forms, including applicable response forms;(5) advise the borrower that a copy of regulations is available on request; and(6) be designed to be readable and understandable by the borrower.(c) Contained in regulations

All notices required by this section shall be contained in the regulations implementing this chapter.

(d) TimingThe notice described in subsection (b) shall be provided—(1) at the time an application is made for participation in a loan service program;(2) on written request of the borrower; and(3) before the earliest of—(A) initiating any liquidation;(B) requesting the conveyance of security property;(C) accelerating the loan;(D) repossessing property;(E) foreclosing on property; or(F) taking any other collection action.(e) Consideration of borrowers for loan service programs

The Secretary shall consider a farmer program borrower for all loan service programs if, within 60 days after receipt of the notice required in this section or, in extraordinary circumstances as determined by the applicable State director, after the 60-day period, the borrower requests such consideration in writing. In considering a borrower for loan service programs, the Secretary shall place the highest priority on the preservation of the borrower’s farming operations.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, § 331D, as added Pub. L. 100–233, title VI, § 605, Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1666; amended Pub. L. 101–624, title XVIII, § 1807, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3819; Pub. L. 102–554, § 10, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4151; Pub. L. 104–127, title VI, § 633, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1092; Pub. L. 115–334, title V, § 5401(b)(1), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4674.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c), was in the original “this title”, meaning title III of Pub. L. 87–128, Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 307, known as the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title III to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1921 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

2018—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 115–334 inserted “or, in extraordinary circumstances as determined by the applicable State director, after the 60-day period” after “within 60 days after receipt of the notice required in this section”.

1996—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–127 substituted “90 days past due on” for “180 days delinquent in”.

1992—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 102–554, which directed the insertion of “or, in extraordinary circumstances as determined by the applicable State director, after the 60-day period” after “not later than 60 days after receipt of the notice required in this section”, could not be executed because the phrase “not later than 60 days after receipt of the notice required in this section” did not appear in text. Corrected amendment was made by Pub. L. 115–334, effective as if included in Pub. L. 102–554. See 2018 Amendment note above and Effective Date of 2018 Amendment note below.

1990—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 101–624, § 1807(1), inserted “debt settlement programs,” after “preservation loan service programs”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 101–624, § 1807(2), substituted “60 days” for “45 days”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2018 Amendment

Pub. L. 115–334, title V, § 5401(b)(2), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4674, provided that: “The amendment made by this subsection [amending this section] shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 10 of the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–554).”

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–127 effective 90 days after Apr. 4, 1996, see section 663(b) of Pub. L. 104–127, set out as a note under section 1922 of this title.

Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Amendment by section 1807(1) of Pub. L. 101–624 effective 120 days after Nov. 28, 1990, see section 1861(b) of Pub. L. 101–624, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: United States v. Birchem, 883 F. Supp. 1334 (D.S.D. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Birchem, 883 F. Supp. 1334 (D.S.D. 1995). · cites it 9× “The statute applied in the IRS cases is distinguishable from 7 U.S.C. § 1981d and 7 C.F.R. § 1951.907 , in that it states, “[N]otice .”
United States v. Hafner, 421 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D.N.D. 2006). “In further support of his position, Hafner cites to 7 U.S.C. § 1981d entitled “Notice of loan service programs” and 7 U.”
United States v. Christopher Sammons, 55 F.4th 1062 (6th Cir. 2022). “§ 7503 (notice of proposed suspension); 7 U.S.C. § 1981d (notice of loan service programs); 8 U.”
Sageman v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 367 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “Plaintiff asserts that 7 U.S.C. § 1981d(e) provides additional time to apply for “Primary Loan Servicing due to extraordinary circumstance” and that when he applied for new “Primary Loan Servicing,” officials “conducted an elaborate and arbitrary ruse to block the new PLS…”
Lee v. Yeutter, 106 B.R. 588 (D. Minnesota 1989). “7 U.S.C. § 1981d(a). The stated purposes of the restructuring scheme are to avoid losses to the government on farm program loans while ensuring that borrowers are able to continue farming.”
Hilderbrand v. United States, 905 F. Supp. 774 (E.D. Cal. 1995). “In order to determine whether the FMHA will receive more upon restructuring of the debt than upon foreclosure or liquidation, the FMHA is required to calculate the liquidation recovery value of the collateral securing the loan and the present value of the payment stream of a…”
United States v. Dennis Birchem, 100 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “See 7 U.S.C. § 1981d(a); 7 C.F.R. §§ 1951.907 (d), .”
United States v. Kottcamp, 823 F. Supp. 609 (N.D. Ind. 1993). “7 U.S.C. § 1981d (1988 & Supp.1993). Similarly elaborate procedural requirements apply to notifying a borrower of his right to appeal an adverse decision by the FmHA and of the necessary steps to initiate an appeal: The Secretary shall provide an applicant for or borrower of a…”
United States v. Rich, 853 F. Supp. 341 (E.D. Cal. 1994). “7 U.S.C. § 1981d. Under this amendment, FmHA was prohibited from accelerating or foreclosing on any loan until it adopted final regulations implementing the new law.”
United States v. James Mosbrucker (8th Cir. 2000). “The Mosbruckers filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion to vacate the judgment, arguing that the judgment was void because the District Court had lacked subject matter jurisdiction in light of the government’s failure to allege that the Mosbruckers had been…”
— 7 U.S.C. § 1981d(a) — 4 cases
United States v. Birchem, 883 F. Supp. 1334 (D.S.D. 1995). “The statute applied in the IRS cases is distinguishable from 7 U.S.C. § 1981d and 7 C.F.R. § 1951.907 , in that it states, “[N]otice .”
Lee v. Yeutter, 106 B.R. 588 (D. Minnesota 1989). “7 U.S.C. § 1981d(a). The stated purposes of the restructuring scheme are to avoid losses to the government on farm program loans while ensuring that borrowers are able to continue farming.”
United States v. Dennis Birchem, 100 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 1996). “See 7 U.S.C. § 1981d(a); 7 C.F.R. §§ 1951.907 (d), .”
United States v. James Mosbrucker (8th Cir. 2000). “The Mosbruckers filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion to vacate the judgment, arguing that the judgment was void because the District Court had lacked subject matter jurisdiction in light of the government’s failure to allege that the Mosbruckers had been…”
— 7 U.S.C. § 1981d(e) — 3 cases
Sageman v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 367 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “Plaintiff asserts that 7 U.S.C. § 1981d(e) provides additional time to apply for “Primary Loan Servicing due to extraordinary circumstance” and that when he applied for new “Primary Loan Servicing,” officials “conducted an elaborate and arbitrary ruse to block the new PLS…”
Hilderbrand v. United States, 905 F. Supp. 774 (E.D. Cal. 1995). “In order to determine whether the FMHA will receive more upon restructuring of the debt than upon foreclosure or liquidation, the FMHA is required to calculate the liquidation recovery value of the collateral securing the loan and the present value of the payment stream of a…”
United States v. Dennis Birchem, 100 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 1996). “See 7 U.S.C. § 1981d(a); 7 C.F.R. §§ 1951.907 (d), .”
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.