incorporated into the HECM agreement by failing to establish and maintain the priority of the HECM lien. See HUD Mortgagee Letter 2006-20 (“It is the mortgagee’s responsibility to ensure that the first [private, lender] and second [HUD] mortgages are the first and second liens of record, and that other liens do not intervene between the first and second mortgage.”). We now make explicit what we have held in unpublished, non-precedential opinions. HUD regulations govern the relationship between the reverse-mortgage lender and HUD as insurer of the loan. HUD regulations do not give the borrower a private cause of action unless the regulations are expressly incorporated into the lender-borrower agreement. See Smith v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 519 Fed.Appx. 861, 864 (5th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Compass Bank, No. H-14-0410, 2014
holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action holding that a plaintiff may proceed with a claim against the state for breach of contract only where the state implicitly waives its sovereign immunity by expressly entering into a valid contract through an agent of the state expressly authorized by law to enter into such contract holding that plaintiff entitled to recover for changes not incorporated into contract under theory of breach recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract