FLOOD03849 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 10 that they did not comply with the notice requirements. Plaintiffs were damaged by flooding. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, holdin~ that a private cause of action ia implied. The judge applied the four criteria of Cort v. Ash. . First, the court held that all purchasers of homes in floodprone areas are within the special class intended to be protected by the legislation. Where Congress"haa established a right or duty, it is the most accurate indication of the intention to create a private cause of action (citing Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 690 (1979)). Further, though the Federal Treasury is also a primary beneficiary (due to reducing disaster relief payments), a private remedy can still be implied for home- owners who are also primary beneficiaries. The homeowners need not be the sole primary beneficiaries. Second, the legislative history, though scant, does indicate that Congress intended a private cause of action. While the flood statutes do provide for other causes of action, and while this strongly suggests that Congress did not intend to provide a cause of action to enforce analogous conduct, the judicial relief provided for elsewhere in the flood statutes is un- related to enforcement or to notice by lenders. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that Congress intended no enforcement of the notice requirements. Third, a private remedy is necessary to accomplish the purpose of the flood legislation -- to reduce flood damage, personal hardship, and the cost of disaster relief. Thus, the third factor in Cort v. Ash is satisfied. . Lastly, a cause of action based on the failure of a federally regulated lender to comply with a Federal statute is not a traditional matter of State law. Therefore, defendants' motion to dismiss was denied. The same result was reached in Hofbauer'v; Northwestern National Bank of Rochester, Minnesota (D. Minn. 1981), where the court found thst the Jones Amendment could be read as an extension of the truth in lending concept. The same court found that the Jones Amendment did not apply to loans secured by FHA if the mortgagee is not regulated by one of the identified Federal instrumentalities (e.g., FDIC, FSLIC); Jacobsen v. Banco Mortgage Co. (1981) .