Amicus program

We file amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs in court cases concerning the federal consumer financial protection laws that we are charged with implementing. These amicus briefs provide the courts with our views on significant consumer financial protection issues and help ensure that consumer financial protection statutes and regulations are correctly and consistently interpreted by the courts.

Suggestions

We welcome your suggestions of pending cases that might make good candidates for the amicus program.

Strong candidates typically are cases that have been or will soon be filed in a federal court of appeals or state supreme court and that present one or more important legal questions involving the interpretation or application of a federal consumer financial protection statute or regulation that we interpret and enforce.

To suggest a case, email amicus@cfpb.gov, and include:

  • Case name,
  • Docket number,
  • Circuit or district court name,
  • Brief description of the case and issue,
  • Explanation of why you believe we should file an amicus brief in this case,
  • Current status of the litigation, and
  • Your contact information

Briefs filed

Case Summary Court Filed Statute
Sherzer v. Homestar Mortgage Services

This case concerns a provision of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 12 U.S.C. § 1635, governing when consumers are permitted to rescind certain types of mortgage loans. The question is whether consumers who wish to rescind their loan must notify their lenders of the rescission within three years of receiving their loan, or whether instead consumers must sue their lenders within the same three-year period. The Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that consumers need only send a notice of rescission—not file a lawsuit—within three years.

 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Apr 13 2012 Truth In Lending Act
Sobieniak v. BAC Home Loans Servicing

This case concerns a provision of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 12 U.S.C. § 1635, governing when consumers are permitted to rescind certain types of mortgage loans. The question is whether consumers who wish to rescind their loan must notify their lenders of the rescission within three years of receiving their loan, or whether instead consumers must sue their lenders within the same three-year period. The Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that consumers need only send a notice of rescission—not file a lawsuit—within three years.

 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Apr 13 2012 Truth In Lending Act
Wolf v. Fannie Mae

This case concerns a provision of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 12 U.S.C. § 1635, governing when consumers are permitted to rescind certain types of mortgage loans. The question is whether consumers who wish to rescind their loan must notify their lenders of the rescission within three years of receiving their loan, or whether instead consumers must sue their lenders within the same three-year period. The Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that consumers need only send a notice of rescission—not file a lawsuit—within three years.

 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Apr 13 2012 Truth In Lending Act
Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, USA

This case concerns a provision of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 12 U.S.C. § 1635, governing when consumers are permitted to rescind certain types of mortgage loans. The question is whether consumers who wish to rescind their loan must notify their lenders of the rescission within three years of receiving their loan, or whether instead consumers must sue their lenders within the same three-year period. The Bureau filed an amicus brief arguing that consumers need only send a notice of rescission—not file a lawsuit—within three years.

 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Mar 26 2012 Truth In Lending Act
Marx v. General Revenue Corp.

This case involves two questions concerning the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). First, the Bureau’s brief argues that the FDCPA generally bars debt collectors from contacting third parties in connection with the collection of a debt even if the third party does not actually realize that the contact relates to debt collection. Second, the brief argues that a defendant who wins an FDCPA suit may recover costs from the plaintiff only if the plaintiff brought suit in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.

 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Jan 26 2012 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Birster v. American Home Mortgage Services, Inc.

This case presents the question whether activity surrounding foreclosure is immune from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Bureau’s brief argues that it is not. In particular, the brief argues:

  1. that an entity that regularly collects or attempts to collect debt is subject to the entire Act, even if its principal purpose is the enforcement of security interests; and
  2. that conduct relating to the enforcement of a security interest can also qualify as debt collection activity covered by the Act.
 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Dec 21 2011 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act