H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 2757 A R T H U R R . an d JA N E M . T U B B S , ind iv id u a lly and on beha l f of a l l ot hers i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, A p p e llan ts v. NOR T H AMER I CA N T I T L E AGE NC Y, I NC . , NOR T H AMER I CA N

TI TLE GRO UP, I NC a n d I ND EPENDEN CE ABS TRACT AND TI TL E AGENCY O n A p p e a l o f

a D e c isio n o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey( C i v. N o. 08- 3178) D i s t r i ctJ udge: J os eph E. I r enas A r gued on February2, 2010 B e f o re : M c K E E , C hi ef

Judge , H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge , a n d P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge . * ( Fi l ed: A ugus t5, 2010)

R ober tJ . L a R occa ( ar gued) C hr i s t i na D onat o Sal er Ko h n , S wi f

t& G r a f t , P . C. O ne Sout h B r oad St r eet , Sui t e 21002

Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 Ch a r l e s J . Bl o o m N ei l C . Schur S t e v e n s & Le e , P . C. 1415 M ar l t on Pi ke East , Sui t e 506 C herr yH i l l , N J 08034 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant Pet erB us cemi ( ar gued) Paul D . W el l er K r i s t oforT . H enni ng Fr anco A . C or r ado M o r g a n , Le wi s & Boc k i u s , LLP 1701 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee OP I NI ON P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge A r t hurand J ane Tubbs a ppeal the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of thei rcompl ai ntfor fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) . B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tl ooked atm at t er s out s i de the compl ai nt , w e w i l l r ever s e. I. A ppel l ant s ’ amended compl ai ntal l eges that , i n t he s pr i ng of 2008, theyr efi nance d tw o e x istin g m o rtg a g e s, h e ld b yW a c h o v ia B a n k , w ith d e f e n d a n t N o rth A m e ric a n T itl e A gencys ervi ng as t he s et t l ementagentforthe r efi nanci ng. A ppel l ant s al l ege thattheySe c tio n 8 (b ) s tate s: “No pers on sh a ll g iveand

no pers on

sh a ll ac c ept a

ny po rtion , s pli t, 1 or percentag e of a

ny charg e madeor re ceive d for the rendering of a re al estatesettlement servic e in connec tion with a transac tion involvi nga fe derally related mortg ag e loan other than for service s actually

perf ormed.”12 U.S.C. § 2607(b). 2 p a id f o r v a rio u s s e rv ice s f

o r w h ich T itl e A g e n c yc h a rg e d th e m a t th e c lo sin g . In c lu d e d in t hes e cha r ges w as a $150 fe e ( $75 perm or t gage) l abel ed “Rel eas e R ecor di ng Fees . ” T h e se a re a v e rre d to b e f e e s f o r th e re c o rd in g o f

th e re lea se o f

th e p rio r m o rtg a g e s w ith t he countycl erk’ s offi ce. A ppel l ant s fur t heral l ege thatW achovi a pr ovi ded a pa y off s t at ementt o T i t l e A gencys t at i ng t hati tw as char gi ng $80 ( $40 perm or t gage) forthe s ame r ecor di ng of the r el eas e of the mort gages w i t h t he countycl erk. A ppel l ant s al l ege t hatT i t l e A gencyknew W achovi a w as per form i ng the r ecor di ng of the r el eas e, and that T itl e A g e n c yp e rf

o rm e d n o se rv ice s f

o r th e $ 1 5 0 it ch a rg e d . A p p e llan ts c laim th a t th is v io la te d § 8 (b ) o f

th e R e a l E s ta te S e ttle m e n t P ro c e d u re s A c t ( R E S P A ), 1 2 U .S .C . § 2 6 0 7 (b). 1 T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s . D es pi t e the al l egat i ons i n t he amended compl ai ntt hat“Ti t l e A gencyper form ed no s ervi ces t o earn t he $150. 00 fee , ” the D i s t r i ctC our tfound that“Ti t l e A gency ’ s char ge w as nota mar kup of W achovi a’ s fee s , butr athera cha r ge fori t s ow n s ervi ces . ” The D i s t r i ctC our tl i s t ed a r ange of pot ent i al s ervi ces t hatT i t l e A gencyw oul d have ha d t o conduct , s uch as obt ai ni ng pay offs s t at ement s fr om W achovi a, col l ect i ng m oneyfr om the part i es t o t he se ttl e m e n t, m a k in g d istrib u tio n s to p rio r m o rtg a g e e s, a n d v e rif y in g th a t W a c h o v ia d idIn Santiago , we he ld that § 8(b) does not providea ca use of action for 2 “ ov e rc ha rg e s, ”–wherea

