F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 3, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1030 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00799 -CV -W S-B JEROM E W ILLIAMS, CLAUDE W ILLIAMS, SR ., LINDA W ILLIAMS,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us COUNTRYW IDE HOME LOAN S, INC., etal., Defen da nt s, TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAXON HOME MORTGAGE, HOMEOW

NERS LOAN CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK NA TIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as tr ust ee a nd c ust odi anof

the I xis Re al E state Ca pit al T ru st 2 005- H E 3 M ortga ge P as s Thro ug h C ert ifi cat es , Seri es 20 05 -HE3, Defen da nt s- App el le es .We reviewde novo a “ district court’s g rant of a motion to di smiss under Rule 12(b)(6) 1 for f ailure to state a

claim, ac ceptingthe alleg ations in the complaint as true a nd construingthem in the light most favor able to the plaintiff.” Castro v. Sec’y of Homela

nd Security , 472 F.3d 1334, 1336 (11th Cir. 2006). 2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 3, 200 8) Be fo re BA RKE T T , MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Je ro m e W ill ia m s, L ind a W ill ia m s and C laude W ill ia m s, S r. , appe al f ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g T ic or T itl e In sur an ce Co m

pany of F lor ida ’ s m oti on to dism iss based on the Appellants’ failure to state a claim under § 8 of the Real E state S ettle m en t P ro ce dur e A ct ( RE SP A ), c odi fi ed

a t 12 U
. S. C. § 26 07. T he 1 App el la nt s wer e ch arg eda $2 00 fee fo r a t it le in su ran ce p ol ic y is su edby T ic or . Appellants allege that because the title insurance prem ium wa s only$102 .50 under A la ba m a law , the r em ai nin g $9 7. 50 “ sur ch ar ge ” co nst itu te d af ee f or som ethin g

“ ot he r th an ser vi ces act ua ll y pe rfo rm ed ” wit hi n t he m ean in g o f § 8 (b ) of RESPA. See 1 2 U.S.C. § 26 07 (b ). Appe llants ’ c la im s th at

the $20 0 ti tle ins ur an ce pr em ium e xc ee de d th eAppellants alleg e that Tric or split the fee with Swaffor d Settlement Services but not 2 with the lender . Appellents conc ede, how ever , that Swaffor d did perfor m a servic e by

actingat Tricor ’s ag ent and se lling the policy on Tricor ’s beha lf.

3 m ax im um am ou nt au th or iz edby A laba m a la w are n ot act io nabl e u nd er RESP A. W e ha ve r ec en tly

j oin ed the S ec ond, T hir d, F ourth, S ev en th and E igh t C ir cu its in hol din g th at

§ 8( b) of RE SP A “ doe s no t go ve rne xc es siv e fe es be ca use it is not a price control provisio n.” Friedm an v. Market Stre et Mortgage Corp. (Fr iedm an II ), 520 F
. 3d 1 289, 129 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 8)
. W e ha ve r ej ec te d th e not ionthat c ourts shou ld b re ak

sin gle f ee s in to v ar iou s “ co m

pone nts ” fo r ev al ua tio n, a s M oody
w oul d have us d o he re w iththe a lle ge dly “ earn ed ” ve rs us “une ar

ne d” portio ns o f the f ee . I d. a t 12 97. Mo re ove r, w e ha ve he ld tha t “ subs ec tio n 8( b) r equir es a plaintiff to allege that no services wer e re ndered in exchange for a settlem ent fee. ” Id. at 1298 (em

phasis add ed). Appellants m erely claim that they we re c harged an inf la te d f ee f or ase rv ic e that w as ind isp uta bly pr ovi de d by

T ic or : the iss uanc e of the ti tle ins ur an ce pol ic y . Appe llants ’ c la im s are barr ed by our pr ior pr ec ed en t, 2
an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt r igh tly f ound that su chc la im s are be y ond the pur vie wof R E S P A
. AFFIRMED.