[co-author: John L. Ropiequet]

The fair lending cases filed by Miami against large mortgage lenders in 2013, in which the city sought to recover lost property tax revenues and increased municipal expenses allegedly caused by foreclosures that in turn were caused by the banks’ alleged redlining (denying credit on a discriminatory basis) and reverse redlining (targeting predatory loans on a discriminatory basis), have been prominently featured in several previous Annual Surveys. They are featured again here because the Eleventh Circuit has issued its long awaited decision on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami. 2 While other municipal fair lending cases were stayed as the court considered petitions for rehearing en banc the remand opinion, which have now been denied,3 the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment granted in a case brought by the City of Miami Gardens. Meanwhile, other non-municipal fair lending plaintiffs have appeared on the scene.

Both the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) were active in filing enforcement actions against alleged racial and national origin discrimination and to protect servicemembers’ rights. HUD also published a proposed rule to clarify what must be alleged and proven in cases seeking recovery under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) 4 for disparate impact claims.

Originally published in The Business Lawyer; Vol. 75, Spring 2020.