sin g lee nti ty

c ha rg e s mo retha

n th ere a so na

blevalueof

theserv ic e s it provides–but does allow a ca use of action for “markups”–wherea settlement ser vice provider charg es more f

or ser vices than it pays to the third-party vendor who perf

orms the servic es. 417 F.3d at 386-89. 2 pr epar e and r ecor d t he r el eas e. II. W e re v iew d e n o v o a d istric t co u rt' s g ra n t o f a m o tio n to d ism iss f

o r f a ilu re to sta te a c la im u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ). V al l i es v. Sky Bank , 4 3 2 F . 3 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In eval uat i ng t he pr opr i etyof the di s m i s s al , w e ac ceptal l fac tual al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt a s tru e , a n d c o n s tru e th e c o m p la in t in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e p la in tif

f. P i nkerv. R oche H oldi ngs Ltd. , 2 9 2 F .3 d 3 6 1 , 3 7 4 n . 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W ith lim ite d e x c e p tio n s , a di s t r i ctcour tcannotcons i derm at er i al s out s i de the pl eadi ngs w i t houtfi r s tconvert i ng t he m o tio n to d is m is s in to a m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I n r e Rockef

el l erC tr . P r ops , I

nc. Secs . Li t ig. , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 7 -88 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bygoi ng bey ond t he compl ai ntt o fi nd thatthe $150 fe e w as fors ervi ces t hatT i t l e A gencyhad i n fac tper form ed, w hen the compl ai ntal l eges t hat “Ti t l e A gencyper form ed no s ervi ces t o earn t he $150. 00 fee i tchar ged Pl ai nt i ffs . ” B eca us e the ques t i on of w hetherT i t l e A gencyper form ed ordi d notper form s ervi ces m ay a l t e rt h e a n a l y s i s o f

wh e t h e rt h e p l a i n t i f

f s p r o p e r l ys t a t e d a c l a i m u n d e r§ 8 ( b ) o f RE P S A, as cons t rued byt hi s cour ti n Sant i ago v. GM A CMor t gage G r oup, I

nc. , 417 F. 3d 384 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand r emand t he ca s e t o t he D i s t r i ct

22

C ou rtfor further proceedings. III . F or the reasons st at ed, t he o rderof the D i stri ctC ou rti s r eversed and the case rem and ed to that courtfor further proceedings.B eca us e I w oul d aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the Tubbses ’ s ol e fe der al 1 cl ai m , I w oul d al s o aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o decl i ne s uppl ement al j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h e s t a t e l a w c l a i ms p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 6 7 ©. 1 T u b b s v . N

o r th A m e r ic a T

itle , N o. 09- 2757 H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge , D i s s ent i ng T he m aj ori t yho l ds t hat the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed w hen , atthe m oti on t o d i sm i ss sta g e , itre lied o n m a ter ials o u tsid e th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t to c o n c lu d e th a t th e T itl e A gencyper form ed s ervi ces t o earn t he $150 fe e ati s s ue her e. I agr ee thatthe D i s t r i ct C ou rterr ed in this regar d. A ccordi ng t o m ycoll eagu es, a rem and i s necessarybecau se “the ques t i on of w hetherT i t l e A gencyper form ed ordi d notper form s ervi ces m ayal t er t he ana l y s i s of w hethert he pl ai nt i ffs pr oper l ys t at ed a c l ai m under§ 8( b) ” of the R eal E s t at e Set t l ementPr ocedur es A ct( R E SPA ) . I di s agr ee thata r emand i s appr opr i at e, h o w e v e r, b e c a u se th e re c o rd a n d th e b rie f s d e m o n stra te th a t P lain tiff s c a n n o t sta te a c laim u n d e r§ 8 ( b ) r e g a r d l e s s o f wh e t h e rt h e T i t l e Ag e n c yp e r f o r me d a n ys e r v i c e s . I n myv i e w, the T u b b ses’ c o n ce ssion that the T it le A g en cyd id n o t spli t th e $ 1 5 0 fe e w ith an ythir d p a rtyd o o m s th e ir R E S P A c laim . A c c o rd in g ly , I re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t. 1 I. T h e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t av e rs th a t th e T itl e A g e n c yv io late d § 8 (b ) w h e n it char ged an une arned $150 fe e. Si gni fi cant l y , the amended compl ai ntdoes notal l ege that the T it le A g en cysp li t or o therw ise sh are d this $1 5 0 fe e w ith W ac h o v ia (or an y o n e e lse); i tm er el yaver s t hatt he Ti t l e A gencykeptthi s fee ent i r el yfori t s el f. T he amended compl ai ntfur t heral l eges t hatt he Tubbses s epar at el ypai d a t ot al of $80 t o W achovi a for2

