United States v. Stadium Apartments, Inc.

This case presents the question whether state redemption statutes should apply when the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) forecloses a mortgage which it has guaranteed. We hold that such statutes do not apply.

The federal statute here involved is Title VI of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1736 -1746a. The stated objective of Title VI is “to assist in relieving the acute shortage of housing * * * available to veterans of World War II at prices within their reasonable ability to pay * * * ” 12 U.S.C. § 1738 (a). The statute confers authority upon the Secretary (formerly the Commissioner) “to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this subchapter.” 12 U.S.C. § 1742 . Such regulations were promulgated, and those that were in force in November 1949, when the mortgage here in question was executed and insured appear in the 1947 Supplement to the Code of Federal Regulations. ( 24 C.F.R. § 580 (1947 Supp.).) Citations to C.F.R. in this opinion are to the 1947 supplement.

The way in which the Act and regulations operated are well illustrated in this case. In 1949, appellee Stadium Apartments, Inc., desired to construct, under Title VI, an…

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. The majority, with broad strokes, erases highly significant redemptive rights created by statute in the Territory of Guam and eight of the states comprising our Circuit as well as equitable rights of redemption hitherto applied by the courts of Hawaii. These rights are deeply rooted in history, founded on an equitable principle applied through centuries to protect the temporarily disadvantaged without working significant prejudice against his creditor. The approach which I take is made, not only in the interests of local mortgagors involved in the federal housing program, but also in the interests of the federal program itself. I do not dispute the fact that federal abrogation of state-created rights is often necessary for the protection of federal programs, but I have been unable to accept the majority’s proposition that its dramatic result is here warranted by any overpowering motive of federal self defense. Time after time, the Congress of the United States has created programs through which private loans are guaranteed by the federal government. In not one of those programs has Congress ever prescribed that, in connection with those…

425 F.2d 358 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. STADIUM APARTMENTS, INC., et al., Appellee. No. 22708. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 14, 1970. Rehearing Denied June 15, 1970. Sherman Furey, U. S. Atty., Boise, Idaho, Wm. D. Ruckleshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of Cal., Slade Gorton, Atty Gen. of Olympia, Wash., Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen. of Phoenix, Ariz., Allan G. Shepard, Atty. Gen. of Idaho, Boise, Idaho, Frank G. Lujan, Atty. Gen. of Territory of Guam, Agana, Guam, amicus curiae. Before DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, * District Judge. DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge: 1 This case presents the question whether state redemption statutes should apply when the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) forecloses a mortgage which it has guaranteed. We hold that such statutes do not apply. 2 The federal statute here involved is Title VI of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1736 -1746a. The stated objective of Title VI is "to assist in relieving the acute shortage of housing * * * available to veterans of World War II at prices within their reasonable ability to pay…