The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments last month in Freeman v. Quicken Loans (Case 10-1042), an important fee-splitting case under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the initial consensus of leading industry attorneys following the case is that the high court appears to be favorably inclined towards Quicken’s side. “If questions raised by the justices are any indication of where the court is headed, I’d say the scales are tipped in the direction of a favorable decision for Quicken Loans,” said attorney Phillip Schulman, in the Washington, DC, office...

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments this week in an important fee-splitting case under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and one issue that took up a lot of air time was whether RESPA is fundamentally a law barring kick-backs or a price-control statute. The key legal provision being examined in Freeman v. Quicken Loans is RESPA Section 8(b), which provides that, “No person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a...

Supreme Court of the United States.Oral Arguments This Week in RESPA Case. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Tuesday, Feb. 21, in Tammy Foret Freeman, et vir, Petitioners v. Quicken Loans, Inc. The central issue is the legitimacy of fee-splitting under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. At the crux of the legal debate is Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §2607(b), which states that no person “shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split or percentage of any charge made ...

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has released for public comment the eighth iteration of its consumer mortgage disclosure prototype forms, dubbed “hemlock” and “butternut,” specifically asking for input as to how the prototypes work with the CFPB’s current application disclosure prototype. “These prototypes use a format for closing costs that’s similar to the format on the initial disclosure to enable the two forms to work well together,” the CFPB said. “Consumers should be able to see if their final loan terms and costs are different from the numbers they were originally offered ...

Government oversight of mortgage lending has dramatically increased in the last two years, and the current trajectory established by the Dodd-Frank Act suggests things are going to get a lot worse before they’re going to get any better. The Dodd-Frank Act will generate a heavy load of new regulations for the industry to implement, and the process is not yet halfway done, said Rod Alba, senior regulatory counsel at the American Bankers Association, during an Inside Mortgage Finance Publications webinar this week. “We are in the midst of at least 24 months’ worth of overheated regulatory pronouncements,”...

The Supreme Court of the United States plans to hear oral arguments late next month in Freeman v. Quicken Loans, a case that could have wide-ranging implications for lenders subject to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The issue before the high court is whether RESPA Section 8(b) 12 USC 2607(b) prohibits a real estate settlement services provider from charging an unearned fee only if the fee is split between two or more parties.The language of that provision of the statute states that no person “shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split or ...

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Comments Wanted on Mortgage-Related Rules. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is asking for public comment on currently approved information collections associated with certain recently published interim final rules having to do with mortgage lending. One such rule has to do with the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (Regulation G) 12 CFR Part 1007.“The information collection will improve the flow of information to and between regulators; provide accountability and ...

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wasted no time in moving forward aggressively with its new director, last week releasing its mortgage origination examination procedures that will be used to scrutinize mortgage lenders and brokers in both the bank and nonbank sector of the industry. The procedures are the clearest indication yet that nonbanks are generally going to be held to the same standards, expectations and requirements as their more traditional banking counterparts. The new procedures outline the CFPB’s supervisory approach to making sure mortgage originators comply with federal...

When it comes to contemplating the wide range of mortgage lending compliance challenges in 2012, it might be useful to borrow from former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: there are “knowns,” things we know and things we know we don’t know, and there are “unknowns,” things we don’t know that we don’t know.In terms of some of the “knowns,” the mortgage servicing exam procedures released back in October by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau provide a roadmap for some of the emphasis areas mortgage lenders can expect from their new regulator, according to Christopher Willis, partner in the Atlanta office of Ballard Spahr. “I think fair lending is going to be a very big emphasis area for them,” he said. The recent settlement between the Department of Justice and Bank of America “sets the stage for that to continue to be a very public, very big issue. And that was an origination case; that wasn’t even a servicing case.“And if you read the mortgage servicing exam procedures, the CFPB is saying they want to apply fair lending analysis to things like foreclosures and loan modifications,” he added. “I think that’s going to be a major source of activity.”

The U.S. Solicitor General and a group of state attorneys general filed pro-borrower briefs in Freeman v. Quicken Loans, a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a plaintiff has to prove that an unearned fee for a real estate settlement service was divided between two or more persons.The court’s ruling is expected to determine the ability of the mortgage lending industry to decide on its own what to charge borrowers at the point of origination.At issue is Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §2607(b), which states that no person “shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed.”