t he s ame se r vi ces . T he t extand s t ructur e of § 8( b) of R E SPA , how ever , m ake c l eart hat s uch al l egat i ons ar e i ns uffi ci entt o s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef. A. S e c t i o n 8 ( b ) o f

R E S P A p r o h i b i t s th e g i v i n g o rr e c e i v i n g o f “ a n y por t i on, s

pl i t , or per centage of anychar ge made orr ece i ved forthe r ender i ng of a r eal es t at e s et t l ement se rv ice . . . o th e r th a n f

o r se rv ice s a c tu a llyp e rf o rm e d .” 1 2 U .S .C . § 2 6 0 7 (b ) (e m p h a sis add ed). T he w ords “po rt i on , ” “spl i t , ” and “percentage” nece ssar i l yi m plysom et hing l ess t han the w hol e amount . T hes e thr ee w or ds , i n turn, m odi fythe “c har ge” orfee thatone r ece i ves i n conj unct i on w i t h r eal es t at e s ervi ces . T hus , the pl ai n l anguage of § 8( b) i ndi cat es t hatt he s t atut e pr ohi bi t s r ece i vi ng a por t i on o f a n u n e a rn e d f

e e f o r re a l es tate s et t l ements ervi ces ; i tdoes notpr ohi bi tthe r ece i ptof the ent i r e, undi vi ded fe e. O u r p ri o r c a s e s in te rp re tin g § 8 o f R E S P A h a v e re c o g n iz e d a s m u c h . See Sant i ago v. GM A CMor t gage G r oup, I

nc. , 417 F. 3d 384, 387 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “Sect i on 8( b) s t at es th a t n o p e rso n c a n a c c e p t a f r act i on of

a char ge fors ervi ces pr ovi ded, unl es s theyhave ac tuallyp rov ided serv ices.”) (em p h asis ad d ed ); A l s t on v. C ountr

yw i de Fi n. C or

p. , 585 F. 3d 753, 761 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( not i ng thatthe w or ds “anypor t i on, s pl i torper cent age t her eof” i n § 8( b) i ndi cat ed thatC ongr es s knew how t o “di ffe r ent i at e betw een a l l char ges and a port i on of thos e cha r ges ”) . I ndeed, t o hol d t hat§ 8( b) pr ohi bi t s the r ece i ptof an e n tir e u n e a rn e d f

e e w o u ld re n d e r t h e w o rd s “ p o rt io n , s p lit, o r p e rc e n ta g e ” m e a n in g le s s . See Eri enet

, I nc. v. V el oci t y N et , I nc. , 156 F. 3d 513, 516 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( w e mustgi ve3

effect t o all provis i on s of a st atute “s o thatno partw i l l be inope rat i ve o r s up erfl uo us, voi d, ori ns i gni fi cant ”) ( quot i ng P a. Med. Soc' y v. Sni der , 29 F. 3d 886, 895 ( 3d C ir.1 9 9 4 )) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h e se p re c e d e n ts, a lo n g w ith th e p lain lan g u a g e o f

§ 8 (b ), co n f

irm th a t a p lain tiff

m u st a lleg e th a t a f

e e w a s s p litto sta te a c laim u n d e rRE S P A. M yi nt erpr et at i on i s but t r es s ed bythe s t ructur e of § 8. W hen i nt erpr et i ng a par t i cul ars ubs ect i on, w e musteval uat e i t s l anguage i n t he br oadercont extof “the l anguage and des i gn of the s t atut e as a w hol e. ” W ei lC er am i cs & G l as s , I nc. v. D ash , 878 F. 2d 659, 671 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( quot i ng K Mar tC or

p. v. C ar t i er, I

nc. , 486 U . S. 281, 291 ( 1988) ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . H er e, the oper at i ve l anguage of § 8( b) appea r s undert he hea di ng “Spl i t t i ng char ges . ” See 1 2 U .S .C . § 2 6 0 7 (b ). W h e n re a d in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e sta tu to rylan g u a g e , C o n g re ss ’s c h o ice o f a tit le f o r § 8 (b ) stro n g ly s ugges t s t hata pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege thata def endantr ece i ved s om e por t i on of a l ar gerfee to s ta te a c la im u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . See Sant i ago , 417 F. 3d at389 ( “Sect i on 8( b) i s t i t l ed

