Defense Judgment in Class Action for Kickback and Markup Violations of RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) Proper because Increased Credit Report Fee Requested by Lender was Passed through to Borrowers and no Additional Business was Given in Exchange for New Pricing Policy Requested by Lender Eleventh Circuit Holds
Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Countrywide Home Loans and Landsafe Credit (each subsidiaries of Countrywide Financial) alleging violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA); the class action complaint alleged that Countrywide obtained virtually all of its credit reports from Landsafe, that prior to August 2002 Landsafe charged Countrywide $25 per credit report, and that Countrywide passed this fee on to borrowers who “locked in” or obtained a loan from Countrywide, but absorbed the fee if the loan did not go through. Krupa v. Landsafe, Inc., 514 F.3d 1153, 1154-55 (11th Cir. 2008). The class action alleged further that Countrywide asked Landsafe to modify its pricing policy in order to allow Countrywide to avoid absorbing credit report fees; specifically, “Countrywide asked Landsafe to change its pricing policy to charge more for the cost of credit reports on applicants who locked in loans and nothing for the reports on applicants who did not.” Id., at 1155. Landsafe modified its pricing schedule in August 2002, charging $35 for the credit report if a loan closed, and nothing if the loan did not; Countrywide passed the $35 fee on if a loan closed. Id. The class action alleged that this modification violated the anti-kickback and anti-markup provisions of RESPA; defense attorneys moved for and obtained summary judgment, with the district court agreeing that the challenged conduct was not improper. Id., at 1155. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
In discussing the pricing change, the Eleventh Circuit noted at page 1155, “The price point was set so that the new pricing policy would be ‘revenue-neutral,’ and it achieved that goal: Landsafe’s revenues from the credit reports it sold to Countrywide were the same after the new policy was implemented as they had been before.” Nonetheless, plaintiffs complained that Landsafe was giving Countrywide “free credit reports” in connection with loan transactions that did not close. Krupa, at 1155. The district court had held “that the revised pricing policy did not violate RESPA’s anti-kickback provision because it is undisputed that: (1) Landsafe made no more or less money as a result; and (2) Countywide purchased the same percentage (virtually all) of the credit reports it needed from Landsafe as it had before the change”; and the Circuit Court agreed. Id. RESPA prohibits paying a kickback in return for referral of business, but here Landsafe already received virtually all of Countrywide’s business: “In order for there to have been a forbidden kickback, there would have to have been an agreement between the two that Countrywide would give Landsafe more of its credit reporting business than it was giving Landsafe before the agreement, or at least an agreement that it would not give Landsafe any less of that business.” id., at 1156. Even if Countrywide received “value” by the changed pricing schedule, it could not constitute a forbidden kickback unless Countrywide promised Landsafe that it would receive business in return. Id. As plaintiffs conceded that this was not the case, the district court did not err in concluding that the class action kickback claim failed as a matter of law. Id.
The Circuit Court similarly rejected the class action’s anti-markup claim. The class action complaint alleged that some of the $35.00 fee paid by members of the putative class action “subsidized” the credit reports of customers who did not lock in loans. Krupa, at 1156-57. The complaint alleged that this amounted to an illegal markup, id., at 1157. In rejecting this argument, the district court found that “(1) all of the money Countrywide charged from the credit reports was paid over to Landsafe; and (2) the increase in price was related to services actually performed for the locked in customers.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit agreed, noting that the purpose of the anti-markup provision was to “close any loopholes” in the anti-kickback law, and that an anti-markup violation requires that “the payment must be made for some reason other than in exchange for services actually rendered.” Id. (citation omitted). In other words, “Where the fee is for services actually rendered, there is no § 2607(b) violation.” Id. Because plaintiffs received a service for the $35 fee they were charged, and because Countrywide paid Landsafe $35 for plaintiffs’ credit report, there was no markup violation, id. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Comments are closed.