Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03068/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03068-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3068

___________

Ty S. Mitchell; Kimberly S. Mitchell, *

*

Appellants, *

*

Christopher Mauer; Mary Jo Mauer; *

James L. Engstrom; Kathleen P. *

Engstrom, *

* Appeal from the United States

Plaintiffs, * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

v. *

* [PUBLISHED]

*

Beneficial Loan & Thrift Company, * 

a Minnesota corporation, *

*

Appellee, *

*

Household Industrial Finance *

Company, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2006

Filed: June 21, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-3068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2006 Entry ID: 2058895
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

The district court1

 granted summary judgment to Beneficial Loan & Thrift

Company. Ty S. Mitchell and Kimberly S. Mitchell appeal. 

The Mitchells assert that Beneficial violated the Home Ownership and Equity

Protection Act (HOEPA). HOEPA, as relevant here, requires creditors to make

additional disclosures to borrowers if the total points and fees payable at closing

exceed 8 percent of the total loan amount, or $400, whichever is greater. 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1602(aa)(1)(B), 1639(a). The Mitchells argue that the $355 appraisal fee, $821

title insurance fee, $67 phone-bill charge, or $1,178 principal disbursement should be

included in the total points and fees of their loan. If any one of these were included,

the total points and fees would exceed 8 percent of the total loan amount, making the

loan subject to HOEPA.

Appraisal and title insurance fees, if bona fide and reasonable, are excluded

from HOEPA's definition of total points and fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1605(e) ; 12 C.F.R. §

226.4(c)(7). On appeal, the Mitchells claim that these fees are not bona fide and not

reasonable because they violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),

12 U.S.C. § 2607(b). The district court correctly found that these fees did not violate

RESPA because they were paid to an unaffiliated third party for services actually

performed, and, in any event, Beneficial derived no benefit from the payments. See

Haug v. Bank of America, 317 F.3d 832, 836 (8th Cir. 2003). As for the telephone

charge and principal disbursement, the statute does not include them in total points

and fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1602(aa)(4). The Mitchells' loan did not need HOEPA

disclosures.

After de novo review, see Kerns v. Capital Graphics, Inc., 178 F.3d 1011, 1016

(8th Cir. 1999), this court affirms the district court's judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2006 Entry ID: 2058895