Ferrell v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
21
cited by 21 later decisions
July 1999
most recently cited
7 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1709 · 12 U.S.C. § 1715U · 42 U.S.C. § 1441 (Housing Act of 1949) · 42 U.S.C. § 3535
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Castaneda v. Partida · Hazelwood School District v. United States · System Federation No. 91 v. Wright
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“3. HUD Handbook 4191.2, attached hereto as Appendix A, shall constitute binding instructions for implementation of the assignment program subsequent to entry of this order.... The provisions of the Handbook may be modified in accordance with the Department's usual procedures. However, during the term of this Amended Stipulation the Department will not make any modification which would curtail the basic rights of mortgagors under the program now in existence. The Department will give notice to plaintiffs' counsel prior to final action on any modification.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) The Secretary will accept assignments of mortgages insured under this part in order to avoid foreclosure when the following conditions are met: (1) The mortgagee has informed the mortgagor that it intends to foreclose the mortgage; (2) At least three full monthly installments due on the mortgage are unpaid after application of any partial payments which may have been accepted but not yet applied to the mortgage account. (3) The property is the mortgagor's principle place of residence. This criterion may be waived by the Secretary if the property has been leased or rented and the rental income has been applied to the mortgage delinquency or to effect repairs necessary to maintain the property in a safe and habitable condition or if such waiver is determined to be in the best interests of the Department. (4) The mortgagor does not own other property subject to a mortgage insured or held by the Secretary. This criterion may be waived by the Secretary if the income from such other property is the mortgagor's principle source of income. (5) The mortgagor's default has been caused by circumstances beyond the mortgagor's control which render the mortgagor unable to correct the delinquency within a reasonable time or make full mortgage payments. (6) There is a reasonable prospect that the mortgagor will be able to resume full mortgage payments after a period of reduced or suspended payments not exceeding 36 months and will be able to pay the mortgage in full by its maturity date ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The plaintiffs’ second attack on the above-quoted provisions of the proposed [TMAP] regulations concerns their alleged inconsistency with the current Handbook procedure of not charging interest on the amount of forbearance until after the period of reduced or suspended payments. See Handbook, Appendix 6. The proposed regulations provide that interest will begin to accrue on the amount of assistance payments or forbearance as of the dates thereof. HUD does not suggest that the plaintiffs have misstated the practice of forgiveness of interest under the current Handbook or misconstrued the intent and effect of the proposed regulations. The imposition of an additional interest obligation on assisted mortgagors — one that is not required and, in all probability, not contemplated by the amendments to section 230, see Section 230(a)(5) and (b)(2) — results in a more onerous payment burden for those assisted, more probability of future default and foreclosure, and may also limit eligibility for assistance because higher repayment obligations may preclude certain mortgagors from satisfying the “reasonable prospect” criterion. Therefore, insofar as [24 C.R.F.] §§ 203.633 and 203.649 require interest on assistance to accrue from the date of the assistance, those sections of the proposed regulations do not preserve basic rights under the Amended Stipulation and may not be implemented.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.