Don't Miss This VERY Special Black Friday Offer
CNN Reporter Says the Quiet Part Out Loud About Afghans and the National...
Do Something About Prices, Republicans, Or You’re Going To Lose
Democrats Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste
Zohran Mamdani's Still Begging Working Class New Yorkers for Money
'Closed in Its Entirety:' President Trump Issues Warning About Venezuelan Airspace
Being Thankful Also After Thanksgiving
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 296: What the Bible Says About Gifts
Democrat Leadership is Sinister, Not Misguided
Texas Authorities Arrest Afghan Immigrant Accused of Posting Bomb Threat Online
Northwestern to Pay $75M, Enact Major Policy Reforms Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Dea...
Audio Company Harman to Pay $11.8M for Evading U.S. Duties on Chinese Aluminum...
State Department Pauses Afghan Passport Visas After D.C. Terrorist Shooting
Colombian National Sentenced to 60 Months for Laundering $1.2M in Drug Proceeds
Pregnancy Resource Centers Should Be Able to Operate Free From Government Intimidation
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