Posted on 06/28/2012 at 01:08 PM by John Lande
Lost in Thursdays coverage of the United States Supreme Courts decision regarding the Affordable Care Act was the Courts action regarding another important constitutional issue. The Court dismissed, without a decision or opinion, the case First American Corp. v. Edwards. The question before the Court was whether it violated the Constitution to allow a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA) if she had not suffered any actual harm. To understand this case, a little background is helpful. RESPA prohibits the payment of any fee, kickback, or thing of value in exchange for business referrals of settlement service business involving a federally related mortgage loan. RESPA also prohibits sellers from requiring that buyers use a particular title insurance company. One of the purposes of these two provisions is to ensure that closing costs are not artificially inflated. Individuals who are aggrieved under RESPA may bring a private lawsuit against the bank, mortgage company, or title company (among others) that may have violated the statute. There are also criminal penalties for violating the statute, which may be enforced by federal or state officials. The issue in First American Corp was whether a plaintiff could still bring her lawsuit when there was no evidence that the closing costs associated with her purchase were increased as a result of RESPA violations. The United States Constitution requires that for plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit they must have suffered an actual injury. The United States District Court for the Central District of California found in favor of the Plaintiff, concluding that even though there was no evidence of increased closing costs she had still suffered an injury. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed and held that the plaintiff could bring her RESPA suit without any evidence of having actually paid more in closing costs due to the RESPA violation. The Supreme Court then granted review of the case. The parties submitted briefs, and the case was argued before the Court on November 28, 2011. On June 28, 2012, the Court dismissed the case without any decision or opinion. It is not uncommon for the Court to dismiss a case without providing any explanation. It is also impossible to know why the Supreme Court dismissed First National. It could be that the Court felt the arguments were not sufficiently well developed. The Court may have decided that the facts of the case were not well suited to resolving the issue, or some other reason. The effect of the ruling is to leave the Ninth Circuits decision in place. Regardless, this case has important implications for other consumer financial protection statutes and regulations. CFPB is now responsible for promulgating regulations under RESPA. If the Ninth Circuits decision continues to be the law, then banks and financial institutions could face civil liability for a host of statutory and regulatory violations even if consumers are not directly harmed. The Ninth Circuits approach has already been adopted by the Third and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals, but not yet by the Eighth Circuit which covers Iowa.
The material in this blog is not intended, nor should it be construed or relied upon, as legal advice. Please consult with an attorney if specific legal information is needed.
Questions, Contact us today.
The material, whether written or oral (including videos) that is posted on the various blogs of Dickinson Law is not intended, nor should it be construed or relied upon, as legal advice. The opinions expressed in the various blog posting are those of the individual author, they may not reflect the opinions of the firm. Your use of the Dickinson Law blog postings does NOT create an attorney-client relationship between you and Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C. or any of its attorneys. If specific legal information is needed, please retain and consult with an attorney of your own selection.