5 Responses to Court Side: Supreme Court Should Settle Contentious RESPA Issue

1. lilly says:

   April 30, 2012 at 4:48 pm

   Question: If companies like Quicken simply restructure their fees, didn’t that destroy the whole point of the legislation in the first place?
2. Mike from Carmel says:

   May 3, 2012 at 1:42 pm

   I think that Quicken’s argument has some merit, although I’m not sure it would benefit the industry if upheld.
3. Stacey Moncrieff says:

   May 4, 2012 at 4:01 pm

   Lilly, thanks for the question. Quicken didn’t restructure its fees — it simply charged a fee that the borrowers thought was unfair. Quicken’s contention is that it engaged in a standard mortgage-industry practice, charging prepaid points to reduce the mortgage interest rate. The borrowers, however, claimed that they received no discount on their interest rate. Quicken prevailed in Federal Court.

   The issue of restructuring fees is a separate issue that applies to real estate company transaction fees. Where the two cases merge is in the shared contention that RESPA Sec 8(b) doesn’t apply because the fees aren’t split with another party. We’ll see what the Supremes say!
4. Court Side: Withdrawal of Fair Housing Case Leaves Disparate Impact Issue in the Air says:

   May 10, 2012 at 2:08 pm

   [...] six cases and their potential impact on your business. Last week, I wrote a post on the RESPA case, Freeman v. Quicken Loans. Here’s a look at the Fair Housing case that we discussed. Remember: If you have questions about [...]
5. Court Side: The Great Promise—and Limits—of the Supreme Court’s Sackett Decision says:

   July 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm

   [...] a good jumping off point for a series of blog posts. In previous posts, I discussed the RESPA case, Freeman v. Quicken Loans (recently decided by the Supreme Court in favor of NAR’s position; see “Supreme Court Provides [...]