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

1,185 chars

After reviewing all the evidence of Congressional intent at our disposal, we conclude that the Preservation Act as originally enacted in 1987 applies to mortgage insurance termination. We base our conclusion on the express terms of the 1987 Act, its purposes, and the clarifying amendment in the Reform Act of 1989. While we are aware that there may be situations where Congress’ purported clarification of an earlier enactment should not be considered probative of Congress’ earlier intent, such a situation does not present itself here. We therefore reverse the district court’s interpretation of the Preservation Act, made without the benefit of Congress’ clarification, and order that summary judgment be granted for plaintiffs on their claim that HUD’s approval of Hillvale’s request to terminate was “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that HUD violated the APA when it approved Hillvale’s request without complying with the Preservation Act and an order requiring HUD to apply the Preservation Act to any request by Hillvale to either prepay the mortgage or terminate federal mortgage insurance. III.

Other Sections in This Document (62)

Full Text