Policy Statement 2001-1

Thursday,
October 18, 2001

Part V

Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
24 CFR Part 3500
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
Statement of Policy 2001–1: Clarification
of Statement of Policy 1999–1 Regarding
Lender Payments to Mortgage Brokers,
and Guidance Concerning Unearned Fees
Under Section 8(b); Final Rule

VerDate 112000

18:46 Oct 17, 2001

Jkt 197001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\18OCR3.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 18OCR3

53052

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 3500
[Docket No. FR–4714–N–01]
RIN 2502–AH74

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
Statement of Policy 2001–1:
Clarification of Statement of Policy
1999–1 Regarding Lender Payments to
Mortgage Brokers, and Guidance
Concerning Unearned Fees Under
Section 8(b)
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Statement of Policy 2001–1.
SUMMARY: This Statement of Policy is
being issued to eliminate any ambiguity
concerning the Department’s position
with respect to those lender payments to
mortgage brokers characterized as yield
spread premiums and to overcharges by
settlement service providers as a result
of questions raised by two recent court
decisions, Culpepper v. Irwin Mortgage
Corp. and Echevarria v. Chicago Title
and Trust Co., respectively. In issuing
this Statement of Policy, the Department
clarifies its interpretation of Section 8 of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act (RESPA) in Statement of Policy
1999–1 Regarding Lender Payments to
Mortgage Brokers (the 1999 Statement of
Policy), and reiterates its long-standing
interpretation of Section 8(b)’s
prohibitions. Culpepper v. Irwin
Mortgage Corp. involved the payment of
yield spread premiums from lenders to
mortgage brokers. Echevarria v. Chicago
Title and Trust Co. involved the
applicability of Section 8(b) to a
settlement service provider that
overcharged a borrower for the service
of another settlement service provider,
and then retained the amount of the
overcharge.
Today’s Statement of Policy reiterates
the Department’s position that yield
spread premiums are not per se legal or
illegal, and clarifies the test for the
legality of such payments set forth in
HUD’s 1999 Statement of Policy. As
stated there, HUD’s position that lender
payments to mortgage brokers are not
illegal per se does not imply, however,
that yield spread premiums are legal in
individual cases or classes of
transactions. The legality of yield spread
premiums turns on the application of
HUD’s test in the 1999 Statement of
Policy as clarified today.
The Department also reiterates its
long-standing position that it may
violate Section 8(b) and HUD’s

VerDate 112000

19:41 Oct 17, 2001

Jkt 197001

implementing regulations: (1) For two or
more persons to split a fee for settlement
services, any portion of which is
unearned; or (2) for one settlement
service provider to mark-up the cost of
the services performed or goods
provided by another settlement service
provider without providing additional
actual, necessary, and distinct services,
goods, or facilities to justify the
additional charge; or (3) for one
settlement service provider to charge the
consumer a fee where no, nominal, or
duplicative work is done, or the fee is
in excess of the reasonable value of
goods or facilities provided or the
services actually performed.
This Statement of Policy also
reiterates the importance of disclosure
so that borrowers can choose the best
loan for themselves, and it describes
disclosures HUD considers best
practices. The Secretary is also
announcing that he intends to make full
use of his regulatory authority to
establish clear requirements for
disclosure of mortgage broker fees and
to improve the settlement process for
lenders, mortgage brokers, and
consumers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivy
M. Jackson, Acting Director, RESPA/ILS
Division, Room 9156, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–0502, or
(for legal questions) Kenneth A.
Markison, Assistant General Counsel for
GSE/RESPA, Room 9262, Department of
Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202)
708–3137 (these are not toll-free
numbers). Persons who have difficulty
hearing or speaking may access this
number via TTY by calling the toll-free
Federal Information Relay Service at
(800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Background
The Department is issuing this
Statement of Policy in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552 as a formal pronouncement
of its interpretation of relevant statutory
and regulatory provisions. Section 19(a)
(12 U.S.C. 2617(a)) of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12
U.S.C. 2601–2617) (RESPA) specifically
authorizes the Secretary ‘‘to prescribe
such rules and regulations [and] to make
such interpretations * * * as may be
necessary to achieve the purposes of
[RESPA].’’
Section 8(a) of RESPA prohibits any
person from giving and any person from
accepting ‘‘any fee, kickback, or thing of
value pursuant to an agreement or

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

understanding, oral or otherwise’’ that
real estate settlement service business
shall be referred to any person. See 12
U.S.C. 2607(a). Section 8(b) prohibits
anyone from giving or accepting ‘‘any
portion, split, or percentage of any
charge made or received for the
rendering of a real estate settlement
service * * * other than for services
actually performed.’’ 12 U.S.C. 2607(b).
Section 8(c) of RESPA provides,
‘‘Nothing in [Section 8] shall be
construed as prohibiting * * * (2) the
payment to any person of a bona fide
salary or compensation or other
payment for goods or facilities actually
furnished or for services actually
performed * * *’’ 12 U.S.C. 2607(c)(2).
RESPA also requires the disclosure of
settlement costs to consumers at the
time of or soon after a borrower applies
for a loan and again at the time of real
estate settlement. 12 U.S.C. 2603–4.
RESPA’s requirements apply to
transactions involving a ‘‘federally
related mortgage loan’’ as that term is
defined at 12 U.S.C. 2602(1).
I. Lender Payments to Mortgage Brokers
The Conference Report on the
Department’s 1999 Appropriations Act
directed HUD to address the issue of
lender payments to mortgage brokers
under RESPA. The Conference Report
stated that ‘‘Congress never intended
payments by lenders to mortgage
brokers for goods or facilities actually
furnished or for services actually
performed to be violations of [Sections
8](a) or (b) (12 U.S.C. sec. 2607) in its
enactment of RESPA.’’ H. Rep. 105–769,
at 260. As also directed by Congress,
HUD worked with industry groups,
federal agencies, consumer groups and
other interested parties in collectively
producing the 1999 Statement of Policy
issued on March 1, 1999. 64 FR 10080.
Interested members of the public are
urged to consult the 1999 Statement of
Policy for a more detailed discussion of
the background on lender payments to
brokers addressed in today’s Statement.
HUD’s 1999 Statement of Policy
established a two-part test for
determining the legality of lender
payments to mortgage brokers for table
funded transactions and intermediary
transactions under RESPA: (1) Whether
goods or facilities were actually
furnished or services were actually
performed for the compensation paid
and; (2) whether the payments are
reasonably related to the value of the
goods or facilities that were actually
furnished or services that were actually
performed. In applying this test, HUD
believes that total compensation should
be scrutinized to assure that it is
reasonably related to the goods,

