The Fifth Cause Of Action For Violation Of The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 Et Seq. Fails In the Fifth Cause of Action, Plaintiff claims that U.S. Bank violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 (“RESPA”) by alleging that U.S. Bank failed to provide a “good faith estimate of all indebtedness, charges, and fees purportedly owed by Plaintiff to U.S. Bank in response to a qualified written request.” (Complaint, ¶ 72.)

amended by inserting “, the Board,” after “the Secretary”. (8) Section 19(c) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2617(c)) is amended— (A) in paragraph (1) (i) by striking “Secretary” the Ist place such term appears andinsert- ing “Board, with respect to any action to enforce section 4, 5, 6, or 10, and each agency referred to in any subparagraphofsection 8(f)(1), with respect to any action to enforce section 8, 9, or 12,”; and (ii) by striking “Secretary” each place such term appears other than the ist place and inserting “Board or such other agency”; and (B) in paragraph (2), by striking “Secretary” and inserting “Board or an agencyreferred to in any subparagraphof section 8(f)(1)”. (9) The heading for section 19 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2617) is amended to read as follows: “AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD”. (i) REPEAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISIONS.—The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 13, 14, and 15.

RESPA expressly states that its purpose is to protect consumers from unnecessarily high settlement charges and certain abusive practices that have developed Case 2:07-cv-03508-JS Document 14 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 36 of 46 36 in some areas of the country. See Carr v. Home Tech Co., Inc., 476 F. Supp. 2d 859, 869 (W.D. Tenn. 2007) (citing 12 U.S.C. § 2601). In light of the remedial purposes of RESPA, several U.S. District Courts recently concluded equitable tolling applies to RESPA.

Like TILA, RESPA is a remedial statute designed to aid consumers in providing them accurate information as to the true cost of their mortgage loan. The express purposes of RESPA include providing the consumer with “greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process,” and to eliminate “kickbacks or referral fees that tend to increase unnecessarily the costs of [mortgage loan settlements].” 12 U.S.C. § 2601(a) and (b). That the application of equitable tolling is consistent with the remedial purposes of RESPA was recognized in by United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia in Price v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2005 WL 2354348 (S. D. Ga., September 26, 2005). The court discussed the interplay between the key principals of equitable tolling, fraudulent concealment and due diligence, as follows: Case 1:07-cv-00018-WS-C Document 17 Filed 03/26/07 Page 10 of 14 11

RESPA is a notice and disclosure statute. 12 U.S.C. § 2601. RESPA does not, in any way, regulate the method of payment that can be required by a lender.

CO-8036(TX) (041101 re 6 MC Page 2 of 18 Form 3044.1 1/01 (rev. 10/03) Case 1:16-cv-00404-LY-ML Document 29-4 Filed 07/12/16 Page 17 of 61 (0) "RESPA" means the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq.) and its implementing regulation, Regulation X (24 C.F.R. Part 3500), as they might be amended from time to time, or any additional or successor legislation or regulation that governs the same subject matter. As used in this Security Instrument, "RESPA" refers to all requirements and restrictions that are imposed in regard to a "federally related mortgage loan" even if the Extension of Credit does not qualify as a "federally related mortgage loan" under RESPA.

Finally, while not alleged in the Complaint, GMAC also appears to have violated certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that specifically preclude changes in contracts for flood insurance unless they are bona fide and reasonable. Section 2605(m) of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedure Act (―RESPA‖), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq., provides that ―[a]ll charges ... related to force-placed insurance imposed on the borrower by or through the services shall be bona fide and reasonable.‖ 12 U.S.C. § 2605(m).

Fifth, Plaintiff’s claim for Violation of Housing and Development, 24 U.S.C. § 3500.7 (which appears to attempt to plead a cause of action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.), fails because RESPA does not provide a private right of action for violations of sections 2603 and 2604. Therefore, Defendants request that the Court grant their Motion to Dismiss.

(FAC ¶ 86.) The only disclosures mandated under RESPA at the time of closing, are those pertaining to the escrow costs. (See, 12 U.S.C. § 2601; see also, 12 C.F.R. § 3500.2(b).) As such, Plaintiff sufficiently pled the RESPA claim against Defendant CHL.

In 1974, Congress explicitly found that "significant reforms in the real estate settlement process" were needed "to insure that consumers throughout the Nation" are, among other things, "protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices that have developed in some areas of the country." RESPA Section 2,12 U.S.C. § 2601(a) (Congressional findings and purpose). The legislation includes disclosure requirements, such as the uniform settlement statements used in home mortgage closings since then; and substantive restrictions on such matters as escrow deposit accounts and charges for settlement services -- the latter being the provision at issue in the present litigation.