Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)

Citation: Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Parent Document: Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1990-08-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8990172/johnson-v-united-states-departm... ↗

Full Text

854 chars

In the Reform Act, Congress amended the Preservation Act by including specific references to mortgage insurance termination. Congress made clear the amendment was clarifying in nature and not intended to effect a substantive change in the law. See United States v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical, 810 F.2d at 741 (rejecting an argument that an amendment substantially changed existing law rather than clarified it); Brown v. Marquette Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 686 F.2d 608, 615 (7th Cir.1982) (if Congress intended to change *1311the law rather than clarify it, the previous statute meant exactly the contrary of the amended provision). The amendment is entitled “Clarification of Applicability to Voluntary Termination of Insurance”, and the following remark by one of the Reform Act’s sponsors is typical of remarks made about the amendment during its debate:

Other Sections in This Document (62)

Full Text