Sacre Bleu! Thieves Swipe Napoleonic Jewels From the Louvre In Less Than Four...
Zohran Mamdani's Chief of Staff Confirms He Hates the NYPD
Socialized Medicine Was the Democrats' Goal All Along
Calling Out the Cancer Within the Right
The People Who WANT a King
Did the Socialist Win the NYC Mayoral Debate?
Is There a Mitzvah to Be Stupid?
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 290: What the Bible Says About Finding God’s...
Trump Says He Will Use 'Schumer Shutdown' To Permanently Cut Programs
FBI Pittsburgh Arrested 19 Violent Fugitives
VP Vance Rallies Marines While Old Liberals Jeer Trump
'Kings Get Guillotines': Leftists Show Out Threatening Trump
Ohio Man Faces Up to 20 Years in Federal Prison if Convicted for...
Hate Problem or Heart Problem?
When Cities Choose Chaos: Why Federal Intervention Is Not Only Legal — It’s...
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