‘ Spl i t t i ng char ges , ’ and pr ohi bi t s t he ac cept ance of ‘ anypor t i on, s pl i t , orper cent age of an ych arg e.’”). M or eover , i f C ongr es s w ant ed t o ext end § 8( b) t o covers i tuat i ons i n w hi ch a d e f e n d a n t k e p t an e n tire f

e e , itk n e w h o w to d o so . S e c tio n 8 (a ), w h ich im m e d iate ly pr ece des §8( b) and does notappea runderthe hea di ng “Spl i t t i ng char ges , ” does not re q u ir e a d e f

e n d a n t to a c c e p t a “ p o rt io n , s p lit, o r p e rc e n ta g e ” o f a n u n e a rn e d c h a rg e . SeeIn su p p o rt o f th e ir a rg u m e n t th a t § 8 (b ) sh o u ld b e in terp re ted c o n tra ryto its tex t, 2 t he Tubbses ur ge us t o defe rt o H U D ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e, w hi ch pr ovi des : “A char ge bya per s on forw hi ch no ornom i nal s ervi ces ar e per form ed orforw hi ch d u p l i c a t i v e f

e e s a r e c h a r g e d i s a n u n e a r n e d f e e a n d v i o l a t e s ” § 8 ( b ) . 2 4 C. F . R. § 3 5 0 0 .1 4 (c ). H U D h a s a lso iss u e d a p o licysta tem e n t in w h ich th e a g e n c y“ sp e c if ica lly 4 12 U . S. C . § 2607( a) . I ns t ead, § 8( a) i m pos es l i abi l i t yon a def endantw ho acc ept s “any fee , ki ckbac k, ort hi ng of val ue. ” Id . W hen r ead t ogether , thes e s ect i ons s ugges tthat C ongr es s i nt ended t o puni s h di ffe r entconductw hen i ti ncl uded the l anguage “por t i on, sp lit , o r p e rc e n tag e ” in § 8 (b ) b u t n o t in § 8 (a ). B yg iv in g f u ll ef f e c t to th e d isp a ra te l anguage of ea ch s ubs ect i on, m yi nt erpr et at i on avoi ds r ender i ng the others ubs ect i on superfl uo us. T he t extand s t ructur e of § 8( b) thus m ake c l earthat , t o s t at e a c l ai m , the Tubbses w er e r equi r ed t o al l ege thatt he Ti t l e A gencys pl i tthe $150 fe e w i t h a thi r d par t y . I ns t ead o f d o in g so , the T u b b se s a lleg e d th a t th e T itl e A g e n c yre c e iv e d a $ 1 5 0 f e e f o r w h ich it p e rf o rm e d n o se rv ice s. In a d d iti o n , the T u b b se s a v e rre d th a t “W a c h o v ia s e p a ra tely char ged Pl ai nt i ffs , and Pl ai nt i ffs pai d W achovi a, $40 foreac h m or t gage” t o per form t he s ervi ces forw hi ch theyw er e bi l l ed bythe Ti t l e A gency . T hus , the Tubbses al l eged that th e yp a id tw o se p a ra te a n d d istin c t ch a rg e s— o n e to W a c h o v ia a n d th e o th e r to th e T itl e A gency— fort he s ame se r vi ce. B eca us e the Tubbses di d not

— and ca nnot

— al l ege that t he fe e r ece i ved byt he Ti t l e A gencyw as a s m al l er“por t i on, s pl i t , orper cent age” of a l ar gerchar ge, as § 8( b) r equi r es , I w oul d hol d t hattheyhave f ai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m for r el i ef. 2interpre ts §8 (b) a s n o t bein g li m it ed to situ ati o n s w h ere at l ea st tw o p erso n s sp li t or sh are

an unea r ned fe e fort he pr ovi s i on t o be vi ol at ed. ” 66 Fed. R eg. 53052, 53057. B eca us e I bel i eve the “i nt entof C ongr es s i s cl ear , thati s the end of the mat t er ” and w e nee d not d e f e r t o H U D ’s c o u n te r- te x tu a l in te rp re ta tio n o f § 8 (b ). Sant i ago , 417 F. 3d at386 ( ci t i ng C hevr on, U. S. A . , I

