Of Course, the Media Is Freaking Out Over Trump's Military Parade, But They're...
The Pulitzer Prize Was Just Awarded to a Publication That Pushed a Fake...
How Barstool's Dave Portnoy Handled This Ambush by a Local News Outlet
All This WaPo Reporter Did Was Show She Doesn't Know the Difference Between...
This Headline Sort of Guts The Washington Post's Pulitzer Win for Covering the...
If There's Anyone That Deserves a Military Parade, It's Donald J. Trump
Can We Pay Liberals to Leave Too?
Young Trumpian Conservatives Are Like the Young Reagan Conservatives of Yesterday
Price Controls for Medicine Have a Devastating Cost
'Trump Knows…' Eclipses the Iconic Bo Jackson Commercial 'Bo Knows…'
Can the West Win Wars Again?
Securing Digital Dignity: A New Line of Defense for Americans
Ignore the Elites — President Trump’s Housing Plan Is Working
From the Gridiron to the Rose Garden — America’s Comeback Starts Here
Small Businesses Aren’t Hiring - Because Big Cronyism Is Eliminating Them
OPINION

Supreme Court Spanks HUD

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Having one’s read of the law vindicated by the Supreme Court is always a nice feeling, even if I had to wait about a decade.  From 2002 to 2003, I managed the HUD office which administered the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

Advertisement

In 2001, prior to my arrival, the legal staff at HUD released a “policy statement” claiming that RESPA’s Section 8(b) prohibited some instances of fees as excessive or unreasonable because said fees would constitute a person “giving or accepting any unearned fees”. 

How HUD even knows what is earned or unearned is besides the point, Section 8(b) of RESPA only prohibits fees that are basically split between two or more parties.  As far as statutes go, RESPA is actually quite clear.  That clarity, however, did not stop HUD from taking the convoluted position that one can split or share a fee with one-self.  This was obviously an attempt to create a “reasonable” test for fees where one did not exist.

During my brief tenure at HUD, the RESPA office largely ignored this section of the 2001 policy statement.  The staff there related to me that its inclusion was largely “political” anyway, an attempt to the make the remainder of the policy statement more palatable. 

I made clear at the time that the policy statement went far beyond any actual authority in RESPA.  It seems, however, that the trial bar was not willing to let this statement remain dormant, and assembled a class action based upon this erroneous reading of RESPA, leading to last week’s decision, which rejected 9 to 0 HUD’s reading of RESPA.

Advertisement

Dodd-Frank moved the RESPA office from HUD to the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  It moved much of the HUD enforcement and legal staff as well.  What is not clear is whether the willingness to simply make up law where there is no statutory authority was also left behind. 

One of the reasons why I, among others, have strong concerns as to the current structure of the CFPB is this trend of regulators constantly going around the letter of the law.  How are we to hope for respect for the law when those tasked with enforcing it show so little respect themselves.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement