Tammy Foret Freeman, et al., Petitioners v. Quicken Loans, Inc. (566 U.S. 624)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 24, 2012 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 566 U.S. 624 · 132 S. Ct. 2034
- Decided
- May 24, 2012
- Term
- October Term 2011
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. A provision of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), codified at 12 U. S. C. § 2607(b), prohibits giving and 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.” We consider whether, to establish a violation of § 2607(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge was divided between two or more persons. rH Enacted in 1974, RE SPA regulates the market for real estate “settlement services,” a term defined by statute to include “any service provided in connection with a real estate settlement,” such as “title searches, . . . title insurance, services rendered by an attorney, the preparation of documents, property surveys, the rendering of credit reports or appraisals, . . . services rendered by a real estate agent or broker, the origination of a federally related mortgage loan[] ..., and the handling of the processing, and closing or settlement.” §2602(3). Among RE SPA’s consumer-protection provisions is §2607, which directly furthers Congress’s stated goal of “eliminating] . . . kickbacks or referral fees that tend to increase unnecessarily the costs of certain settlement services,” § 2601(b)(2).. Section 2607(a) provides: “No person shall give and no person shall accept any fee,…
Excerpt of a 25,368-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.