nc. v. N at ur alR es our ces D ef

ens e C ounci l

, I nc. , 467 U . S. 837, 842- 43 ( 1984) ) . L i kew i s e, w e nee d notcons i derthe Ti t l e A gency ’ s ar gum entthatthe l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof § 8( b) m akes cl eart hata def endantm us ts pl i ta fe e w i t h a thi r d par t yt o be l i abl e. 5 B. T he Tubbses ar gue thatourdeci s i on i n Sant i ago m ade c l earthata pl ai nt i ff ne ed n o t al lege that a f

ee w as sp li t t o stat e a claim u n d er § 8 (b). T h eyclaim the s o le i n q u iry u n d er Sant i ago ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of § 8( b) i s w hetherthe Ti t l e A gencyactual l yper form ed a se rv ice to e a rn th e f

e e a t issu e . B u t Sant i ago d id n o t e x te n d lia b ility u n d e r § 8 (b ) t h a t f a r. Sant i ago cons i der ed w hether§ 8( b) i ncl udes a ca us e of a ct i on forover char ges and m arkups . I n R E SPA par l ance , an over char ge occ ur s w hen one pe r form s s et t l ement s e rv ic e s its e lf

b u t c h a rg e s a f

e e th a t is s u b s ta n tia lly h ig h e r t h a n its re a s o n a b le c o s t. Sant i ago , 4 1 7 F .3 d a t 3 8 7 ; Kr us e v. W el l s Far go H om e Mor t

gage, I nc. , 383 F. 3d 49, 53 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A m ark u p o cc u rs w h en o n e o u tsou rce s a se tt lem en t service to a th ir d par t yand cha r ges t he cons um era fe e thatexce eds one’ s actual cos t s w i t houtpr ovi di ng a n ya d d itio n a l s e rv ic e . Sant i ago , 4 1 7 F .3 d a t 3 8 9 ; Kruse , 383 F. 3d at53. I n Sant i ago , w e hel d t hat§ 8( b) pr ohi bi t s m arkups , butnow her e di d w e i m pl yt hat a p lain tiff

n e e d n o t alle g e th a t a f e e w a s s p litto sta te a c laim u n d e r § 8 (b ). A s th e T itl e A gencynot es , t he mar kup ati s s ue i n Sant i ago nece s s ar i l yi ncl uded a s pl i tfee : the6

defe ndantchar ged the cons um eran i nfl at ed fe e, partof w hi ch w as pas s ed on t o t he v e n d o r w h o a c tu a lly p e rf o rm e d th e s e rv ic e a n d p a rt o f w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t k e p t f

o r i ts e lf. I ndeed, t he onl ypr act i ce thatw e found be y ond § 8( b) ’ s gr as p i n Sant i ago w as the o v e rc h a rg e , w h ic h b yd e f in itio n in c lu d e d n o s p litti n g o f f e e s . See 417 F. 3d at387. T he Tubbses ’ r el i ance on Sant i ago i s und ercutfurther byou r s t at em ent that “[a] s a w h o le, S e c tio n 8 (b ) sta tes th a t n o p e rso n c a n a c c e p t a f r act i on of

a char ge fors ervi ces pr ovi ded, unl es s t heyhave a ctual l ypr ovi ded s ervi ces . ” Id . (em p h asis ad d ed ). O u r m o re r ece ntdeci s i on i n A l

s t on o n lyc o n f

irm s th a t Sant i ago cannotbearthe w ei ghtthatthe T ubbs es pl ace upon i t . I n A l s t on , w e cons i der ed w hethera mort gage i ns ur ance ki ckbac k s c h e m e w a s a c tio n a b le u n d e r § 8 o f R E S P A e v e n if

