F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Oc tob er 20, 2 008 THO MAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 11 51 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 17 1- CV-WS-B LORI HAZEW OOD, in di vi du al ly andon be ha lf o f ot he r si m il arl y si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us FOUNDATION FINANCIAL GROUP, L LC, TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., MERIDI AN TITLE SERVICES, LLC, NETW ORK CLOSING SERVICES, INC., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oc to ber 2 0, 2 00 8) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BLACK andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Thi s i s a p ut at iv e cl as s ac ti on in vo lv in g a ll eg edov erch arg es by a tit le in su rer a ndit s ag en ts , invi ol at io n o f th e Rea l Es ta te Set tl em en t Pr oc edur es Act (RESPA) § 8 (b ), 12 U.S.C. § 2 60 7( b) . W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s thr es ho ld di sm is sa l o f th e cas e. I. On re vi ew of

a Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ) di sm is sa l, we, l ik e th e d is tri ctco urt, as su m e th e fac tu al all eg at io ns in th e co m pl ai ntare t ru e an d g iv e th e p la in ti ff the be ne fitof r eas on ab le factua l i nf eren ces . Then we rev ie w de n ov o wh ethe r th e co m pl ai nt , so co ns tru ed , all eg es a ba si s fo r rel ie f. See, e.g ., Riv el l v . Priv at e Heal th Care Sy st em s, 5 20 F.3d13 08 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Acco rd in g t o t he co m

pl ai nt , Lori Hazewo odob ta in eda fed eral ly relat ed lo anof $ 98 ,00 0 fr om

de fen da ntFo un da ti onFin an ci al Group LLC. The lo anwas se cu redby a m ortg ag e in fav orof F ou nd at io n F in an ci al Group o n Haz ewo od ’s res id en ce. Me rid ia n Ti tl e Ser iv ces LLC andNetwo rk Clo si ng Serv ic es Inc . act ed 1 as set tl em en t ag en ts forHazewo odin clo si ng on th e lo an . Netwo rk als o s ol d t it le

The re lationship between Me ridian and N etwork Closingis unclear from the c omplaint; 1 the par ties appea r to treat the two companies a s joint actors or as a lter eg os of one a nother. The ir relationship i s not material to the disposition of this appeal. Her einaf ter, this opinion will refer to them jointly

as “N etwork.” 2in su ran ce as anag en t fo r de fen da ntTico r Tit le Ins ur an ce In c.

Inco nn ect io n wi thth is lo an , Tico r, th ro ug h i ts ag en t Network, i ss ue d Hazewo oda ti tl e in su ran ce p ol ic y . The p rem iu m was p ai d t o Net work, n otTico r, bu t t he co m

pl ai ntall eg es th atth e p rem iu m was, o r m ay

ha ve be en , sp li t b etween th e two co m

pani es . It i s t hi s p rem iu m th atall eg ed ly vio la te d R ESPA. Alab am a law requi res ti tl e in su rers to subm itth ei r rat es to th e In su ran ce Co m m is si on er, wh o m

us t the n app ro ve th e “ fai rn es s an d ju st ne ss ” o f th is “ fil ed rat e.” Ala . Cod e. § 2 7- 25 -6 (c). Tit le in su rers are p ro hi bi te d fr om ch arg in g cu st om ers pre m iu m s i n e xc es s o f th e fi le d ra te . Ala. Co de § 2 7- 25 -6 (a). In th is cas e, Hazewo odwas c harg eda ti tl e in su ran ce p rem iu m in ex ces s o f th e fi le d ra te , an d t hu s, i n e xc es s o f th e m ax im um rat e p erm it te d b y

