The Latest DOJ Reason for Refusing to Turn Over Biden-Hur Audio Tapes Is...
Is Politico Serious With This Headline About Alvin Bragg?
How the Crowd Reacted When Donald Trump Appeared at UFC 302
CNN Senior Legal Analyst Tears Into Judge Over This Aspect of the Trump...
Democrats Deserve Everything Bad That Comes Their Way…And More
Democrats’ Bogus Lawfare Takedowns Rooted In Fear and Loathing
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 220: What the Bible Says About Love
If Ignorance is Bliss, with the Trump Verdict, Liberals Are Euphoric
Democrat Urges Gov. Hochul to Pardon Trump for the Sake of 'Our Country'
Bernie Moreno Pressures Dem Sherrod Brown to Rescind Biden Endorsement After Trump Verdict
DeSantis: Trump Hasn't Lost Voting Rights In Florida
Here's Where Texas Authorities Found 27 Illegal Aliens
Why It's Even More Egregious That Biden Is Still Bragging About Defying SCOTUS...
Pollster Warns a Harsh Sentence for Trump Would Backfire on Dems
Another University Held Segregated Graduation Celebrations
OPINION

Supreme Court Spanks HUD

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

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