th e p la in tif

f s s u f f e re d n o d a m a g e s . 5 8 5 F . 3 d at 75 5 . E x am ining § 8 (b) in the co u rse o f o u r i n terpretati o n o f R E S P A ’s damages pr ovi s i on, § 8( d) , w e not ed: It c a n n o t se rio u slyb e c o n ten d e d th a t w h e n C o n g re ss so u g h t to d if f e re n tiate b e tw e e n a ll ch a rg e s a n d a p o rtio n o f th o se c h a rg e s, it d id n o t k n o w h o w to do s o. I n s ect i on 8( b) , forexampl e, C ongr es s di ffe r ent i at ed betw een the over al l char ge fora s et t l ements ervi ce a nd “anypor t i on, s pl i torper cent age th e re o f ” . . . . A l s t on , 5 8 5 F .3 d a t 7 6 1 . C o n sis ten t w ith th e f o re g o in g q u o tatio n , I b e liev e th e p lain lang u ag e o f § 8 (b) c o n ti n u es to ref er to “ a p o rt ion ” o f a sett lem en t cha rge af ter Sant i ago . C. A l t hough i nt erpr et at i ons of § 8( b) varys l i ght l yamong cour t s of appe al s , the T u b b se s h a v e c ited n o a p p e llate d e c isio n w h ich h a s h e ld th a t a p lain tiff c a n sta te a c laimT h e T u b b se s a rg u e th a t Sant i ago decl i ned t o fol l ow the ci r cui tcour t s w hi ch 3 r equi r e a de fenda ntt o al l ege a s pl i tand “r ej ect ed thei rr eas oni ng. ” Thi s over s t at es the natur e and e xt entof Sant i ago ’s d is a g re e m e n t w ith th o s e d e c is io n s , h o w e v e r. Sant i ago di d notdi s agr ee w i t h t he por t i ons of B ou lw are , H aug , orKr az l i c v. R epubl i c Ti t l e C o. , 314 F. 3d 875, 879 ( 7t h C i r . 2002) , t hathol d a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege a s pl i tfee t o s t at e a cl ai m under§ 8( b) . R ather , w e ci t ed thos e dec i s i ons i n Sant i ago t o emphasi ze our di s agr eementw i t h t hei ri nt erpr et at i on of the phr as e “no pe r s on s hal l gi ve and no pe r s on shal l accep t ” as cr eat i ng a si ng l e prohibi t i on that r equ i res b o th a cul pabl e gi verand a c u lp a b le re c e iv e r o f

a n u n e a rn e d f

e e . See 4 1 7 F .3 d a t 3 8 8 -8 9 . L ik e th e E lev e n th C irc u it i n Sos a v. C has e M

anhat tan Mor t

gage C or por at i on , 3 4 8 F . 3 d 9 7 9 ( 1 1 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , we i nt erpr et ed thatl anguage as cr eat i ng tw o i ndepende ntpr ohi bi t i ons — one on gi vi ng, the ot heron r ece i vi ng— w hi ch i n tur n al l ow ed us t o fi nd thatm arkups , w hi ch bydefi ni t i on in c lu d e o n ly a c u lp a b le re c e iv e r, a re w ith in th e a m b it o f § 8 (b ). See Sant i ago , 417 F. 3d at 388- 89. W e di d notci t e B ou lw are , H aug , orKra zlic to e m p h a siz e th a t w e d isa g re e d w ith t hei ras s um pt i on t hat§ 8( b) r equi r es a pl ai nt i ff t o al l ege a s pl i tfee . I n fac t , i tw oul d have been unne ces s aryt o do s o, s i nce the mar kup t heoryw e appr oved i n Sant i ago n e c e ss a rily i ncl uded a s pl i tfee . 7 forr el i ef unde r§8( b) of R E SPA abs entan al l egat i on thatthe def endants pl i tthe fe e at i s s ue w i t h a thi r d par t y . A s t he Ti t l e A gencynot ed, the C our t s of A ppeal s forthe Four th, S e v e n th , a n d E ig h th C ir c u its a d h e re to its v ie w th a t a s p lit f e e is re q u ir e d . See B ou lw are v. C r os s l and Mor t

gage C or p. , 2 9 1 F .3 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 5 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (h o ld in g “ § 8 (b ) o n ly pr ohi bi t s over char ges w hen a ‘ por t i on’ or‘ per cent age’ of the over char ge i s ki cked ba ck to o r ‘s p lit ’ w ith a th ird p a rty ” ); Mer cado v. C al um et Fed. Sav. & Loan , 763 F. 2d 269, 271 ( 7t h C i r . 1985) ( obs ervi ng t hat§8( b) ’ s pl ai n l anguage r equi r es a pl ai nt i ff t o al l ege t hata def

endants har ed a “ por t i on, s pl i t , orper cent age” of an une arned port i on of a f ee w ith so m e “ o th e r p e rso n ” to sta te a c laim ); Ha u gv . B a n k o f A m. , 3 1 7 F .3 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 6 (8 th C i r . 2003) ( i nt erpr et i ng § 8( b) as “an a nt i - ki ckbac k pr ovi s i on thatunambi guous l yr equi r es at l ea st tw o p arti es to sh are a se tt lem en t fee in o rde r t o v iolate th e statute” ). 38