Alab am a la w. Accor di ng to th e co m pl ai nt , th is ov erch arg e, al on g wi th th e p erm is si bl e p orti on of t he in su ran ce pr em iu m , m ay

have be ensp li t b etween Netwo rk(th e se tt le m en t ag en ts ) an d Ti co r (th e ti tl e in su rer) . Hazewo od ’s th eo ry

of t he cas e is th atth e o ve rch arg e – th atis , th e p orti on of th e p rem iu m

in ex ces s o f th e fi le d ra te – was a “po rti on , sp li t, o r pe rcen ta ge of a ny ch arg e m ad e o r rec ei ve d fo r th e ren de rin g o f a rea l es ta te set tl em en t s erv ic e . . . ot he r th anforservi ces actua ll y pe rfo rm ed ,” an d t hu s p ro hi bi te d b y RESPA. See 12 U.S.C. § 2 60 7( b) . Putdi ffer en tl y , Hazewo odco nt en ds th atth e o ve rch arg e was , 3as a m atte r of law, “ ot he r th anforservi ces actua ll y pe rfo rm ed .” The R ESPA cl ai m s wer e rai se d a ga in stTico r (the ti tl e in su rer) an d Network (t he ti tl e in su ran ce ag en ts ). Inad di ti on to th e RESPA cl ai m s, the co m pl ai ntals o ra is edvario us cla im s un de r st at e la w, chi efl y

un jus t en ric hm en t, as well as afed eral Truth i n Len di ng Act c la im ag ai ns t Fo un da ti on Fin an ci al (th e le nd er). Th e al le ge d o ve rch arg es for ti tl e in su ran ce were als o t he factua l b as is forth e p ut at iv e cl as s’s v ari ou s cl ai m s un de r RESPA an d Al ab am a law. The di stric t co urt d is m is se d a ll th e cl ai m s atis su e o n app eal . Con st ru in g 2 ou r RESPA ca se la w, th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he st atut e p ro vi de s a rem edy on ly whe n fe es are ch arg edin ex ch an ge forno servi ces at a ll , no t fo r m ere ov erch arg es or e xc es si ve fees . Becau se Hazewo odall eg edsh e was ch arg edan un la wfu ll y

hi gh pre m iu m , bu t t ha t p rem iu m was fo r ti tl e in su ran ce ra th er tha n fo r no th in g a t al l, the di st ric t co urt h el d s he di d n otst at e a RESP A cla im . The d is tri ct co urt fu rth er co nc lu de d t ha t t he st at e la w cla im s wer e b arre d b y th e Alaba m a st atut e p ro hi bi ti ng ti tl e in su ran ce p rem iu m s i n e xc es s o f th e fi le d ra te , as t ha t

The district cour

t did not dis miss the Truth in L endingAct cla im ag ainst Foundation 2 Financ ial; however , it appear s from the re cord that this claim has settled. Our jurisdiction would have be en unaf

fec ted in any

event, a s final judg ment was sepa rate ly enter ed as to the c laims and parties on a

ppeal. 4st atut e ex pl ic it ly pro vi de s t ha t i t d oe s n otcrea te an y pri va te ly enfo rceabl e ri gh ts . Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed . II . Hazewo odarg ue s t ha t d is m is sa l o f he r RESPA cl ai m s was e rro ne ou s 3 be cau se he r co m

pl ai ntall eg es th ata po rti on of h er t it le in su ran ce p rem iu m was un earn ed . W e d is ag ree. RESPA § 8(b ) pr ov id es th at No p ers on sh al l g iv e an d n o p ers on sh al l ac cep t an y po rti on , sp li t, o r pe rcen ta ge of any char ge m ad e o r rec ei ve d fo r th e ren de rin g o f a rea l es ta te set tl em en t s erv ic e in co nn ect io n wi th a tr an sa ct io n i nv ol vi ng a fed eral ly relat edm ortg ag e lo anothe r th anforservi ces actua ll y pe rfo rm ed . 12 U.S.C. § 2 60 7( b) . As we h av e p rev io us ly hel d, RES PA § 8 (b ) do es no t p ro vi de a cau se of a ct io n fo r ex ces si ve fees – t ha t i s, ch arg es wher e a s erv ic e was pe rfo rm ed , bu t t he pl ai nt iff feel s s he was o ve rch arg edby the servi ce p ro vi de r. Fri edm anv. Ma rk etStr eetMo rtg . Cor p., 5 20 F.3d12 89 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Rat he r, a p la in ti ff m

us t al le ge th at“no servi ces were re nd eredin ex ch an ge fora se tt le m en t fe e.” Id . at 1 29 8. “ Whe re the fee i s fo r se rv ic es actua ll y ren de red , th ere i s n o § 26 07 (b ) vi ol at io n.” Krup a v . Land sa fe, In c., 51 4 F .3d11 53 , 11 57

