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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berlin v. Renaissance Rental Partners | This case presents the question of whether condominium units are “lots” under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., and its implementing regulations. At the invitation of the Court, the Bureau filed a letter brief that argues that condominium units are “lots” without regard to whether the purchaser or lessee of the unit holds any other interest in land. |
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals | Mar 12 2013 | Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act |
| 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 | |
| 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 |
Share