T he Tubbses r el ypr i nci pal l yon t he El eventh C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n So sa v. C ha se Manhat tan Mor t

gage C or p. , 348 F. 3d 979 ( 11t h C i r . 2003) , w hi ch theycl ai m hel d t hat § 8 (b ) o f R E S P A d o e s n o t r e q u ir e a d e f e n d a n t to s p lit a f

e e to b e lia b le . So sa hel d no s uch thi ng, how ever . R ather , t he El eventh C i r cui ts eemed t o as s um e that§ 8( b) r equi r ed t hata def

endantacc epts om ethi ng l ess t han an e nt i r e fe e t o be l i abl e, s t at i ng: “[g] i vi ng a por t i on of a c har ge i s pr ohi bi t ed r egar dl es s of w hetherther e i s a cul pabl e ac cept or , and acc ept i ng a por t i on o f

a c h a rg e is p ro h ib ited re g a rd les s o f w h e th e r th e re is a c u lp a b le gi ver . ” Id . a t 9 8 2 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h u s , So sa r equi r es a pl ai nt i ff t o al l ege a s pl i tfee w i t h a thi r d par t yt o s t at e a c l ai m under§ 8( b) , even i f the pl ai nt i ff ne ed notal l ege that bo t h p art i ci pan t s w ere cul pab l e act ors. T he Tubbses al s o r el yheavi l yon t he Second Ci r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n Kruse , arg u in g it h e ld th a t § 8 (b ) d o e s n o t r e q u ir e a d e f e n d a n t to a lle g e a s p lit f e e to s ta te a c la im . A l t hough Kruse di d defe rt o H U D ’ s i nt erpr et at i on that§ 8( b) cover ed mar kups , a mar kup nece s s ar i l yi nvol ves a s pl i tfee , s i nce the def endantkeeps a port i on fori t s el f and pa s s es th e re s t o n to th e th ir d p a rt yth a t p e rf o rm e d th e s e rv ic e . See Kruse , 38 3 F . 3d at53 . T hu s, n o th in g a b o u t Kruse ’s a p p ro v a l o f m a rk u p s in th e § 8 (b ) c o n tex t ca n b e re a d to e lim in a te § 8( b) ’ s t extual r equi r ementt hata def endantr ece i ve onl ya “port i on, s pl i t , orper cent age” of a f ee t o be l i abl e. I ndeed, t he onl ytheoryof l i abi l i t ythatthe Second Ci r cui thel d t o be “cl ear l yand unambi guous l y ” bey ond t he r eac h of § 8( b) w as the over char ge, w hi ch by defi ni t i on i nvol ves no s pl i tfee s i nce the def endanti s al l eged onl yt o have c har ged t oo9

m u c h f o r i ts o w n s e rv ic e . See 383 F. 3d at56. A ccor di ngl y , the Tubbses ’ r el i ance on Kruse i s m i s pl ace d. I n s um , t he Tubbses ar e unabl e t o i dent i fyanyper s uas i ve author i t yi n s uppor tof th e ir a rg u m e n t th a t th e yn e e d n o t alle g e th a t th e T itl e A g e n c ysp litth e $ 1 5 0 f e e a t issu e to s t at e a c l ai m under§8( b) . T hi s i s uns urpr i s i ng i n l i ghtof the s t atut oryt ext ’ s r equi r ement t hatone r ece i ve a “ por t i on, s pl i t , orper cent age” of an une arned fe e t o be l i abl e. D. I n a fa l l back a r gum ent , t he Tubbses ci t e a port i on of ouranal y s i s i n Sant i ago for th e p ro p o sitio n th a t th e ir $ 1 5 0 p a ym e n t to th e T itl e A g e n c ysh o u ld b e c o m b in e d w ith t hei r$80 paym entt o W achovi a and r egar ded as a s i ngl e $230 paym ent . Such an appr oach i s r equi r ed, ar gue the Tubbses , bythe “e conomi c r eal i t yanal y s i s ” of Sant i ago . In h o ld in g th a t § 8 (b ) c o v e re d b o th m a rk u p s a s w e ll a s k ic k b a c k s , Sant i ago not ed that “the p arti es w o u ld b e in th e sa m e e co n o m ic po sit ion ” re g ard less o f w h ethe r a defe ndantengage d i n a ki ckbac k ora mar kup s cheme. 417 F. 3d at388. I r r es pect i ve of how t he def