E:\FR\FM\18OCR3.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 18OCR3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
facilities, or services furnished or
performed to determine whether it is
legal under RESPA. In the
determination of whether payments
from lenders to mortgage brokers are
permissible under Section 8 of RESPA,
the threshold question is whether there
were goods or facilities actually
furnished or services actually performed
for the total compensation paid to the
mortgage broker. Where a lender
payment to a mortgage broker comprises
a portion of total broker compensation,
the amount of the payment is not, under
the HUD test, scrutinized separately and
apart from total broker compensation.
Since HUD issued its 1999 Statement
of Policy, most courts have held that
yield spread premiums from lenders to
mortgage brokers are legal provided that
such payments meet the test for legality
articulated in the 1999 Statement of
Policy and otherwise comport with
RESPA. However, in a recent decision,
Culpepper v. Irwin Mortgage Corp., 253
F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2001), the Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld
certification of a class in a case alleging
that yield spread premiums violated
Section 8 of RESPA where the
defendant lender, pursuant to a prior
understanding with mortgage brokers,
paid yield spread premiums to the
brokers based solely on the brokers’
delivery of above par interest rate loans.
The court concluded that a jury could
find that yield spread premiums were
illegal kickbacks or referral fees under
RESPA where the lender’s payments
were based exclusively on interest rate
differentials reflected on rate sheets, and
the lender had no knowledge of what
services, if any, the broker performed.
The court described HUD’s 1999
Statement of Policy as ‘‘ambiguous.’’ Id.
at 1327. Accordingly, and because
courts have now rendered conflicting
decisions, HUD has an obligation to
clarify its position and issues this
Statement today to provide such
clarification and certainty to lenders,
brokers, and consumers.
Because this clarification focuses on
the legality of lender payments to
mortgage brokers in transactions subject
to RESPA, the coverage of this statement
is restricted to payments to mortgage
brokers in table funded and
intermediary broker transactions.
Lender payments to mortgage brokers
where mortgage brokers initially fund
the loan and then sell the loan after
settlement are outside the coverage of
this statement as exempt from RESPA
under the secondary market exception.
II. Disclosure
Besides establishing the two-part test
for determining the legality of yield

VerDate 112000

18:46 Oct 17, 2001

Jkt 197001

spread premiums, the 1999 Statement of
Policy discussed the importance of
disclosure in permitting borrowers to
choose the best loan for themselves. The
mortgage transaction is complicated,
and most people engage in such
transactions relatively infrequently,
compared to the other purchases they
make. In some instances, borrowers
have paid very large origination costs,
either up front fees, yield spread
premiums, or both, which they might
have been able to avoid with timely
disclosure. Timely disclosure would
permit them to shop for preferable
origination costs and mortgage terms
and to agree to those costs and terms
that meet their needs. The Department
therefore is issuing a clarification of the
importance of disclosure, with a
description of disclosures that it
considers to be best practices.
In this Statement of Policy, the
Secretary is announcing that he intends
to make full use of his regulatory
authority as expeditiously as possible to
provide clear requirements and
guidance prospectively regarding
disclosure of mortgage broker fees and,
more broadly, to improve the mortgage
settlement process so that homebuyers
and homeowners are better served.
Pending the promulgation of such a
rule, the Secretary asks the industry to
adopt new disclosure requirements to
promote competition and to better serve
consumers.
III. Unearned Fees
The 1999 Statement of Policy also
touched upon another area of recurring
questions under Section 8 of RESPA: the
legality of payments that are in excess
of the reasonable value of the goods or
facilities provided or services
performed. See 64 FR 10082–3.
Since RESPA was enacted, HUD has
consistently interpreted Section 8(b)
and HUD’s RESPA regulations to
prohibit settlement service providers
from charging unearned fees, as
occurred in Echevarria v. Chicago Title
& Trust Co., 256 F.3d 623 (7th Cir.
2001). Such an interpretation is
consistent with Congress’s finding,
when enacting RESPA, that consumers
need protection from unnecessarily high
settlement costs. Through this
Statement of Policy, HUD makes clear
that Section 8(b) prohibits any person
from giving or accepting any fees other
than payments for goods and facilities
provided or services actually performed.
Payments that are unearned fees occur
in, but are not limited to, cases where:
(1) Two or more persons split a fee for
settlement services, any portion of
which is unearned; or (2) one settlement
service provider marks-up the cost of

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

53053

the services performed or goods
provided by another settlement service
provider without providing additional
actual, necessary, and distinct services,
goods, or facilities to justify the
additional charge; or (3) one settlement
service provider charges the consumer a
fee where no, nominal, or duplicative
work is done, or the fee is in excess of
the reasonable value of goods or
facilities provided or the services
actually performed.
In a July 5, 2001 decision, the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
concluded that unearned fees must be
passed from one settlement provider to
another in order for such fees to violate
Section 8(b). Accordingly, the court
held that a settlement service provider
did not violate Section 8(b) when, in
billing a borrower, it added an
overcharge to another provider’s fees
and retained the additional charge
without providing any additional goods,
facilities or services. Echevarria v.
Chicago Title & Trust Co. Other courts
have held that two or more parties must
split or share a fee in order for a
violation of Section 8(b) to occur. Still
other courts have stated, however, that
a single provider can violate Section
8(b). Because the courts are now
divided, HUD is issuing this Statement
of Policy to reiterate its interpretation of
Section 8(b).
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit rendered its conclusion in
Echevarria ‘‘absent a formal
commitment by HUD to an opposing
position. * * *’’ Id. at 630. In issuing
this Statement of Policy pursuant to
Section 19(a), HUD reiterates its
position on unearned fees under Section
8(b) of RESPA, which HUD regards as
long standing.
IV. Statement of Policy 2001–1
To give guidance to interested
members of the real estate settlement
industry and the general public on the
application of RESPA and its
implementing regulations, the Secretary
hereby issues the following Statement of
Policy. The interpretations embodied in
this Statement of Policy are issued
pursuant to Section 19(a) of RESPA. 12
U.S.C. 2617(a).
Part A. Mortgage Broker Fees
Yield Spread Premiums
One of the primary barriers to
homeownership and homeowners’
ability to refinance and lower their
housing costs is the up front cash
needed to obtain a mortgage. The
closing costs and origination fees
associated with a mortgage loan are a
significant component of these up front

E:\FR\FM\18OCR3.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 18OCR3

53054

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

cash requirements. Borrowers may
choose to pay these fees out of pocket,
or to pay the origination fees, and
possibly all the closing fees, by
financing them; i.e., adding the amount
of such fees to the principal balance of
their mortgage loan. The latter
approach, however, is not available to
those whose loan-to-value ratio has
already reached the maximum
permitted by the lender. For those
without the available cash, who are at
the maximum loan-to-value ratio, or
who simply choose to do so, there is a
third option. This third option is a yield
spread premium.
Yield spread premiums permit
homebuyers to pay some or all of the up
front settlement costs over the life of the
mortgage through a higher interest rate.
Because the mortgage carries a higher
interest rate, the lender is able to sell it
to an investor at a higher price. In turn,
the lender pays the broker an amount
reflective of this price difference. The
payment allows the broker to recoup the
up front costs incurred on the
borrower’s behalf in originating the
loan. Payments from lenders to brokers
based on the rates of borrowers’ loans
are characterized as ‘‘indirect’’ fees and
are referred to as yield spread
premiums.1
A yield spread premium is calculated
based upon the difference between the
interest rate at which the broker
originates the loan and the par, or
market, rate offered by a lender. The
Department believes, and industry and
consumers agree, that a yield spread
premium can be a useful means to pay
some or all of a borrower’s settlement
costs. In these cases, lender payments
reduce the up front cash requirements to
borrowers. In some cases, borrowers are
able to obtain loans without paying any
up front cash for the services required
in connection with the origination of the
loan. Instead, the fees for these services
are financed through a higher interest
rate on the loan. The yield spread
premium thus can be a legitimate tool
to assist the borrower. The availability
of this option fosters homeownership.
HUD has recognized the utility of
yield spread premiums in regulations
issued prior to the 1999 Statement of
Policy. In a final rule concerning
‘‘Deregulation of Mortgagor Income
Requirements,’’ HUD indicated that up
front costs could be lowered by yield
spread premiums.54 FR 38646
(September 20, 1989).
In a 1992 rule concerning RESPA,
HUD specifically listed yield spread
1 Indirect fees from lenders are also known as
‘‘back funded payments,’’ ‘‘overages,’’ or ‘‘servicing
release premiums.’’

VerDate 112000

18:46 Oct 17, 2001

Jkt 197001

premiums as an example of fees that
must be disclosed. The example was
codified as Illustrations of Requirements
of RESPA, Fact Situations 5 and 13 in
Appendix B to 24 CFR part 3500. (See
also Instructions at Appendix A to 24
CFR part 3500 for Completing HUD–1
and HUD–1A Settlement Statements.)
HUD did not by these examples mean
that yield spread premiums were per se
legal, but HUD also did not mean that
yield spread premiums were per se
illegal.
HUD also recognizes, however, that in
some cases less scrupulous brokers and
lenders take advantage of the
complexity of the settlement transaction
and use yield spread premiums as a way
to enhance the profitability of mortgage
transactions without offering the
borrower lower up front fees. In these
cases, yield spread premiums serve to
increase the borrower’s interest rate and
the broker’s overall compensation,
without lowering up front cash
requirements for the borrower. As set
forth in this Statement of Policy, such
uses of yield spread premiums may
result in total compensation in excess of
what is reasonably related to the total
value of the origination services
provided by the broker, and fail to
comply with the second part of HUD’s
two-part test as enunciated in the 1999
Statement of Policy, and with Section 8.
The 1999 Statement of Policy’s Test for
Legality
The Department restates its position
that yield spread premiums are not per
se illegal. HUD also reiterates that this
statement ‘‘does not imply * * * that
yield spread premiums are legal in
individual cases or classes of
transactions.’’ 64 FR 10084. The legality
of any yield spread premium can only
be evaluated in the context of the test
HUD established and the specific factual
circumstances applicable to each
transaction in which a yield spread
premium is used.
The 1999 Statement of Policy
established a two-part test for
determining whether lender payments
to mortgage brokers are legal under
RESPA. In applying Section 8 and
HUD’s regulations, the 1999 Statement
of Policy stated:
In transactions where lenders make
payments to mortgage brokers, HUD does not
consider such payments (i.e., yield spread
premiums or any other class of named
payments) to be illegal per se. HUD does not
view the name of the payment as the
appropriate issue under RESPA. HUD’s
position that lender payments to mortgage
brokers are not illegal per se does not imply,
however, that yield spread premiums are
legal in individual cases or classes of

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

transactions. The fees in cases and classes of
transactions are illegal if they violate the
prohibitions of Section 8 of RESPA.
In determining whether a payment from a
lender to a mortgage broker is permissible
under Section 8 of RESPA, the first question
is whether goods or facilities were actually
furnished or services were actually
performed for the compensation paid. The
fact that goods or facilities have been actually
furnished or that services have been actually
performed by the mortgage broker does not
by itself make the payment legal. The second
question is whether the payments are
reasonably related to the value of the goods
or facilities that were actually furnished or
services that were actually performed.
In applying this test, HUD believes that
total compensation should be scrutinized to
assure that it is reasonably related to goods,
facilities, or services furnished or performed
to determine whether it is legal under
RESPA. Total compensation to a broker
includes direct origination and other fees
paid by the borrower, indirect fees, including
those that are derived from the interest rate
paid by the borrower, or a combination of
some or all. The Department considers that
higher interest rates alone cannot justify
higher total fees to mortgage brokers. All fees
will be scrutinized as part of total
compensation to determine that total
compensation is reasonably related to the
goods or facilities actually furnished or
services actually performed. HUD believes
that total compensation should be carefully
considered in relation to price structures and
practices in similar transactions and in
similar markets. 64 FR 10084.

