County of Sonoma, et al v. FHFA, et al, No. 12-16986 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseFHFA, the regulator and conservator of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the Enterprises), issued a "directive" preventing the Enterprises from buying mortgages on properties encumbered by liens made under so-called property-assessed clean energy (PACE) programs. Plaintiffs contended that FHFA was acting as a regulator, and not a conservator. As a regulator, plaintiffs contended that FHFA must issue a regulation to effectuate its order. The court concluded that FHFA's decision to cease purchasing mortgages on PACE-encumbered properties was a lawful exercise of its statutory authority as conservator of the Enterprises. Because the courts have no jurisdiction to review such actions, the court vacated the district court's order and dismissed the case.
Court Description: Federal Housing Finance Agency. The panel vacated the district court’s order and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction a case challenging a Federal Housing Finance Agency directive. The FHFA issued a “directive” preventing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from buying mortgages on properties encumbered by liens made under property-assessed clean energy programs (“PACE”), which finance environmental improvements on residential properties. The panel held that the FHFA’s decision to cease purchasing mortgages on PACE-encumbered properties is a lawful exercise of its statutory authority as conservator of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The panel held that the courts have no jurisdiction to review actions that the FHFA takes as a conservator, and dismissed the case.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.