Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Property Law and Real Estate

Journal

University of Richmond Law Review

HUD

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Respa Revised And Revisited, Edward S. Hirschler Jan 1977

Respa Revised And Revisited, Edward S. Hirschler

University of Richmond Law Review

It is hard to believe that the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, which was signed by President Ford on December 22, 1974, and the revision that became effective on January 2, 1976,2 could have the same name-RESPA. It is even more remarkable that it took less than a year for the monstrosity which became effective on June 20, 1975, to evolve into what is now a reasonably workable statute with regulations which clarify rather than confuse. It is beyond the scope of this article to trace the history of RESPA in detail. Suffice it to say that in …


Land Use Law In Virginia Jan 1975

Land Use Law In Virginia

University of Richmond Law Review

In Virginia and throughout the United States, pressures have been building which are forcing the law of land use planning to a watershed in its development. In response, governments at all levels have been striving to find means of ensuring that the resulting change be in a direction that benefits the greatest number of their citizens. Likewise, the attorney practicing in this area of the law needs to recognize the possibility of fundamental changes, to understand the pressures precipitating an altered legal framework, and to appreciate the complex ramifications of his decisions involving questions of land use. Only through this …


Federal Regulation Of Home Closings- The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Of 1974, Edward S. Hirschler Jan 1975

Federal Regulation Of Home Closings- The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Of 1974, Edward S. Hirschler

University of Richmond Law Review

Many years ago, the licensing of lawyers in Virginia was the direct obligation of the Supreme Court of Appeals. As part of the procedure, the applicant presented himself to the Court for examination. One hopeful was unable to define a tort, could not give the basic requirements of a contract and had no idea of what was meant by fee simple.