Read Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 10-1042

In a case in which three couples who obtained mortgage loans from the respondent filed separate state-court actions alleging that the respondent had violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act's prohibition of fee splitting at 12 U.S.C. section 2607(b) by charging them fees for which no services were provided in return, summary judgment to the respondent is affirmed, because in order to establish a violation of section 2607(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons. Section 2607(b) cannot be understood to reach a single provider's retention of an unearned fee.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/24/2012
• Published 05/24/2012

Judges

• Scalia

Court

• United States Supreme Court

Counsel