HVCC – NAMB Lawsuit Update
The following was obtained by a prior post from FHAAppraisers.com
Opening Remarks, Breaking News Yesterday, Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, presiding in the matter between the National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) and James B. Lockhart, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), denied the motion for a temporary restraining order regarding the implementation of the Valuation Rule in the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC). The ruling is as follows:
Full Docket Text:
MINUTE ORDER denying [3] the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). The plaintiff claims that “[i]mplementation of the Valuation Rule will cause immediate and irreparable competetive and economic harm to NAMB and its members.” P1.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 39. It is well-settled that economic loss alone will rarely constitute irreparable harm. Wis. Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 758 F.2d 669,674 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Barton v. District of Columbia, 131 F. Supp. 2d 236,247 (D.D.C. 2001) (Urbina, J.). If, however, the potential harm could threaten the very existence of the business, a court may deem such harm irreparable. E.g., Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674. Alleging only that the “Valuation Rule” will put mortgage brokers at a severe competetive disadvantage, P1.’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 39-42 (citing Exs. A, C, D, N), the plaintiff has failed to establish a likelihood that its existence and that of its constituent members will be threatened within the next ten days, the maximum time that the TRO could remain in effect, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). Because the plaintiff fails to show irreparable injury, the court need not consider the remaining factors for issuance of injunctive relief. CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (stating that because the movant “has made no showing of irreparable injury here, that alone is sufficient for us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting [the movant's] request. We thus need not reach…consideration of the remaining factors relevant to the issuance of a preliminary injunction”).
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for a TRO is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED.
Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 03/19/2009. (1crmu1)
1:09-cv-00356-RMU NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE BROKERS, INC. v. LOCKHART
Ricardo M. Urbina, presiding
Date filed: 02/23/2009
Date of last filing: 03/19/2009
The HVCC relates to the FHFA, as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and has not been adopted by the FHA. It appears as though the FHA is not close to implementation of a set of regulations similar to the HVCC as the change of administration in Washington has resulted in a review of overall operations which is likely to take a prolonged period of time.
While the HVCC has not been adopted by the FHA and does not have a direct impact on FHA Appraisers, it is clear that the overall trend towards a greater reliance on appraisal management companies (AMC’s) is leading to an increased flow of FHA appraisal orders through these third parties. FHA appraisers concerned about maintaining or increasing their lender appraisal business need to consider marketing their services to these entities with a careful business plan involving evaluating AMC’s carefully as to how “appraiser firendly” they are and what percentage of their overall business they foresee AMC’s being.
« Wells Fargo Accused of Colluding With An Appraiser Service, Rels Valuation | Home | HUD/FHA Adopt the 1004MC – FHA Appraisers Required To Include 4/01/09 »
Comments are closed.