"RESPA" doesn't prohibit the collection of unearned settlement fees, Supreme Court says
Posted on 06/22/2012 at 07:18 AM by Benjamin Bruner
In the recent Freeman v Quicken Loans, Inc. case, the U.S. Supreme Court was confronted with a dispute that centered on a provision of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) that attempts to prohibit lender kickbacks and referral fees. The plaintiffs in the case alleged that Quicken Loans had violated 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b) by charging them fees for which no service had been provided. Quicken Loans was granted summary judgment on the grounds that said provision of RESPA applied only to prohibit unearned fees from being split with another person. The unearned fees involved in this case can (logically and obviously) be described as fees for which lenders provide no services. The Court held that in order to establish a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b) which provides that [n]o person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service . . . other than for services actually performed a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons. The Court does not interpret the subject provision of RESPA to generally prohibit unearned fees, but only states that such unearned fees may not be shared between two or more persons. This may seem odd, but the Court stated that the law Congress passed was strictly related to fee splitting and fee splitting only. In order to control the level of unearned fees that a single bank charges, Congress would have to be more specific in its prohibition of said fees. The Court noted that Congress may well have intended that existing remedies, like state-law actions for fraud, were sufficient to address entirely fictitious fees. The Courts unanimous decision may reopen the door to controversial administrative fees levied by real estate brokers, and may encourage mortgage lenders, settlement agents and others to mark-up their fees, a practice that had been banned by federal regulators for the past decade.
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.