See 2016 WL 5898801, at *2-3, 11-12. As a result, the D.C. Circuit “severed” the “for-cause removal provision” from the statute enacting the CFPB (thereby affording the President the power to remove the Director of the CFPB at will), and in so doing vacated a $109 million fine that the CFPB had imposed on PHH Corporation (“PHH”) as a disgorgement penalty arising out of the mortgage lender’s “captive reinsurance” practices, which the court found was based in part on a misinterpretation of Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§2601-2617 (“RESPA”). See id. at *4-5, 27-36.

On October 8, 2015, the CFPB issued complianceBulletin 2015-05cautioning againstthe use of marketing services agreements (MSAs), due to the “substantial legal and regulatory risk” of violating theReal Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (12 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.). Although the Bulletin did not specify what a RESPA-compliant MSA would look like, below are some points to glean from the CFPB’snon-binding guidance.

In his decision, Cordray largely affirmed the November 2014 judgment of Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot. Judge Elliot had found that PHH Corp., a mortgage lender, violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617, by referring consumers to mortgage insurance companies in exchange for kickbacks in the form of mortgage insurance reinsurance premiums paid to PHH subsidiaries. After both parties appealed, Cordray heard oral arguments on March 9 – an event previously reported on here.As Cordray explained in his decision, Congress enacted RESPA in 1974 after finding that the real estate settlement services market did not function competitively but was instead prone to exploitative and unreasonable practices.

advertisements and mortgage terms presented to consumers prior to the TRID disclosures as well as data safeguards rules. FCRA requirements around becoming a credit reporting agency or credit report reseller could also come into play along with information sharing among affiliates. Vendor management or third-party oversight requirements for participants subject to state licensing, CFPB, banking, or credit union regulatory supervision would also apply.Last, also recall that the CFPB has issued a series of several advanced notices of proposed rulemaking and proposed rules on data collection, data usage, and data sharing (aka “open banking rules”). One or more of these proposals, if finalized, could also impact the platforms addressed in the CFPB Opinion.RESPA Advisory Opinion on Online Mortgage Comparison Shopping Tools (consumerfinance.gov) (last visited Feb. 15, 2023). HUD, RESPA Statement of Policy 1996–1, Regarding Computer Loan Origination Systems (CLOs), 61 FR 29255 (June 7, 1996). 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Statement of CFPB Director Rohit Chopra on Mortgage Comparison Shopping in a Time of Higher Interest Rates | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov) (last visited Feb. 16, 2023).CFPB Issues Guidance to Protect Mortgage Borrowers from Pay-to-Play Digital Comparison-Shopping Platforms | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov) (last visited Feb. 16, 2023). Many RESPA Section 8 practitioners assume there is an agreement or understanding if there are multiple or ongoing payments.See 12 U.S.C. 2607; Morrisette v. Novastar Home Mortg., Inc., 284 Fed. Appx. 729 (2008); Moody v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 284 Fed. Appx. 735 (2008). RESPA Section 8 permits “normal promotional and educational activities that are not conditioned on the referral of business and that do not involve the defraying of expenses that otherwise would be incurred by persons in a position to refer settlement services or business incident thereto.” 12 CFR 1024.14(g)(1)(vi

