Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/not-a-close-call-the-d-c-circuit-73152/
Timestamp: 2017-09-23 10:10:06
Document Index: 242613359

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 3500', '§ 2607', '§ 2607', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 1024']

“Not A Close Call”: The D.C. Circuit Restores The Safe Harbor To Section 8 of RESPA | K&L Gates LLP - JDSupra
In the coming days, we will be publishing additional articles on different aspects of the PHH opinion, including regarding the constitutionality of the CFPB and ramifications of the court’s holding as to statute of limitations.
For K&L Gates Alerts on related topics, see:
D.C. Circuit Appears Poised to Overturn First CFPB Enforcement Action to Reach the Court: Five Key Takeaways From Yesterday’s Oral Argument, Consumer Financial Services Alert, 13 April 2016
They’re Just Not That into You: A Brief Summary of How Federal Courts Have Treated the CFPB’s Interpretations of Statutes and Regulations, Financial Institution and Services Litigation Alert, 9 December 2015
Against the Tide: A New Take on RESPA’s Section 8(c)(2) Safe Harbor by the CFPB, Consumer Financial Services Alert, 5 August 2015
[1] See, e.g., Galiano v. Fid. Nat. Title Ins. Co., 684 F.3d 309, 314 (2d Cir. 2012) (Section 8(c) “provides that § 8(a) shall not be construed as prohibiting payments by a title company for goods, facilities actually furnished, or services actually performed.”); O’Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732, 740 (5th Cir. 2003) (“We defer to 24 C.F.R. § 3500.14(g)(2), as a broad agency rule.”); Mims v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 590 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Section 8(c) of RESPA contains several exceptions to the general rule….”); Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 736 F.3d 722, 728 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding Section 8(c)(2) “protects ‘the payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed’”); Egerer v. Woodland Realty, Inc., 556 F.3d 415, 420–21 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Under RESPA, the referral of settlement service business is not compensable, except as provided by 12 U.S.C. § 2607(c), which contains a list of fees, salaries, compensation and payments that are not prohibited by § 2607(a).”); Howland v. First Am Title Ins. Co., 672 F.3d 525, 531 (7th Cir. 2012); Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 283 F.3d 953, 962–63 (8th Cir. 2002) (“applying either Christensen or Skidmore, we find that the Policy Statements issued by HUD reflect a reasoned view of a responsible agency which is consistent with the statute and regulation and which constitutes a body of experience and informed judgment that this court may look to as determinative authority”); Bjustrom v. Trust One Mortg. Corp., 322 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding payments did not violate Section 8 where “total compensation received … was reasonably related to the services it provided”); Schuetz v. Banc One Mortg. Corp., 292 F.3d 1004, 1011–12 (9th Cir. 2002) (conduct undertaken in “good faith compliance with HUD rules, regulations, and interpretations” is protected under RESPA); Smith v. Argent Mortgage Co., 331 Fed. Appx. 549, 555 (10th Cir. 2009); Culpepper v. Irwin Mortg. Corp., 491 F.3d 1260, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007) (see infra); Hirsch v. BankAmerica Corp., 328 F.3d 1306, 1308-09 (11th Cir. 2003); Geraci v. Homestreet Bank, 347 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2003).
[2] 24 C.F.R. § 3500.14(g)(2011); 24 C.F.R. § 3500.14(e)-(f)(1992); 12 C.F.R. § 1024.14 (2016).
[3] “Reasonable payments in return for services actually performed or goods actually furnished are not intended to be prohibited.” S. Rep. No. 93-866, at 6 (1974).