Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations
Section Content

Upcoming Events

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Court holds lenders may not require borrowers to use an affiliated appraisal management company under RESPA; denies class certification

    Courts

    On February 7, a magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recommended denial of a motion for class certification in a case alleging that a mortgage lender, an affiliated appraisal management company (AMC), and the individual owner, through trusts, of both the lender and the AMC committed RESPA violations. The plaintiffs alleged that the individual owner received a thing of value, i.e, profit distributions from the AMC, that were generated from the lender’s referrals to the AMC in violation of Section 8(a) of RESPA, notwithstanding the exemption for affiliated business arrangements, (i) because no disclosure of the affiliation was provided to the borrowers, or (ii) because, even when a disclosure was provided, the borrowers were required to use the AMC.

    While reviewing whether the class would have standing, the court disagreed with the defendant’s assertion that the affiliated business arrangement exemption under Section 8(c)(4) of RESPA, which generally bans the required use of an affiliate, but permits a lender to impose its choice of an attorney, credit reporting agency, or real estate appraiser to represent the lender’s interest, should be interpreted to permit the mortgage lender’s required use of an affiliated AMC. The defendants argued that allowing a consumer to shop for an appraisal management company would be inconsistent with TILA and Regulation Z, whose official commentary to Section 1026.37(f)(2) lists “appraisal management company fee” as an example of an item that may be disclosed under “services you cannot shop for” in the Good Faith Estimate.  The court rejected that assertion, stating that there are multiple settlement services the lender may require the consumer to use which do not run afoul of RESPA or TILA and that Section 8 is only implicated where there is a kickback involved. The court further examined the plain meaning of Section 8(c)(4) and determined that, from a statutory interpretation perspective, an appraiser and an appraisal management company are not “one and the same.”

    Additionally, the court disagreed with the defendants argument that the plaintiffs’ payment to the AMC was covered under the exception in Section 8(c)(2) of RESPA because the payment was not a “thing of value” under Section 8(a). In rejecting the defendants’ argument, the court noted the kickback at issue is the profit ultimately paid to the individual owner, not the plaintiffs’ payment to the AMC, and the defendants did not present any authority that the exception applies when the payment is for ownership interest.

    The court ultimately recommended the denial of the class certification because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that ascertaining the class was administratively feasible, including the problem of ascertaining which loans were federally related mortgage loan and which were not. The court also concluded that, given the number of individual inquiries in the case, the requirement that common question of law and fact predominate was not satisfied. 

     

     

    Courts RESPA Affiliated Business Relationship Kickback Class Action

    Share page with AddThis
  • NYDFS Announces Two New Regulations Targeting Title Insurance Practices

    State Issues

    On October 17, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) adopted two final regulations designed to stop “unscrupulous practices” in the title insurance industry. The final regulations—which are the culmination of a NYDFS’ investigation into the practices of title insurers—supersede “emergency” versions of both regulations that went into effect earlier this year. (See previously InfoBytes coverage here.) Specifically, the first rule clarifies that certain “reasonable and customary” advertising and marketing expenses will be permitted provided “they are without regard to insured status or conditioned directly or indirectly on the referral of title business.” Meals, entertainment, and other forms of inducements are prohibited. According to a NYDFS press release, the state’s “anti-inducement statute is not limited to situations in which there is a direct quid pro quo for business.” The second rule requires, among other things, that title insurance companies or agents function independently from any affiliates through which they generate a portion of their business and make “good faith” efforts to accept business from non-affiliate sources.

    State Issues Consumer Finance NYDFS Kickback Title Insurance Mortgages

    Share page with AddThis
  • Mortgage Company, Real Estate Services Companies Reach $17 Million Class Action Settlement for Alleged RESPA Violations

    Courts

    On August 25, a national mortgage company and a real estate services family of companies (Defendants) together entered into a $17 million settlement to end a putative class action lawsuit accusing them of arranging kickbacks for unlawful referrals of title services in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The complaint, filed in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accused Defendants—along with various affiliates—of violating RESPA by allegedly facilitating the exchange of unlawful referral fees and kickbacks through an affiliated business arrangement, while also directing various banks to refer title insurance and other settlement services to a subsidiary in the real estate services family of companies without informing customers of the relationship between the entities. According to a memorandum in support of the motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, the real estate services family of companies was “obligated to refer their customers exclusively to [the mortgage company] for mortgage loans, and, in return, [the mortgage company] was required to refer all settlement services back to [the real estate services enterprise’s] subsidiaries.” While a federal judge dismissed the first and second amended complaints “on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts for equitable tolling of RESPA’s one-year statute of limitations,” the same judge denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss a third amended complaint because “Defendants’ contention regarding equitable tolling for the statute of limitations was ‘better resolved in either a motion for summary judgment or trial.’” A fourth amended complaint, filed in July 2017, amended certain claims and added additional class plaintiffs, well after settlement discussions had started.

    A stipulation of settlement was filed alongside the motion for preliminary approval, in which Defendants continued “to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged in the [a]ction . . . [but] have concluded that the further conduct of the [a]ction against them would be protracted and expensive.” Furthermore, the stipulation noted that “substantial amounts of time, energy and resources have been and, unless this [s]ettlement is made, will continue to be devoted to the defense of the claims asserted in the [a]ction.” The proposed settlement class consists of more than 32,000 transactions related to borrowers who closed on mortgage loans originated by the mortgage company between approximately November 2014 through November 2015, and who paid any title, escrow or closing related charges to the real estate services companies. The proposed settlement stipulates that Defendants must pay $17 million into a settlement fund to be used to provide cash payments to class members, as well as a portion that will go towards class counsel attorney fees and litigation expenses pending court approval.

    Courts Class Action Kickback Settlement RESPA

    Share page with AddThis