Hazewood ha s abandone d any argument conce rningthe dismissal of her state la w 3 claims. 5(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Mor eo ve r, a RESPA p la in ti ff m ay no t av oi d t he pro hi bi ti on on ex ces si ve fee cl ai m s b y

ask in g aco urt t o d iv id e a fee forservi ces actua ll y pe rfo rm edin to “ reas on ab le ” an d “ un reas on ab le ” (an d h en ce, u ne arn ed ) co m po ne nt s. Fri edm an , 52 0 F .3dat 1 29 7 (q uo ti ng Krus e v . W el ls Farg o Ho m e Mo rtg . Inc ., 38 3 F .3d49 , 56 (2n d C ir. 2 00 4) ). It fo ll ows , th eref or e, th atwher e a pl ai nt iff co nc ed es th ata se rv ic e is actua ll y pe rfo rm edin ex ch an ge fora se tt le m en t fee, s he m ay

no t av oi d d is m is sa l o f he r RESPA cl ai m by argu in g t ha t t he

“ ex ces si ve ” p orti on of t he fee was “un earn ed .” Andbe cau se Hazewo oddo es no t co nt en d t ha t Ti co r an d Net work d idno t p ro vi de an y servi ces , herco m

pl ai ntwas pr op erl y di sm is se d. Hazewo odarg ue s t ha t h er co m pl ai ntsh ou ldsurv iv e d is m is sa l b ecau se it co nt ai ns factua l al le ga ti on s t ha t a po rt io n of th e ti tl e in su ran ce fe e was un earn ed orno t fo r se rv ic es actua ll y pe rfo rm ed . See g en eral ly Sos a v . Cha se Man ha tt an Mo rtg . Cor

p., 3 48 F.3d97 9, 9 83 -8 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (to su rv iv e d is m is sa l, RESPA p la in ti ff m

us t al le ge th atno servi ces were p erfo rm edfora se tt le m en t fe e). Thi s ar gu m en t i s co nt rary to o urpre ced en t s ta ti ng fora se tt le m en t fe e to be act io nabl e, no se rv ic es m us t b e ren de redinex ch an ge forit . Mor eo ve r, to wha te ve r de gr ee i t i s re le va nt , we nee d n otacce ptas t ru e Haze woo d’s co nt en ti on th atno servi ces were p erfo rm edforth e ti tl e in su ran ce fe e, ora po rti on of i t. In th e 6ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt edhe re, s ta ti ng th atth e ti tl e in su ran ce fe e (o r a p orti on of i t)

was “un earn ed ” o r no t fo r se rv ic es pe rfo rm edis a le ga l co nc lu si on , whi ch ne it he r we no r th e d is tri ctco urt n eedacce ptas t ru e. See, e.g ., Oxfo rdAss etMan ag em en t Ltd . v. J ah ari s, 2 97 F.3d11 82 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (“ le ga l co nc lu si on s m as qu erad in g a s fa ct s wi ll no t p rev en t d is m is sa l” ). Thi s co nc lu so ry ch arac te riz at io n c an no t cu re d efi ci en t fa ctua l al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai nt . The factua l al le ga ti on s o f th e co m pl ai ntm ak e cl ear t ha t Haz ewo odrece iv edti tl e in su ran ce co ve rag e an d p ai d apre m iu m forit ; t ha t p rem iu m

was i n e xc es s o f th e fil edrat e. Even if t he ex ces s p orti on of t he pre m iu m was a rg uabl y