Culpepper
The need for further clarification of
HUD’s position, as set forth in the 1999
Statement of Policy, on the treatment of
lender payments to mortgage brokers
under Section 8 of RESPA (12 U.S.C.
2607), is evident from the recent
decision of the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit in Culpepper.
In upholding class certification in
Culpepper, the court only applied the
first part of the HUD test, and then
further narrowed its examination of
whether the lender’s yield spread
payments were ‘‘for services’’ by
focusing exclusively on the presumed
intent of the lender in making the
payments. The crux of the court’s
decision is that Section 8 liability for
the payment of unlawful referral fees
could be established under the first part
of the HUD test alone, based on the facts
that the lender’s payments to mortgage
brokers were calculated solely on the
difference between the par interest rate
and the higher rate at which the
mortgage brokers delivered loans, and
that the lender had no knowledge of
what services, if any, the brokers had
performed.
HUD was not a party to the case and
disagrees with the judicial
interpretation regarding Section 8 of

E:\FR\FM\18OCR3.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 18OCR3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
RESPA and the 1999 Statement of
Policy.
Clarification of the HUD Test
It is HUD’s position that where
compensable services are performed, the
1999 Statement of Policy requires
application of both parts of the HUD test
before a determination can be made
regarding the legality of a lender
payment to a mortgage broker.
1. The First Part of the HUD Test:
Under the first part of HUD’s test, the
total compensation to a mortgage broker,
of which a yield spread premium may
be a component or the entire amount,
must be for goods or facilities provided
or services performed. HUD’s position is
that in order to discern whether a yield
spread premium was for goods, facilities
or services under the first part of the
HUD test, it is necessary to look at each
transaction individually, including
examining all of the goods or facilities
provided or services performed by the
broker in the transaction, whether the
goods, facilities or services are paid for
by the borrower, the lender, or partly by
both.
It is HUD’s position that neither
Section 8(a) of RESPA nor the 1999
Statement of Policy supports the
conclusion that a yield spread premium
can be presumed to be a referral fee
based solely upon the fact that the
lender pays the broker a yield spread
premium that is based upon a rate sheet,
or because the lender does not have
specific knowledge of what services the
broker has performed. HUD considers
the latter situation to be rare. The
common industry practice is that
lenders follow underwriting standards
that demand a review of originations
and that therefore lenders typically
know that brokers have performed the
services required to meet those
standards.
Yield spread premiums are by
definition derived from the interest rate.
HUD believes that a rate sheet is merely
a mechanism for displaying the yield
spread premium, and does not indicate
whether a particular yield spread
premium is a payment for goods and
facilities actually furnished or services
actually performed under the HUD test.
Whether or not a yield spread premium
is legal or illegal cannot be determined
by the use of a rate sheet, but by how
HUD’s test applies to the transaction
involved.
Section 8 prohibits the giving and
accepting of fees, kickbacks, or things of
value for the referral of settlement
services and also unearned fees. It is
therefore prudent for a lender to take
action so as to ensure that brokers are
performing compensable services and

VerDate 112000

18:46 Oct 17, 2001

Jkt 197001

receiving only compensation that, in
total, is reasonable for those services
provided. As stated, however, in the
1999 Statement of Policy:
The Department recognizes that some of
the goods or facilities actually furnished or
services actually performed by the broker in
originating a loan are ‘‘for’’ the lender and
other goods or facilities actually furnished or
services actually performed are ‘‘for’’ the
borrower. HUD does not believe that it is
necessary or even feasible to identify or
allocate which facilities, goods or services are
performed or provided for the lender, for the
borrower, or as a function of State or Federal
law. All services, goods and facilities inure
to the benefit of both the borrower and the
lender in the sense that they make the loan
transaction possible. * * * 64 FR 10086.

The 1999 Statement of Policy
provided a list of compensable loan
origination services originally
developed by HUD in a response to an
inquiry from the Independent Bankers
Association of America (IBAA), which
HUD considers relevant in evaluating
mortgage broker services. In analyzing
each transaction to determine if services
are performed HUD believes the 1999
Statement of Policy should be used as
a guide. As stated there, the IBAA list
is not exhaustive, and while technology
is changing the process of performing
settlement services, HUD believes that
the list is still a generally accurate
description of settlement services.
Compensation for these services may be
paid either by the borrower or by the
lender, or partly by both. Compensable
services for the first part of the test do
not include referrals or no, nominal, or
duplicative work.
2. Reasonableness of Broker Fees: The
second part of HUD’s test requires that
total compensation to the mortgage
broker be reasonably related to the total
set of goods or facilities actually
furnished or services performed.
The 1999 Statement of Policy said in
part:
The Department considers that higher
interest rates alone cannot justify higher total
fees to mortgage brokers. All fees will be
scrutinized as part of total compensation to
determine that total compensation is
reasonably related to the goods or facilities
actually furnished or services actually
performed. 64 FR 10084.

Accordingly, the Department believes
that the second part of the test is
applied by determining whether a
mortgage broker’s total compensation is
reasonable. Total compensation
includes fees paid by a borrower and
any yield spread premium paid by a
lender, not simply the yield spread
premium alone. Yield spread premiums
serve to allow the borrower a lower up
front cash payment in return for a

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

53055

higher interest rate, while allowing the
broker to recoup the total costs of
originating the loan. Total compensation
to the broker must be reasonably related
to the total value of goods or facilities
provided or services performed by the
broker. Simply delivering a loan with a
higher interest rate is not a compensable
service. The Department affirms the
1999 Statement of Policy’s position on
this matter for purposes of RESPA
enforcement.
The 1999 Statement also said:
In analyzing whether a particular payment
or fee bears a reasonable relationship to the
value of the goods or facilities actually
furnished or services actually performed,
HUD believes that payments must be
commensurate with the amount normally
charged for similar services, goods or
facilities. This analysis requires careful
consideration of fees paid in relation to price
structures and practices in similar
transactions and in similar markets. If the
payment or a portion thereof bears no
reasonable relationship to the market value of
the goods, facilities or services provided, the
excess over the market rate may be used as
evidence of a compensated referral or an
unearned fee in violation of Section 8(a) or
(b) of RESPA. 64 FR 10086.

The 1999 Statement of Policy also
stated:
The level of services mortgage brokers
provide in particular transactions depends on
the level of difficulty involved in qualifying
applicants for particular loan programs. For
example, applicants have differences in
credit ratings, employment status, levels of
debt, or experience that will translate into
various degrees of effort required for
processing a loan. Also, the mortgage broker
may be required to perform various levels of
services under different servicing or
processing arrangements with wholesale
lenders. 64 FR 10081.

