## Facts

- Charles V. Cason and other Kansas City home purchasers obtained mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) under National Housing Act programs, including 12 U.S.C. §§ 1709 and 1715l(d)(2).
- Before issuing conditional mortgage insurance commitments, FHA personnel inspected and appraised the homes.
- Plaintiffs alleged the inspections were negligently performed or ignored major systems’ operational condition and Kansas City housing code requirements.
- After purchase, plaintiffs discovered significant defects in major home systems and spent money on repairs.
- Plaintiffs sued the United States and HUD/FHA officials seeking (i) monetary damages and (ii) mandamus-type relief compelling inspection, enforcement, and remedial actions.

## Issues

1. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction and plaintiffs had standing to sue under statutes governing FHA mortgage insurance programs.
2. Whether plaintiffs could recover money damages from the United States or HUD/FHA officials for negligent inspections or alleged statutory violations, given sovereign immunity and limits on implied causes of action.
3. Whether mandamus-type relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 could compel HUD/FHA officials to perform alleged inspection and enforcement duties.

## Decision

- The court held plaintiffs had standing and that jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 because the claims arose under an Act of Congress regulating commerce.
- The court dismissed the damages claims, holding the National Housing Act provisions at issue did not create an express or implied private right to money damages and did not supply a money-mandating basis for Tucker Act recovery.
- The court concluded tort-based negligent inspection theories were barred because the challenged inspection/appraisal functions fell within discretionary governmental activity protected under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary-function exception.
- The court denied mandamus-type relief, ruling the alleged duties were not clear, ministerial, and specific, but instead involved substantial administrative discretion.
- The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

## Legal Principles

- 28 U.S.C. § 1337 provides jurisdiction over claims arising under Acts of Congress regulating commerce, including challenges tied to National Housing Act programs.
- The Tucker Act is jurisdictional only; a plaintiff must identify a separate substantive source of law that can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the federal government.
- National Housing Act FHA mortgage-insurance provisions directed to program administration and lender protection do not, without more, create a private damages remedy for mortgagors based on allegedly deficient inspections or appraisals.
- Sovereign immunity bars damages absent a valid waiver; under the FTCA, the discretionary-function exception precludes liability for discretionary policy or administrative judgments, even if alleged to be negligent.
- Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is unavailable unless the plaintiff shows a clear, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty; programmatic inspection and enforcement choices committed to agency discretion cannot be compelled by mandamus.

## Conclusion

The court recognized jurisdiction and standing for FHA-insured mortgagors but dismissed all claims because the National Housing Act did not authorize a private damages remedy, sovereign immunity and FTCA limits foreclosed tort recovery, and the requested mandamus relief targeted discretionary HUD/FHA functions rather than ministerial duties.


Cason v. United States, 381 F. Supp. 1362 (W.D. Mo. 1974)