“un earn ed ” as a m at te r of Alab am a la w, as a fa ctua l m at te r itwas n otin ex ch an ge forno th in g. Itis cl ear f ro m th e co m pl ai ntth atTico r pe rfo rm edservi ces forth e fee , nam el y is su in g a ti tl e in su ran ce p ol ic y . Thatde feat s an y RESPA § 8(b ) cl ai m

as t o Ti co r. It i s equa ll y cle ar tha t Net work p ro vi de d s om e se rv ic es for what ev er p orti onof t he fee itrece iv ed , nam el y

act in g a s Ti co r’s ag en t i n s el li ng th e p ol ic y to Hazewo od . No § 8 (b ) cl ai m

wil l l ie ag ai ns t Net work e it he r. Hazewo odals o a rg ue s t ha t o urpre vi ou s ca se s, s uc h a s Fr ie dm an , enun ci at in g t he pro hi bi ti on on di vi di ng set tl em en t fe es in to reas on ab le an d un reas on ab le co m

po ne nt s ar e in ap po si te . In t ho se cas es , sh e arg ue s, the pl ai nt iff was ask in g aco urt t o m ak e anarb itrary det erm in at io n tha t s om e p orti on of a 7pu ta ti ve ly exces si ve fee was un earn ed . Butin th is cas e, Hazewo odarg ue s s uc h

li ne -drawi ng is no t atall arb it rary: th e fi le d ra te pro vi de s a r eady be nc hm arkby whi chwe m ay

di vi de th e ti tl e in su ran ce p rem iu m in to earn edan d u ne arn ed co m po ne nt s. Th e d is ti nc ti on sh e se ek s t o d raw i s unp ers ua si ve . The n ot io n t ha t Co ng res s i nt en de d R ESPA § 8 (b ) to im pl ic it ly creat e a fed eral rem edy for ov erch arg es un de r st at e in su ran ce l aws – i n c irc um st an ces when th e st at e it se lf do es no t re co gn iz e a p riv at e ri gh t o f act io n, atth at– i s s im pl y to o m uc h t o swa ll ow. As we ha ve em ph as iz ed , § 8 (b ) “ is no t a p ric e co nt ro l p ro vi si on .” Fri edm an , 52 0 F .3dat 1 29 6. Re co gn iz in g t ha t RESP A do es no t i m po se fed eral pr ic e co nt ro ls on ti tl e in su ran ce o r ot he r se tt le m en t s erv ic es , we do ub t t ha t Co ng res s i nt en de d t o c reat e a fed eral rem edy for vi ol at io ns of s ta te pri ce co nt ro ls , ei th er, o n t he th eo ry

th atvi ol at io ns of p ric e co ntro ls are n otforservi ces actua ll y ren de red . Hazewo od ’s con tri ve d re ad in g o f th e st atut e wou lddo jus t t ha t. Fi na ll y , Hazewo odurg es us to “ ov erru le , m od ify, or d is ti ng ui sh Fri edm an ” so th athe r cl ai m

m ay pro ceedon th e au th or it y of aHUD po li cy

st at em en t wh ic h wou ldpe rm it§ 8 (b ) cl ai m s fo r “un reas on ab le ” o r ex ces si ve fees , andwhi ch we reject edin Fri edm anas c on tra ry to § 8 (b )’s pl ai n m ean in g. Fri edm an , 52 0 F .3dat 12 96 -9 8. We lackau th or ity to ov erru le or m od ify Fried m an , as t he ho ld in g o f a th ree- jud ge pa ne l i s t he law o f th e ci rcu itun le ss itis ov erru le d (o r un de rm in edto 8th e p oi ntof abr og at io n) by the enba nc Elev en th Cir cu it , or b y th e Supr em e Co urt of th e Uni te d S ta te s. See , e.g, Un it edSta te s v . Arch er, 5 31 F.3d13 47 , 13 52 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Andas e xp la in edab ov e, Hazewo od ’s att em pt s t o di st in gu is h F rie dm anfai l. Insu m , Hazewo odha s al le ge d n o § 8(b ) cl ai m , andth e d is m is sa l o f he r co m pl ai ntis AFFIRMED.

9