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

Briefs filed in the federal courts of appeals

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

Briefs filed in the supreme court

We also file amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in conjunction with the Solicitor General:

Case Summary Filed Statute
Marx v. General Revenue Corp.

The government’s amicus brief argues that a consumer who loses a suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not have to pay the defendant’s court costs unless she filed the suit in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.

 Aug 3 2012 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. v. Allen

This case presents the question whether communications from debt collectors to consumers’ attorneys are categorically excluded from the coverage of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which in relevant part prohibits debt collectors from engaging in “[t]he collection of any amount . . . unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.” 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1). The government’s brief agrees with the court below that debt collectors’ communications to consumers’ attorneys can be covered by the FDCPA, and suggests that the Supreme Court not grant plenary review in the case.

 Dec 23 2011 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Freeman v. Quicken Loans

This case concerns a provision of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that prohibits the payment or receipt of “any portion, split, or percentage” of a charge for a real estate settlement service other than for a service actually performed, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b). The question is whether, to establish a violation of this provision a consumer must demonstrate that an unearned fee was divided between two or more settlement service providers. The government’s amicus briefs at the petition stage and at the merits stage urge the Court to defer to the longstanding interpretation of HUD (adopted by the Bureau) and hold that RESPA bars all unearned fees including fees that a single entity charges a consumer and does not divide with another settlement service provider.

 Dec 2 2011 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
First American v. Edwards

The case concerns the provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that prohibit the payment or receipt of a kickback for the referral of settlement services business and provide a cause of action for damages equal to three times the amount of any fee paid for a settlement service involving such a kickback, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a) & (d)(2). The question presented is whether, in the absence of a claim that a kickback affected the price, quality, or other characteristics of a service provided, a consumer is sufficiently injured to establish Art. III standing and sustain a cause of action for damages. The government’s amicus brief argues that the plaintiff’s Article III standing was established by her allegations of a particularized violation of her statutory right to a kickback-free referral.

 Oct 18 2011 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act