Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc.

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
10-1042	5th Cir.	Feb 21, 2012	May 24, 2012	9-0	Scalia	OT 2011

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 (Ronald Mann, May 25, 2012)
Argument recap: Court opens can of worms in mortgage-settlement fees case (Ronald Mann, February 22, 2012)
Court to mull mortgage-settlement fees (Ronald Mann, February 17, 2012)
Plain English: Recent grants (Amy Howe, November 7, 2011)

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners

Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioners

Merits Briefs for the Respondent

Brief for Quicken Loans Inc.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent

Certiorari-stage documents

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners

Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioners

Merits Briefs for the Respondent

Brief for Quicken Loans Inc.

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent

[##CERT-STAGE##]