Sisti v. Federal Housing Finance Agency

324 F. Supp. 3d 273 (2018)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sisti v. Federal Housing Finance Agency

United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
324 F. Supp. 3d 273 (2018)

Facts

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (defendant) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) (collectively, the entities) (defendants), (collectively, the entities) were created by Congress to provide nationwide access to affordable mortgages. In 2008, in response to the subprime- mortgage crisis, Congress created the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) (defendant), an independent agency responsible for supervising Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other entitiesthe entities. The FHFA placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Macthe entities into conservatorship. As conservator, FHFA controlled the rights and privileges of the entities’ shareholders and directors. FHFA elected the entities’ boards of directors and determined the boards’ sizes and scopes of authority. FHFA owned all of the entities’ senior preferred stock and prohibited the entities from paying dividends. Instead, FHFA required the entities to pay dividends directly to the United States.S. Treasury. The FHFA’s director had full discretion over the length of the conservatorship. There was no date set for the conservatorship’s end, nor were criteria established which that would trigger its automatic end. After the establishment of the FHFA conservatorship, Judith Sisti (plaintiff) defaulted on her home mortgage. The servicer of Sisti’s mortgage, acting as Freddie Mac’s agent, conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure on Sisti’s property. Cynthia Boss (plaintiff) also defaulted on her home mortgage. Boss’s mortgage had been assigned to Fannie Mae, which also conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure. Sisti and Boss filed separate lawsuits, both asserting the claim that FHFA’s conservatorship had converted Fannie Mae and Freddie Macthe entities into government actors bound by the Fifth Amendment’s due- process requirements. Sisti and Boss argued that the nonjudicial foreclosures on their properties had violated their Fifth Amendment due- process rights. Sisti’s and Boss’s lawsuits were consolidated, and Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,the entities and FHFA moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McConnell, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership