Hybrid

[Eli]

Federal Court Declares FHFA Structure Unconstitutional
According to a Washington Examiner report, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the FHFA structure ran afoul of the Constitution because it did not answer to the president and its director could not be removed by the president except for cause. “We hold that Congress insulated the FHFA to the point where the Executive Branch cannot control the FHFA or hold it accountable,” the judges wrote in an unsigned opinion.

The FHFA was created in 2008 in response to the collapse of the government-sponsored enterprises. The judges ruled that the law related to the FHFA’s duties must be changed to allow for the president to remove the director at will.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by shareholders in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who claimed that were cheated in 2012 when the Treasury took all of the two companies’ profits rather than just a 10 percent dividend. The court ruled 2-1 against that part of the lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT ...

III A.
HERA grants FHFA certain authority as the Companies’
conservator, and it imposes certain limitations on review
of FHFA’s actions. As relevant here, it explicitly limits
judicial review of claims that would hamper FHFA’s
conduct as a conservator: “[N]o court may take any action
to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of
[FHFA] as a conservator or a receiver.”
12 U.S.C. § 4617(f)

. Our court has not previously construed this
particular limitation, but this anti-injunction language is
not new. Courts have interpreted nearly identical statutory
language—found in the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”),
12U.S.C. § 1821(j)
—to bar claims for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief against an agency
acting within its statutory authority as conservator. Courts have construed this language to “effect a sweeping ouster
of courts’ power to grant equitable remedies ....”
Freeman v. F.D.I.C. , 56 F.3d 1394, 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
;
accord Courtney v. Halleran
, 485 F.3d 942, 948 (7th Cir. 2007) ; Hanson v. F.D.I.C., 113 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 1997)
.
The anti-injunction language in § 1821(j), however,
“shields only ‘the exercise of powers or functions’
Congress gave to the [agency]; the provision does not bar
injunctive relief when the [agency] has acted beyond, or
contrary to, its statutorily prescribed, constitutionally
permitted, powers or functions.”
Sharpe v. F.D.I.C., 126 F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997)
(quoting Nat’l Trust for Historic Pres. v. F.D.I.C., 995 F.2d 238, 240 (D.C. Cir.),vacated,
5 F.3d 567 (D.C. Cir. 1993), reinstated in relevant part, 21 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1994));accord Bank of Am. Nat’l. ***’n v. Colonial Bank, 604 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2010); Elmco Props., Inc. v. Second Nat’l Fed. Savings ***’n, 94 F.3d 914, 923 (4th Cir. 1996


Perhaps,
Appraiser groups should seek very good legal counsel concerning the taking of their data and the reselling it, in AVM form, in competition against them.



And MLS systems to, had to give up open Membership to the GSEs. Realtors and Appraisers might be due compensation.





Feudalism 2.0.

.

What would legal counsel cost per appraiser? Say, 70,000 per $5 is $350,000.

 

[Eli]

Federal Court Declares FHFA Structure Unconstitutional
According to a Washington Examiner report, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the FHFA structure ran afoul of the Constitution because it did not answer to the president and its director could not be removed by the president except for cause. “We hold that Congress insulated the FHFA to the point where the Executive Branch cannot control the FHFA or hold it accountable,” the judges wrote in an unsigned opinion.

The FHFA was created in 2008 in response to the collapse of the government-sponsored enterprises. The judges ruled that the law related to the FHFA’s duties must be changed to allow for the president to remove the director at will.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by shareholders in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who claimed that were cheated in 2012 when the Treasury took all of the two companies’ profits rather than just a 10 percent dividend. The court ruled 2-1 against that part of the lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT ...

III A.
HERA grants FHFA certain authority as the Companies’
conservator, and it imposes certain limitations on review
of FHFA’s actions. As relevant here, it explicitly limits
judicial review of claims that would hamper FHFA’s
conduct as a conservator: “[N]o court may take any action
to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of
[FHFA] as a conservator or a receiver.”
12 U.S.C. § 4617(f)

. Our court has not previously construed this
particular limitation, but this anti-injunction language is
not new. Courts have interpreted nearly identical statutory
language—found in the Financial Institutions Reform,
Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”),
12U.S.C. § 1821(j)
—to bar claims for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief against an agency
acting within its statutory authority as conservator. Courts have construed this language to “effect a sweeping ouster
of courts’ power to grant equitable remedies ....”
Freeman v. F.D.I.C. , 56 F.3d 1394, 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
;
accord Courtney v. Halleran
, 485 F.3d 942, 948 (7th Cir. 2007) ; Hanson v. F.D.I.C., 113 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 1997)
.
The anti-injunction language in § 1821(j), however,
“shields only ‘the exercise of powers or functions’
Congress gave to the [agency]; the provision does not bar
injunctive relief when the [agency] has acted beyond, or
contrary to, its statutorily prescribed, constitutionally
permitted, powers or functions.”
Sharpe v. F.D.I.C., 126 F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997)
(quoting Nat’l Trust for Historic Pres. v. F.D.I.C., 995 F.2d 238, 240 (D.C. Cir.),vacated,
5 F.3d 567 (D.C. Cir. 1993), reinstated in relevant part, 21 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 1994));accord Bank of Am. Nat’l. ***’n v. Colonial Bank, 604 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2010); Elmco Props., Inc. v. Second Nat’l Fed. Savings ***’n, 94 F.3d 914, 923 (4th Cir. 1996


Perhaps,
Appraiser groups should seek very good legal counsel concerning the taking of their data and the reselling it, in AVM form, in competition against them.



