Opinion ID: 2743282
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: HUD and HAMP Regulations

Text: We have previously held that the HUD Handbook does not afford a private cause of action. Roberts v. Cameron-Brown Co., 556 F.2d 356, 360-61 (5th Cir. 1977). This circuit has not precedentially resolved whether there is a private cause of action under the HAMP regulations. We have held in an unpublished opinion that there is not. Pennington v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 493 F. App’x 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Miller v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 677 F.3d 1113, 1116 (11th Cir. 2012)). We need not answer that question here, 5 Case: 14-20019 Document: 00512805760 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 No. 14-20019 because Law has not presented any argument to suggest that there is a private right of action. Thus, in order to bring suit for violations of HUD or HAMP regulations, Law must show that the regulations were incorporated into the deed of trust. Law points to no language in the deed of trust that incorporates HAMP. With regard to the HUD regulations, Law’s complaint states that “the Note and Deed of Trust expressly provide that the acceleration and foreclosure on plaintiff[’s] loan are subject to limitation through regulations promulgated by the HUD Secretary.” The only possible source of this contention is the statement in the deed of trust that its provisions “shall not limit the applicability of federal law to this Deed of Trust.” This language does not mention the HUD regulations, much less “expressly” incorporate them, as the complaint states. A deed of trust’s mere mention that federal law applies can hardly be construed as affording a private cause of action under statutes that do not provide one. As a result, Law could not assert claims for violations of the HUD and HAMP regulations.