In evaluating mortgage broker fees for
enforcement purposes, HUD will
consider these factors as relevant in
assessing the reasonableness of
mortgage broker compensation, as well
as comparing total compensation for
loans of similar size and similar
characteristics within similar
geographic markets.
Also, while the Department continues
to believe that comparison to prices in
similar markets is generally a key factor
in determining whether a mortgage
broker’s total compensation is
reasonable, it is also true that in less
competitive markets comparisons to the
prices charged by other similarly
situated providers may not, standing
alone, provide a useful measure. As a
general principle, HUD believes that in
evaluating the reasonableness of broker
compensation in less competitive
markets, consideration of price
structures from a wider range of

E:\FR\FM\18OCR3.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 18OCR3

53056

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

providers may be warranted to reach a
meaningful conclusion.
Part B. Providing Meaningful
Information to Borrowers
In addition to addressing the legality
of yield spread premiums in the 1999
Statement of Policy, HUD emphasized
the importance of disclosing broker fees,
including yield spread premiums.
There is no requirement under existing law
that consumers be fully informed of the
broker’s services and compensation prior to
the GFE. Nevertheless, HUD believes that the
broker should provide the consumer with
information about the broker’s services and
compensation, and agreement by the
consumer to the arrangement should occur as
early as possible in the process. 64 FR 10087.

HUD continues to believe that
disclosure is extremely important, and
that many of the concerns expressed by
borrowers over yield spread premiums
can be addressed by disclosing yield
spread premiums, borrower
compensation to the broker, and the
terms of the mortgage loan, so that the
borrower may evaluate and choose
among alternative loan options.
In the 1999 Statement of Policy, HUD
stated:
* * * HUD believes that for the market to
work effectively, borrowers should be
afforded a meaningful opportunity to select
the most appropriate product and determine
what price they are willing to pay for the
loan based on disclosures which provide
clear and understandable information.
The Department reiterates its long-standing
view that disclosure alone does not make
illegal fees legal under RESPA. On the other
hand, while under current law, preapplication disclosure to the consumer is not
required, HUD believes that fuller
information provided at the earliest possible
moment in the shopping process would
increase consumer satisfaction and reduce
the possibility of misunderstanding. 64 FR
10087.

HUD currently requires the disclosure
of yield spread premiums on the Good
Faith Estimate and the HUD–1. The
1999 Statement of Policy said:
The Department has always indicated that
any fees charged in settlement transactions
should be clearly disclosed so that the
consumer can understand the nature and
recipient of the payment. Code-like
abbreviations like ‘YSP to DBG, POC’, for
instance, have been noted. [Footnote
omitted.] Also the Department has seen
examples on the GFE and/or the settlement
statement where the identity and/or purposes
of the fees are not clearly disclosed.
The Department considers unclear and
confusing disclosures to be contrary to the
statute’s and the regulation’s purposes of
making RESPA-covered transactions
understandable to the consumer. At a
minimum, all fees to the mortgage broker are
to be clearly labeled and properly estimated

VerDate 112000

18:46 Oct 17, 2001

Jkt 197001

on the GFE. On the settlement statement, the
name of the recipient of the fee (in this case,
the mortgage broker) is to be clearly labeled
and listed, and the fee received from a lender
is to be clearly labeled and listed in the
interest of clarity. 64 FR 10086–10087.

While the disclosure on the GFE and
HUD–1 is required, the Department is
aware and has stated that the current
GFE/HUD–1 disclosure framework is
often insufficient to adequately inform
consumers about yield spread premiums
and other lender paid fees to brokers.
Under the current rules, the GFE need
not be provided until after the consumer
has applied for a mortgage and may
have paid a significant fee, and the
HUD–1 is only given at closing. Because
of this, HUD has in recent years sought
to foster a more consumer beneficial
approach to disclosure regarding yield
spread premiums through successive
rulemaking efforts. This history is
discussed more fully in the 1999
Statement of Policy.2
Representatives of the mortgage
industry have said that since the 1999
Statement of Policy, many brokers
provide borrowers a disclosure
describing the function of mortgage
brokers and stating that a mortgage
broker may receive a fee in the
transaction from the lender. While the
1999 Statement of Policy commended
the National Association of Mortgage
Brokers and the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America for strongly
suggesting such a disclosure to their
respective memberships, the Statement
of Policy added:
Although this statement of policy does not
mandate disclosures beyond those currently
required by RESPA and Regulation X, the
most effective approach to disclosure would
allow a prospective borrower to properly
evaluate the nature of the services and all
costs for a broker transaction, and to agree to
such services and costs before applying for a
loan. Under such an approach, the broker
would make the borrower aware of whether
the broker is or is not serving as the
consumer’s agent to shop for a loan, and the
total compensation to be paid to the mortgage
broker, including the amounts of each of the
fees making up the compensation. 64 FR
10087.

In HUD’s view, meaningful disclosure
includes many types of information:
what services a mortgage broker will
perform, the amount of the broker’s total
compensation for performing those
services (including any yield spread
premium paid by the lender), and
whether or not the broker has an agency
2 In both the HUD/Federal Reserve Board Report
on RESPA/TILA Reform, 1998, and the HUD/
Treasury Report on Curbing Predatory Home
Mortgage Lending, 2000, the agencies
recommended earlier disclosures to facilitate
shopping and lower settlement costs.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

or fiduciary relationship with the
borrower. The disclosure should also
make the borrower aware that he or she
may pay higher up front costs for a
mortgage with a lower interest rate, or
conversely pay a higher interest rate in
return for lower up front costs, and
should identify the specific trade-off
between the amount of the increase in
the borrower’s monthly payment (and
also the increase in the interest rate) and
the amount by which up front costs are
reduced. HUD believes that disclosure
of this information, and written
acknowledgment by the borrower that
he or she has received the information,
should be provided early in the
transaction. Such disclosure facilitates
comparison shopping by the borrower,
to choose the best combination of up
front costs and mortgage terms from his
or her individual standpoint. HUD
regards full disclosure and written
acknowledgment by the borrower, at the
earliest possible time, as a best practice.
Yield spread premiums are currently
required to be listed in the ‘‘800’’ series
of the HUD–1 form, listing ‘‘Items
Payable in Connection with Loan.’’ This
existing practice, however, does not
disclose the purpose of the yield spread
premium, which is to lower up front
cost to borrowers. To achieve this end
it has been suggested to the Department
that the yield spread premium should
be reported as a credit to the borrower
in the ‘‘200’’ series, among the
‘‘Amounts Paid by or in Behalf of
Borrowers.’’ The homebuyer or
homeowner could then see that the
yield spread premium is reducing
closing costs, and also see the extent of
the reduction.
HUD believes that improved early
disclosure regarding mortgage broker
compensation and the entry of yield
spread premiums as credits to borrowers
on the GFE and the HUD–1 settlement
statement are both useful and
complementary forms of disclosure. The
Department believes that used together
these methods of disclosure offer greater
assurance that lender payments to
mortgage brokers serve borrowers’ best
interests.
While the 1999 Policy Statement and
IV. Part A. of this Statement only cover
certain lender payments to mortgage
brokers, as described above, HUD also
believes that similar information on the
trade-off between lower up front costs
and higher interest rates and monthly
payments should be disclosed to
borrowers on all mortgage loan
originations, not merely those originated
by brokers. HUD is aware that while
yield spread premiums are not used in
loans originated by lenders, lenders are
able to offer loans with low or no up

