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

Citation: Johnson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Parent Document: Johnson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud), 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1990-10-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/546951/johnson-v-united-states-departme... ↗

Full Text

1,457 chars

20
The question presented by this case is a difficult one because nowhere in the Preservation Act did Congress specifically mention mortgage insurance termination. Congress did, however, make the Act applicable to mortgage prepayment and "other changes in the status or terms of the regulatory or mortgage agreement," Preservation Act, Sec. 222, 101 Stat. 1879, and evidenced an intent in language found elsewhere in the Act that it apply broadly to any termination of low income affordability restrictions. While the language of the Act suggests that Congress intended to cover mortgage insurance termination, the House Conference Report defines "other changes" as financial incentives offered to the owner in exchange for the owner's agreement to retain the housing for low to moderate income use, but does not mention mortgage insurance termination. Conference Report, 1987 USCCAN 3491. Recognizing the ambiguity in the language and legislative history of the 1987 Act, Congress amended the "other changes" language to make it clear that it includes mortgage insurance termination. Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 101-235, Sec. 202, 103 Stat. 1987. The amendment was designed to clarify the intent of the 1987 Congress and to make explicit what Congress intended when it originally passed the Preservation Act. 135 Cong.Rec. S16,597 (daily ed. Nov. 21, 1989) (section-by-section analysis); 135 Cong.Rec. H8605 (daily ed. Nov. 14, 1989) (remarks of Rep. Gonzalez).

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text