Reviews of Quicken Mortgage LoansRatings of Quicken Mortgage Loans
Quicken's application for a statement that the sample testing used by HUD was inadmissible and that Quicken's loans were duly subscribed was also rejected by the Court. It was Quicken's claim that HUD had infringed the APA by using an inappropriate random selection technique to establish that a number of Quicken loans had been flawed.
Cf. Order, Quicken v. United States, 2:15-cv-11408-MAG-RSW (E. D. Mich. Dec. 31, 2015). As a result, HUD withdrew Quicken's lending mandates, which gave Quicken the power to assess the exposure of prospective borrower, subscribe loans, and confirm the loans for FHA mortgage coverage without the need for HUD verification or authorization.
Quicken was found by the court not to have complied with its obligation to prove the right to court examination of the APA infringements. Court found that court examination under 5 U.S.C. 551(13) is restricted to the scope of an "agency action". "Quicken's complaint in general did not have the necessary specifity to show that one of the measures taken by HUD amount to agencies measures under the law.
There were two particular accusations which the Court of First Instance considered which are referred to as Agenturklagen: Submits (i) a HUD notice that suspends Quicken's lending mandates; and (ii) a complaint by HUD in the District of Columbia claiming that Quicken has breached the False Claims Act. Neither of the two claims could amount to an agent's claim, since they were not classified as 'final decisions'.
" None of the letters that did not force the submission of the action either required Quicken to carry out or refrain from any behavior, and none of the acts of HUD gave rise to any action for Quicken. Quicken has also been provided with a reasonable appeal under the False Claims Act by HUD in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The court found that none of HUD's acts justified legal examination in the Eastern District of Michigan. However, the Court noted that Quicken implicated that the use of random samples by HUD was an agent claim, but found these accusations unconvincing. HUD's letters did not deal with the sample method used by HUD and, in any case, the sample method was not the kind of agencies measures provided for in the Act.
HUD also found that neither the submission of a lawsuit by HUD nor the request for a composition corresponded to the lawsuits of the authorities. Lastly, the discretionary power of the judicial authorities gave HUD full powers to supervise and implement its FTA programme. Quicken's request for due process must also be rejected because Quicken did not show that it was not interested in "contractual cover " because Quicken did not assert that HUD refused to insure the federal secured loans.
Quicken also found that Quicken did not assert that monies were actually taken from it when Quicken claimed that HUD could use its random sample method to demand compensation from Quicken for HUD, thereby withdrawing Quicken's ownership of the monies spent on it. After finding that Quicken had omitted to make a demand under the APA or due process clause, the court rejected Quick's application for a statement aimed at preventing HUD from applying its sample method and found that Quicken had not breached any policy because Quicken's loans had been duly subscribed.
The court found that the questions posed by Quicken had been successfully solved by the HUD False Claims Act action in the District of Columbia. Quicken's aggressiveness in filing a complaint before HUD in the hope of affecting the result of a possible legal dispute that HUD brought against the creditor was questioned by many.