Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc.
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Feb 21, 2012
|May 24, 2012||9-0||Scalia||OT 2011|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the petitioners in this case.
Holding: To establish a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b) – which provides that “[n]o 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 . . . other than for services actually performed” – a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons.
Plain English Summary: Unearned fees – fees for which lenders provide no services – violate federal law only if the fees are split between two companies. This may seem strange, but the Court said that the law Congress passed was only about fee splitting. To control the level of fees that a single bank charges, Congress would have to be more specific.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on May 24, 2012.
- Opinion recap: Court rebukes HUD in mortgage-fee dispute (Ronald Mann)
- Argument recap: Court opens can of worms in mortgage-settlement fees case (Ronald Mann)
- Court to mull mortgage-settlement fees (Ronald Mann)
- Plain English: Recent grants (Amy Howe)
Invited: May 16, 2011
Filed: August 25, 2011 (Grant)
Briefs and DocumentsMerits Briefs for the Petitioners
- Brief for the American Bankers Association et al.
- Brief for the American Escrow Association et al.
- Brief for National Association of Realtors