And MLS systems to, had to give up open Membership to the GSEs. Realtors and Appraisers might be due compensation.





Feudalism 2.0.

.

What would legal counsel cost per appraiser? Say, 70,000 per $5 is $350,000. 70,000 per $20 is $1,400,000.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Anytime an appraiser utilizes one the GSE's forms to report an appraisal, they have given permission for the data from the report to be scraped by the GSE's and other secondary market participants

Yes, but if they had the option to do the report with or without Cert 21, would they not opt out? Hard to not sign with a gun to your head.

Privity does not always work. And a single court case needs to go to appeal to make case law as I recall. That is why the case I was involved in with SoL issues is considered case law. It went to a federal court. However, in a different federal jurisdiction, the results could have been different. And, in my case, the Federal law, recognized that this was a STATE issue, and thus they recognized the 3 year SoL of Arkansas rather than the Federal SoL.

Cert. 23 can be interpreted differently by different courts...and has been.

http://www.liability.com/claim-alerts/claimalerts_limitthirdparty.aspx

 

[Meandering]

Yes, but if they had the option to do the report with or without Cert 21, would they not opt out? Hard to not sign with a gun to your head.

Cert 21 is a pre-printed notice to you, that you have to certify to.

Contract of adhesion.

In the case Maddox v. Northern Natural Gas Co., (citation) the court lays out the traditional rule for determining whether a valid contract exists:
To constitute a contract, there must be an offer by one party and acceptance by the other party”� In order that a contract may be valid, it is essential that the minds of the parties meet upon all of the essential elements of the contract sought to be enforced, and the acts to be done must be clear and unambiguous”�
In order that an offer and acceptance may result in a binding contract, the acceptance must be absolute, unconditional, and identical with the terms of the offer, and must in every respect meet and correspond with the offer; and any qualification of or departure from those terms invalidates and rejects the offer”� Where a person offers to do a definite thing, and another accepts conditionally, or introduces a new term into the acceptance, his answer is a mere expression of willingness to treat, or it is a counter proposal, and in neither case is there an agreement.
A contract of adhesion creates problems with that traditional rule and definition. CORBIN ON CONTRACTS (Section:1.4 Contracts of Adhesion) defines an adhesion contract as:
The term ”�contract of adhesion”� has become part of the language of contract law. The origin of the term sheds some light on its meaning. It was borrowed from French scholars and was first applied in this country to insurance policies.

https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/pre...cts/contracts-outline/a-contract-of-adhesion/

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Improving but not uniform
https://www.blockchainandbanking.com/doctrine-economic-loss-negligence-appraisers

In the early 1990’s, the Ohio courts began to recognize claims against appraisers for negligence and negligent misrepresentation. See Perpetual Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Porter & Peck, Inc., (10th Dist. 1992) 80 Ohio App. 3d 569, 609 N.E.2d 1324 (recognizing lender’s cause of action against appraiser); Washington Mut. Bank v. Smith, (11th Dist. 2002) 2002-Ohio-6910 (recognizing home buyer’s cause of action against appraiser). These cases typically held that, even when a lender or home buyer has no direct contract with an appraiser, the reliance upon the appraisal by these parties was foreseeable by the appraiser.

Beginning in 2006, these precedents began to be called into question on a number of grounds. Intervening decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court on the doctrine of economic loss have undermined most tort causes of action for damages that do not arise from personal injury or actual physical property damage. See e.g. Corporex Dev. & Constr. Mgt., Inc. v. Shook, (Ohio 2005) 106 Ohio St. 3d 412, 835 N.E.2d 701 (no tort recovery for economic loss). In nearly every case of an alleged faulty appraisal, the losses are solely economic under this definition.​

 

[Eli]

Forget privity. Antitrust law is where Louisiana is going imho. Bigger prize. Better for public trust. Win/win

 

[timd354]

Yes, but if they had the option to do the report with or without Cert 21, would they not opt out? Hard to not sign with a gun to your head.

Nobody is forced to work as a residential appraiser and no residential appraisers are forced to perform GSE related appraisals. If appraiser do not like the terms and conditions associated with doing GSE related work, they are perfectly free to find other types of appraisal work or a different career.

The thought that the GSE's would not or should not collect and utilize the appraisal data from the appraisal reports done in connection with the loans that they purchase or guarantee is patently absurd. In fact, the GSE's would be completely negligent in their risk assessment function if they failed to collect and utilize the data.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Nobody is forced to work as a residential appraiser and no residential appraisers are forced to perform GSE related appraisals. If appraiser do not like the terms and conditions associated with doing GSE related work, they are perfectly free to find other types of appraisal work or a different career

Exactly what I did

purchase or guarantee is patently absurd

Banks do it don't they? I can't think of a lender in non-secondary market who does, in fact, suspect there are some privacy issues involved there.

The Google $5 B fine by EU was due to their search engine on android phones. Yes, you can download dogpile, yahoo, etc. but google search is right there on top. Try removing it entirely. Same issue

 

[Eli]

Nobody is forced to work as a residential appraiser and no residential appraisers are forced to perform GSE related appraisals. If appraiser do not like the terms and conditions associated with doing GSE related work, they are perfectly free to find other types of appraisal work or a different career.

The thought that the GSE's would not or should not collect and utilize the appraisal data from the appraisal reports done in connection with the loans that they purchase or guarantee is patently absurd. In fact, the GSE's would be completely negligent in their risk assessment function if they failed to collect and utilize the data.

Lol

 

[Eli]

You know what they say. If the kitchen gets too hot? Lol