endants ubs equent l ydi vi ded the fe e r ece i ved fr om the pl ai nt i ff, w e not ed, t he p la in tif f w o u ld b e c h a rg e d th e s a m e a m o u n t a t th e o u ts e t o f th e tr a n s a c tio n . Id . Sant i ago th u s d id n o t m a n d a te a n y“ e c o n o m ic re a lity a n a lysis ” w h e n a s s e s s in g c la im s u n d e r § 8 (b ). R ather , t he C our ts i m pl yobs erved thatt o t he cons um er , ther e w as l i t t l e pr act i cal d if f e re n c e b e tw e e n a k ick b a c k a n d a m a rk u p w h e n c o n c lu d in g th a t § 8 (b ) p ro h ib ited b o th typ e s o f c o n d u c t. A c c o rd in g ly, Sant i ago does notr equi r e us t o combi ne the tw o di s t i nct10

c h a rg e s p a id b yth e T u b b s e s in to o n e u n d e r t h e v a g u e ru b ri c o f “ e c o n o m ic re a lity.” T he T ub bses’ at t em pt t o ag gregat e several dis t i nct fees i nto one si ng l e charge als o contr avene s t he t extof § 8( b) , w hi ch pr ovi des that“no per s on s hal l acc eptanypor t i on, s p l i t , o rp e r c e n t a g e o f

a n y char

ge m ade orr ece i ved” w i t houtpr ovi di ng s ervi ces . 12 U .S .C . § 2 6 0 7 (b ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e tex t o f § 8 (b ) c o n tem p late s a sin g le, d isc re te char ge thati s s ubs equent l ys pl i t , notm ul t i pl e cha r ges pai d t o di ffe r entent i t i es atthe o u tse t, be f

o re th e ye v e r p a ss th ro u g h a c o m m o n d e f e n d a n t, w h ich a re late r c o m b in e d o n ly f o r th e p u rp o se s o f

lit ig a tio n . C o m b in in g c h a rg e s in th is w a yw o u ld c o n tra d ict th e w e llpl eade d al l egat i ons of the Tubbses ’ ow n amended compl ai nt , w her e theyaverr ed thatt he fee s w er e s epar at el ychar ged and pa i d. A cce pt i ng t he Tubbses ’ economi c r eal i t ytheoryal s o w oul d vi t i at e the r equi r ement t hata def

endants pl i ta fe e w i t h a thi r d par tyt o be l i abl e under§ 8( b) . T he Tubbses e ss e n tiallya sk th e C o u rt to a g g re g a te m u lti p le f e e s p a id to d if

f e re n t p a rties in to a sin g le “cha r ge. ” U ndert hi s appr oach, a pl ai nt i ff c oul d alw ays m anufa ctur e a s pl i tchar ge— and t h u s l i a b i l i t yu n d e r§ 8 ( b )

— s i mp l yb yp i c k i n g a n d c h o o s i n g v a r i o u s c h a r g e s f r o m a HUD1A form and combi ni ng t hem. I w oul d notr ender§ 8( b) ’ s r equi r ementof a s pl i tchar ge m eani ngl es s i n t hi s fas hi on. II. I n concl us i on, I bel i eve the Tubbses w er e r equi r ed t o al l ege thatthe Ti t l e A gency acc ept ed a “ por t i on, s pl i t , orper cent age” of a f ee w i thoutper form i ng the corr es pondi ng11

s ervi ces i n or dert o s t at e a c l ai m under§ 8( b) of R E SPA . N othi ng i n Sant i ago su g g e sts ot herw i s e. A l t hough t he Tubbses al l eged thatthe Ti t l e A gencyr ece i ved a $150 f ee f or w hi ch i tper form ed no s ervi ces , t heyfai l ed t o al l ege thatthe Ti t l e A gencys pl i tthatfee w ith a n yth ird p a rty . T h e re f o re , the T u b b se s’ c laim u n d e r § 8 (b ) o f R E S P A w a s p ro p e rly d is m is s e d . See, e. g. , D o n a h u e v . G a v in , 280 F. 3d 371, 372 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( obs ervi ng that w e m ayaf

firm fo r an yrea so n su p p o rt ed b ythe re co rd). F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, I w o u ld a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.