No, Dem Rep, Your Phones Are Not Ringing Off the Hook Over This...
At Some Point, This View Co-Host Will Be Slapped With a Lawsuit
Gunman Goes on a Rampage in Montreal, One Police Officer Reported Killed
Federal Judge Throws Out DOJ's Subpoenas Against Tim Walz and Other Minnesota Officials
The FBI Just Made a Huge Fraud Arrest
Joy Reid Says She Will Stop Voting for Democrats If They Keep Doing...
The Legacy Good Fathers Leave Behind
Socialism Is Spreading Across the US. The Right Needs to Answer With Radical...
The Trump Admin Recovered $5 Billion From Fraudsters in Just Two Months
The Trump Administration Just Deployed Marco Rubio to the Middle East
This Nebraska Senate Candidate Is Running As an Independent. His Donors Are Anything...
Jeanine Pirro Vows to Prosecute Reflecting Pool Vandals to the Fullest Extent of...
Rep. Ro Khanna Is Still on His Crusade Against Elon Musk
Joy Reid Is Trying to Replace the 4th of July
Fired Teacher Accused of Forcing Students to Kiss Lands New Job at Colorado...
OPINION

Supreme Court Spanks HUD

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

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