Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc.

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the petitioners in this case.

Holding: To establish a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b) – which provides that “[n]o person shall give and no person shall accept 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” – a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons.

Plain English Summary: Unearned fees – fees for which lenders provide no services – violate federal law only if the fees are split between two companies. This may seem strange, but the Court said that the law Congress passed was only about fee splitting. To control the level of fees that a single bank charges, Congress would have to be more specific.

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on May 24, 2012.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Opinion recap: Court rebukes HUD in mortgage-fee dispute
• Argument recap: Court opens can of worms in mortgage-settlement fees case
• Court to mull mortgage-settlement fees
• Plain English: Recent grants

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners

• Brief for Tammy Freeman et al.
• Reply for Tammy Freeman et al.

Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioners

• Brief for the United States
• Brief for California et al.

Merits Briefs for the Respondent

• Brief for Quicken Loans Inc.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent

• Brief for the American Bankers Association et al.
• Brief for the American Escrow Association et al.
• Brief for National Association of Realtors

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (5th Cir.)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioners' reply