E:\FR\FM\18OCR3.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 18OCR3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
front costs required at closing by
charging higher interest rates and
recouping the costs by selling the loans
into the secondary market for a price
representing the difference between the
interest rate on the loan and the par, or
market, interest rate. Sale of such a loan
achieves the same purpose as the yield
spread premium does on a loan
originated by a broker. The Department
strongly believes that all lenders and
brokers should provide the level of
consumer disclosure that the purposes
of RESPA intend and that fair business
practices demand. As indicated in the
1999 Statement of Policy, HUD
emphasizes that fuller information
provided as early as possible in the
shopping process would increase
consumer satisfaction and reduce the
possibility of misunderstanding. In the
future, full and early disclosures are
factors that the Department would
weigh favorably in exercising its
enforcement discretion in cases
involving mortgage broker fees.
Nevertheless, the Department also again
makes clear that disclosure alone does
not make illegal fees legal under RESPA.
The Department will scrutinize all
relevant information in making
enforcement decisions, including
whether transactions evidence practices
that may be illegal.
Part C. Section 8(b) Unearned Fees
A. Background
RESPA was enacted in 1974 to
provide consumers ‘‘greater and more
timely information on the nature of the
costs of the [real estate] settlement
process’’ and to protect consumers from
‘‘unnecessarily high settlement charges
caused by certain abusive practices
* * *’’ 12 U.S.C. 2601.
Since RESPA was enacted, HUD has
interpreted Section 8(b) as prohibiting
any person from giving or accepting any
unearned fees, i.e., charges or payments
for real estate settlement services other
than for goods or facilities provided or
services performed. Payments that are
unearned fees for settlement services
occur in, but are not limited to, cases
where: (1) Two or more persons split a
fee for settlement services, any portion
of which is unearned; or (2) one
settlement service provider marks-up
the cost of the services performed or
goods provided by another settlement
service provider without providing
additional actual, necessary, and
distinct services, goods, or facilities to
justify the additional charge; or (3) one
settlement service provider charges the
consumer a fee where no, nominal, or
duplicative work is done, or the fee is
in excess of the reasonable value of

VerDate 112000

18:46 Oct 17, 2001

Jkt 197001

goods or facilities provided or the
services actually performed.
In the first situation, two settlement
service providers split or share a fee
charged to a consumer and at least part,
if not all, of at least one provider’s share
of the fee is unearned. In the second
situation, a settlement service provider
charges a fee to a consumer for another
provider’s services that is higher than
the actual price of such services, and
keeps the difference without performing
any actual, necessary, and distinct
services to justify the additional charge.
In the third situation, one settlement
service provider charges a fee to a
consumer where no work is done or the
fee exceeds the reasonable value of the
services performed by that provider, and
for this reason the fee or any portion
thereof for which services are not
performed is unearned.
HUD regards all of these situations as
legally indistinguishable, in that they
involve payments for settlement
services where all or a portion of the
fees are unearned and, thus, are
violative of the statute. HUD, therefore,
specifically interprets Section 8(b) as
not being limited to situations where at
least two persons split or share an
unearned fee for the provision to be
violated.
As already indicated in this Statement
of Policy, meaningful disclosure of all
charges and fees is essential under
RESPA. Such disclosures help protect
consumers from paying unearned or
duplicate fees. However, as noted above,
in the 1999 Statement of Policy the
Department reiterated ‘‘its long-standing
view that disclosure alone does not
make illegal fees legal under RESPA.’’
64 FR 10087.
B. HUD’s Guidance and Regulations
HUD guidance and regulations have
consistently interpreted Section 8 as
prohibiting all unearned fees. In 1976,
HUD issued a Settlement Costs Booklet
that provided that ‘‘[i] t is also illegal to
charge or accept a fee or part of a fee
where no service has actually been
performed.’’ 41 FR 20289 (May 17,
1976). Between 1976 and 1992, HUD
indicated in informal opinions that
unearned fees occur where there are
excessive fees charged, regardless of the
number of settlement service providers
involved.3
3 See e.g., Old Informal Opinion (6), August 16,
1976 and Old Informal Opinion (65), April 4, 1980;
Barron and Berenson, Federal Regulation of Real
Estate and Mortgage Lending, (4th Ed.1998). On
November 2, 1992 (57 F.R. 49600), when HUD
issued revisions to its RESPA regulations, it
withdrew all of its informal counsel opinions and
staff interpretations issued before that date. The
1992 rule provided, however, that courts and

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

53057

In the preamble to HUD’s 1992 final
rule revising Regulation X (57 FR 49600
(November 2, 1992)), HUD stated:
‘‘Section 8 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2607)
prohibits kickbacks for referral of
business incident to or part of a
settlement service and also prohibits the
splitting of a charge for a settlement
service, other than for services actually
performed (i.e., no payment of unearned
fees).’’ 57 FR 49600 (November 2, 1992).
HUD’s regulations, published on
November 2, 1992, implement Section
8(b). Section 3500.14(c)4 provides:
No person shall give and no person shall
accept any portion, split, or percentage of any
charge made or received for the rendering of
a settlement service in connection with a
transaction involving a federally-related
mortgage loan other than for services actually
performed. A charge by a person for which
no or nominal services are performed or for
which duplicative fees are charged is an
unearned fee and violates this Section. The
source of the payment does not determine
whether or not a service is compensable. Nor
may the prohibitions of this part be avoided
by creating an arrangement wherein the
purchaser of services splits the fee.