tising but evidence of an illegal referral fee arrangement under RESPA.The CFPB's strident tone and approach in the Advisory Opinion harkens back to the CFPB's since-rescinded 2015 RESPA Section 8 Compliance Bulletin which, coupled with contemporaneous vigorous enforcement activity, was viewed by some in the industry as effectively outlawing most forms of Marketing Services Agreements. The CFPB's guidance on digital mortgage comparison-shopping platforms similarly complicates market participants' ability to tease out the difference between advertising to a wide audience and referrals of specific consumers for purposes of RESPA Section 8 compliance.Read on below for additional background, a summary of the detailed new 27-page guidance, and implications for future RESPA Section 8 enforcement.Background: How did we get here?Congress enacted RESPA in 1974 to, among other goals, "eliminat[e] … kickbacks or referral fees that tend to increase unnecessarily the costs of settlement services." 12 U.S.C. § 2601(b)(2). RESPA Section 8 prohibits giving and accepting any fee, kickback, or thing of value for referring "business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan" to any person, but allows payment of bona fide compensation for goods or services actually performed. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 2607(a), (c)(2); see also 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.14(b), (g).In 1996, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which had jurisdiction over implementing RESPA pre-CFPB, issued guidance addressing the use of what it called, at the time, Computer Loan Origination Systems, or CLOs. The Advisory Opinion explains that today's digital mortgage comparison-shopping platforms fit within HUD's 1996 definition of CLOs, referencing HUD's 1996 statement that technology was evolving and that its guidance was meant to extend beyond technology that existed in the mid-1990s. The CLO guidance allowed settlement service providers to pay CLOs a reasonable fee for serv

Section 8(a) of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) provides that: “No person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.” 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a).Brasko v. Howard Bank, 2022 WL 951771 at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2022) (quoting 12 U.S.C. §2601(b)(2)).Baehr v. Creig Northrop Team, P.C., 953 F.3d 244, 254 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 373 (2020).Id. at 251.Id. at 254.

This is known as a Request for Information. Under Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA) 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., the lender/service provider must acknowledge your request within five (5) business days and provide you with the information on who owns your mortgage or financed the loan of the apartment building within thirty (30 days). 12 CFR § 1024.36.While the CARES Act eviction moratorium may have expired, landlords may still want to consider conducting due diligence before engaging in any eviction proceedings.

On May 11, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)settled with a Colorado-based mortgage servicer that serviced a portfolio of mortgage loans worthapproximately $112.69 billion. According to the CFPB, the Bureau found that the servicer violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C.§ 2601 et seq.,and its implementing regulation, Regulation X,12 C.F.R. part 1024, as well asthe Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010(CFPA)by taking prohibited foreclosure actions against certain borrowers and failing to send or timely send evaluation notices to certain borrowers.​The servicer did not admit or deny any of the CFPB’s allegations.According to the consent order, since January 10, 2014, the servicer made First Filings, moved for foreclosure judgment or an order of sale, and conducted foreclosure sales in instances where the borrower was entitled to protection from these actions under Regulation X.The servicer also allegedly failed to send or timely send Evaluation Notices to certain borrowers who were entitled to Evaluation Notices under Regu​lation X.Under the settlement, the servicermust pay$775,000 in restitution to affected consumers under a redress plan to be approved by theCFPB, a $250,000 civil money penalty to the CFPB, and is required to waive $500,000 in borrower d

The Eleventh Circuit’s most recent decision regarding Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.1, et seq., of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., will come as a relief to mortgage lenders and borrowers alike—although not to the individual plaintiff in Landau v. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corp. Relying on the plain language of Regulation X and the consumer-protection purpose of RESPA, the Court held that a mortgage servicer is not prevented from rescheduling a previously-ordered foreclosure sale while considering a borrower’s loss-mitigation application.Factual BackgroundAfter Rachel Landu’s mortgage became seriously delinquent, her lender filed a foreclosure action in Florida state court.

This is an extremely tight time frame for the Department to be able to meet, and one that it will likely find itself compelled to extend.Holland & Knight PartnerLeonard A. Bernsteincontributed significantly to this client alert.Notes1 See Conn.Gen.Stat. §§36a-715 to 36a-719 (effective Jan. 1, 2015); N.Y. Banking Law §590(2)(b-1)(2009); 7 Pa.C.S. §6101 et seq., as amended by P.L. 1260, No. 81 (Dec. 22, 2017).2Section 3a3 N.J.S.A. 17:11C-51 et seq.4 Section 3b5 Section 196 Section 7a7 Section 48 Section 7a9 Section 6c10 Section 811 12 U.S.C 2601 et seq.12 12 CFR Part 102413 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.14 12 CFR Part 102615 Section 1416 Sections 15-1717 N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 et seq.18 N.J.S.A. 56:8-3 through -1819 N.J.S.A. 8-19