24 CFR 3500.14(g)(2) states in part:
The Department may investigate high
prices to see if they are the result of a referral
fee or a split of a fee. If the payment of a
thing of value bears no reasonable
relationship to the market value of the goods
or services provided, then the excess is not
for services or goods actually performed or
provided. These facts may be used as
evidence of a violation of Section 8 and may
serve as a basis for a RESPA investigation.
High prices standing alone are not proof of
a RESPA violation.

24 CFR 3500.14(g)(3) provides in part:
When a person in a position to refer
settlement service business * * * receives a
payment for providing additional settlement
services as part of a real estate transaction,
such payment must be for services that are
actual, necessary and distinct from the
primary services provided by such person.
administrative agencies could use HUD’s previous
opinions to determine the validity of conduct
occurring under the previous version of Regulation
X. See 24 CFR 3500.4(c).
4 The heading to 24 CFR 3500.14 is titled
‘‘Prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees.’’
However, the heading of subsection (c) is titled
‘‘split of charges,’’ and the preamble to the
November 1992 rule states ‘‘[s]ection 8 of RESPA
(12 U.S.C. 2607) prohibits kickbacks for referral of
business incident to or part of a settlement service
and also prohibits the splitting of a charge for a
settlement service, other than for services actually
performed (i.e., no payment of unearned fees).’’ 57
FR 49600 (November 2, 1992). The rule headings
and preamble text are a generalized description of
Section 8 that is more developed in the actual
regulation text. As discussed in Section D of this
Statement of Policy, HUD believes that the actual
text of the rules, as amended in 1992, makes clear
that Section 8(b)’s prohibitions against unearned
fees apply even when only one settlement service
provider is involved.

E:\FR\FM\18OCR3.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 18OCR3

53058

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

In Appendix B to the HUD RESPA
regulations, HUD provides illustrations
of the requirements of RESPA. Comment
3 states in part:
The payment of a commission or portion
of the * * * premium * * * or receipt of a
portion of the payment * * * where no
substantial services are being performed
* * * is a violation of Section 8 of RESPA.
It makes no difference whether the payment
comes from [the settlement service provider]
or the purchaser. The amount of the payment
must bear a reasonable relationship to the
services rendered. Here [the real estate broker
in the example] is being compensated for a
referral of business to [the title company].

In 1996, in the preamble to the final
rule on the Withdrawal of Employer/
Employee and Computer Loan
Origination Systems Exemptions 5 (61
FR 29238 (June 7, 1996)), HUD
reiterated its interpretation of Section
8(b) of RESPA as follows:
HUD believes that Section 8(b) of the
statute and the legislative history make clear
that no person is allowed to receive ‘any
portion’ of charges for settlement services,
except for services actually performed. The
provisions of Section 8(b) could apply in a
number of situations: (1) where one
settlement service provider receives an
unearned fee from another provider; (2)
where one settlement service provider
charges the consumer for third-party services
and retains an unearned fee from the
payment received; or (3) where one
settlement service provider accepts a portion
of a charge (including 100% of the charge) for
other than services actually performed. The
interpretation urged [by the commenters to
the proposed rule published on July 21,
1994], that a single settlement service
provider can charge unearned or excessive
fees so long as the fees are not shared with
another, is an unnecessarily restrictive
interpretation of a statute designed to reduce
unnecessary costs to consumers. The
Secretary, charged by statute with
interpreting RESPA, interprets Section 8(b) to
mean that two persons are not required for
the provision to be violated. 61 FR 29249.

The latest revision to the Settlement
Costs Booklet for consumers, issued in
1997, also provides ‘‘[i]t is also illegal
for anyone to accept a fee or part of a
fee for services if that person has not
actually performed settlement services
for the fee.’’ 62 FR 31998 (June 11,
1997).
Further, HUD has provided
information to the public and the
mortgage industry in the ‘‘Frequently
Asked Questions’’ section of its RESPA
Web site, located at .
Question 25 states:
5 This final rule was delayed by legislation, but
the Department implemented portions of the final
rule that were not affected by the legislative delay
on November 15, 1996. 61 FR 58472 (November 15,
1996).

VerDate 112000

18:46 Oct 17, 2001

Jkt 197001

Can a lender collect from the borrower an
appraisal fee of $200, listing the fee as such
on the HUD–1, yet pay an independent
appraiser $175 and collect the $25
difference?

The answer reads:
No, the lender may only collect $175 as the
actual charge. It is a violation of Section 8(b)
for any person to accept a split of a fee where
services are not performed.

In 1999, by letter submitted at the
request of the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, in the
case of Brown v. Washington Mutual
Bank (Case No. BC192874), HUD
provided the following response to a
specific question posed by the court on
lender ‘‘markups’’ of another settlement
service provider’s fees:
A lender that purchases third party vendor
services for purposes of closing a federally
related mortgage loan may not, under RESPA,
mark up the third party vendor fees for
purposes of making a profit. HUD has
consistently advised that where lenders or
others charge consumers marked-up prices
for services performed by the third party
providers without performing additional
services, such charges constitute ‘‘splits of
fees’’ or ‘‘unearned fees’’ in violation of
Section 8(b) of RESPA.

HUD noted in its letter to the court that
the response reflected the Department’s
long-standing position.
C. Recent Cases
Notwithstanding HUD’s regulations
and other guidance, the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held, in
Echevarria v. Chicago Title and Trust
Co., 256 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2001), that
Section 8(b) was not violated where a
title company, without performing any
additional services, charged the
plaintiffs more money than was
required by the recorder’s office to
record a deed and the title company
then retained the difference. The court
reasoned that plaintiffs ‘‘failed to plead
facts tending to show that Chicago Title
illegally shared fees with the Cook
County Recorder. The Cook County
Recorder received no more than its
regular recording fees and it did not give
to or arrange for Chicago Title to receive
an unearned portion of these fees. The
County Recorder has not engaged in the
third party involvement necessary to
state a claim under [RESPA § 8(b)].’’ Id.
at 626. The court in essence concluded
that unearned fees must be passed from
one settlement provider to another in
order for such fees to violate Section
8(b).
Earlier, in Willis v. Quality Mortgage
USA, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1306 (M.D. Ala.
1998), cited by the Seventh Circuit in
support of its conclusion, the district
court concluded that 24 CFR 3500.14(c),

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

‘‘[w]hen read as a whole,’’ prohibits
payments for which no services are
performed ‘‘only if those payments are
split with another party.’’ Id. at 1309.
The Willis court held that there must be
a split of a charge between a settlement
service provider and a third party to
establish a violation Section 8(b). The
court also concluded that 24 CFR
3500.14(g)(3) only applied when there
was a payment from a lender to a
broker, or vice versa. The payment from
a borrower to a mortgage lender could
not be the basis for a violation of 24 CFR
3500.14(g)(3) and Section 8(b).
HUD was not a party to the cases and
disagrees with these judicial
interpretations of Section 8(b) which it
regards as inconsistent with HUD’s
regulations and HUD’s long-standing
interpretations of Section 8(b).
D. Unearned Fees Under Section 8(b)
This Statement of Policy reaffirms
HUD’s existing, long-standing
interpretation of Section 8(b) of RESPA.
Sections 8(a) and (b) of RESPA contain
distinct prohibitions. Section 8(a)
prohibits the giving or acceptance of any
payment pursuant to an agreement or
understanding for the referral of
settlement service business involving a
federally related mortgage loan; it is
intended to eliminate kickbacks or
compensated referral arrangements
among settlement service providers.
Section 8(b) prohibits the giving or
accepting of any portion, split, or
percentage of any charge other than for
goods or facilities provided or services
performed; it is intended to eliminate
unearned fees. Such fees are contrary to
the Congressional finding when
enacting RESPA that consumers need
protection from unnecessarily high
settlement charges. 12 U.S.C. 2601(a).
It is HUD’s position that Section 8(b)
proscribes the acceptance of any portion
or part of a charge other than for
services actually performed. Inasmuch
as Section 8(b)’s proscription against
‘‘any portion, split, or percentage’’ of an
unearned charge for settlement services
is written in the disjunctive, the
prohibition is not limited to a split. In
HUD’s view, Section 8(b) forbids the
paying or accepting of any portion or
percentage of a settlement service—
including up to 100%—that is
unearned, whether the entire charge is
divided or split among more than one
person or entity or is retained by a
single person. Simply put, given that
Section 8(b) proscribes unearned
portions or percentages as well as splits,
HUD does not regard the provision as
restricting only fee splitting among
settlement service providers. Further,
since Section 8(b) on its face prohibits

E:\FR\FM\18OCR3.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 18OCR3

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 202 / Thursday, October 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations
the giving or accepting of an unearned
fee by any person, and 24 CFR
3500.14(c) speaks of a charge by ‘‘a
person,’’ it is also incorrect to conclude
that the Section 8(b) proscription covers
only payments or charges among
settlement service providers.6
A settlement service provider may not
levy an additional charge upon a
borrower for another settlement service
provider’s services without providing
additional services that are bona fide
and justify the increased charge.
Accordingly, a settlement service
provider may not mark-up the cost of
another provider’s services without
providing additional settlement
services; such payment must be for
services that are actual, necessary and
distinct services provided to justify the
charge. 24 CFR 3500.14(g)(3).7 The HUD
regulation implementing Section 8(b)
states: ‘‘[a] charge by a person for which
no or nominal services are performed or
for which duplicative fees are charged is
an unearned fee and violates this
Section.’’ 24 CFR 3500.14 (c).
The regulations also make clear that a
charge by a single service provider
where little or no services are performed
is an unearned fee that is prohibited by
the statute. 24 CFR 3000.14(c). A single
service provider is also prohibited from
charging a duplicative fee. Further, a
6 HUD is, of course, unlikely to direct any
enforcement actions against consumers for the
payment of unearned fees, because a consumer’s
intent is to make payment for services, not an
unearned fee.
7 HUD notes that some lenders have charged an
additional fee merely for ‘‘reviewing’’ another
settlement service provider’s services. HUD does
not regard such ‘‘review’’ as constituting an actual,
necessary, or distinct additional service permissible
under HUD’s regulations.

VerDate 112000

18:46 Oct 17, 2001

Jkt 197001

single service provider cannot serve in
two capacities, e.g., a title agent and
closing attorney, and be paid twice for
the same service. The fee the service
provider would be receiving in this case
is duplicative under 24 CFR 3000.14(c)
and not necessary and distinct under 24
CFR 3000.14(g)(3). Clearly, in all of
these instances, the source of the
payment—whether from consumers,
other settlement service providers, or
other third parties—is not relevant in
determining whether the fee is earned or
unearned because ultimately, all
settlement payments come directly or
indirectly from the consumer. See 24
CFR 3500.14(c). Therefore, a single
settlement service provider violates
Section 8(b) whenever it receives an
unearned fee.
A single service provider also may be
liable under Section 8(b) when it
charges a fee that exceeds the reasonable
value of goods, facilities, or services
provided. HUD’s regulations as noted
state: ‘‘If the payment of a thing of value
bears no relationship to the goods or
services provided, then the excess is not
for services or goods actually performed
or provided.’’ 24 CFR 3500.14(g)(2).
Section 8(c)(2) only allows ‘‘the
payment to any person of a bona fide
salary or compensation or other
payment for goods or facilities actually
furnished or services actually
performed,’’ i.e., permitting only that
compensation which is reasonably
related to the goods or facilities
provided or services performed.
Compensation that is unreasonable is
unearned under Section 8(b) and is not
bona fide under Section 8(c)(2).
The Secretary, therefore, interprets
Section 8(b) of RESPA to prohibit all

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

53059

unearned fees, including, but not
limited to, cases where: (1) Two or more
persons split a fee for settlement
services, any portion of which is
unearned; or (2) one settlement service
provider marks-up the cost of the
services performed or goods provided
by another settlement service provider
without providing additional actual,
necessary, and distinct services, goods,
or facilities to justify the additional
charge; or (3) one service provider
charges the consumer a fee where no,
nominal, or duplicative work is done, or
the fee is in excess of the reasonable
value of goods or facilities provided or
the services actually performed.
V. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has reviewed this Statement of
Policy in accordance with Executive
Order 12866, (captioned ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’). OMB
determined that this Statement of Policy
is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
defined in Section 3(f) of the Order
(although not an economically
significant regulatory action under the
Order). Any changes to the Statement of
Policy resulting from this review are
available for public inspection between
7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays in the
Office of the Rules Docket Clerk.
Dated: October 15, 2001.
John C. Weicher,
Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal
Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 01–26321 Filed 10–15–01; 4:51 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210–27–P

E:\FR\FM\18OCR3.SGM

pfrm04

PsN: 18OCR3