Join us on LinkedIn Follow us on Twitter Like us on Facebook
 
  OCTOBER RESEARCH STORE Already a subscriber? LOG IN
AddControlToContainer_DynamicNavigation5

Case Law

Supreme Court declares CFPB unconstitutional

Add This Email A Friend Printer Friendly Version
0 comments
Case Law
Monday, June 29, 2020

The Supreme Court has held that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) single-director, for-cause removal structure is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers.

However, the court found that the structure can be saved by striking out the for-cause termination provision.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision finally brings certainty to the operations of the bureau,” CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger said via Twitter. “We will continue with our important mission of protecting consumers with no question that we are fully accountable to the president. Consumers and market participants should understand that the same rules continue to govern the consumer financial marketplace.”

Industry calls for CFPB commission

Industry experts and trade organizations said they fear the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday finding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) single-director, for-cause removal structure is unconstitutional will lead to more questions than answers as to the agency’s powers.

The Supreme Court found that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) single-director, for-cause removal structure is unconstitutional.

For reaction from RESPRO President/Executive Director Ken Trepeta, attorney Marx Sterbcow, Dorsey & Whitney Partner Joseph Lynyak III, among others, read our reaction story, online now.

The decision was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, and referenced a similar decision he authored in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Accounting Oversight Board. The 5-4 decision saw Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas join Roberts – although Thomas did not join the majority in finding the for-cause removal protection severable from the Dodd-Frank Act.

Notably, the ruling pointed out that previous Supreme Court decisions in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and Morrison v. Olson did not resolve whether the director’s protection from removal was constitutional. Thus, the court said, the question was whether to extend those rulings to a “new situation.”

“The court declines to extend these precedents to an independent agency led by a single director and vested with significant executive power,” the court ruled.

Mayer Brown LLC Partner Phil Schulman broke down the decision for RESPA News. “The majority found the single-director provision of the CFPB Act to interfere with Article II of the Constitution that empowers the president to execute the laws of the land,” Schulman said. “The majority fashioned a remedy that called for severing the for-cause provision of the CFPB Act while leaving the remainder of the CFPB intact. 

“The majority however, had to walk a fine line because it found similar for-cause provisions to be constitutional when applied to multimember independent agencies and inferior public officials. That did not sit well with Justice Thomas, who, joined by Justice Gorsuch, thought the appropriate remedy would have been to deny the CFPB’s demand for documents as the entire agency should have been declared unconstitutional. Justice (Elena) Kagan, joined by justices (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg, (Stephen) Breyer and (Sonia) Sotomayor, objected to the majority opinion. They declared that the court should not substitute its views for that of Congress, which has the authority to make laws, including powers to be conveyed upon a single director of the CFPB.”

The White House issued a statement following the announcement.

“Today’s decision represents an important victory for the fundamental principle that government officials should be accountable to the American people,” Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said. “The Constitution vests the power of the executive branch solely in the president without any limitation on his ability to remove leaders of executive agencies. As Alexander Hamilton so eloquently argued in Federalist 70, unity in the executive branch is essential for providing the president with the authority needed for the effective administration of government and to make the president fully accountable to the electorate every four years for the management of the executive branch, which inherently includes the appointment and removal of government officials.”

The court heard oral arguments in Seila Law v. CFPB March 3, less than two weeks before the Supreme Court suspended oral arguments because of the pandemic.

Last October, the Supreme Court chose Seila Law as the case that could decide the constitutionality question. The Orange County, Calif., law firm, which appealed a civil investigative demand (CID) request, makes a case for abolishing the bureau and every regulation enacted by it. However, it was not a given that the court would use Seila to decide the constitutionality issue.

Seila Law said the court did not need to rule on the constitutionality remedy for the CFPB to invalidate its civil investigative demand (CID) against the company, but if it did reach the issue of severability, it should invalidate Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act in its entirety. During oral argument, attorney Paul Clement, who was appointed amicus by the court to argue for the CFPB’s structure because the Department of Justice (DOJ) chose not to defend its constitutionality, told justices that a different case involving a contested removal would be the proper context to address a dispute over the president’s removal authority.

“The parties are in violent agreement that the for-cause provision is unconstitutional,” Clement said. “Why doesn’t the government give the petititoner what it wants and drop the CID? Aw, there’s the rub. The CFPB does not want the CID dropped.”

Clement, who did not offer a proposed remedy under any severability scenario, also argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue an advisory opinion.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco reiterated the DOJ’s new stance that the for-cause removal provision of the Consumer Financial Protection Act was unconstitutional, but that the removal restriction was severable from the rest of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Francisco said 12 U.S.C. §5491(c)(3) can be severed from the rest of the Dodd-Frank Act if  the CFPB was found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, and the Supreme Court agreed.

Clement said the general rule that describes all Supreme Court cases is that the Congress cannot assign the president’s removal authority elsewhere.

Attorneys for PHH Corp. were the first to argue that the bureau’s single-director, for-cause only removal structure was unconstitutional.

PHH appealed a $109 million judgment for alleged RESPA violations under then-CFPB Director Richard Cordray.

In January 2018, an en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated an earlier three-judge panel decision which ruled in favor of PHH Corp. on all aspects of the RESPA allegations. It also upheld the constitutionality of the bureau, going against PHH’s arguments, but the company elected not to appeal that portion of the ruling to the Supreme Court.

While a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the original panel decision declaring the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured.

Kavanaugh’s district court opinion stated that “the single-director structure of the CFPB represents a gross departure from settled historical practice. Never before has an independent agency exercising substantial executive authority been headed by just one person.” 

Last year, consumer groups called on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to recuse himself from the Seila Law case.

Today's other top stories
Judge allows fraud case based on faulty disclosures to continue
CFPB fines fintech for faulty algorithm
CFPB: Digital marketers must comply with consumer protections
HUD releases agenda for economic justice
California funds financial education and empowerment programs


COMMENT BOX DISCLAIMER:
October Research is not responsible for the comments posted on its websites by readers. We will do our best to remove comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments.
Comments:

Be the first to leave a comment.

Leave your comment
CAPTCHA Validation
CAPTCHA
Code:
: 
: 
Your Email is for reporting purposes only. It will NOT be displayed.
Popularity:
This article has been viewed 8303 times.
Hits: 1000
“The sale of a loan after the original funding of the loan at settlement is a secondary market transaction. Such a sale is exempt from RESPA coverage as a secondary market transaction."

more RESPA Tips »


Monthly Newsletter

RESPA News Monthly
August 2022

Cover Story:

FHFA director testifies before Congress


Tweets from https://twitter.com/RESPANews/lists/around-the-industry
News by Topic   News by Edition   Special Reports   Webinars   Subscribe
All Rise
Case Law
Enforcement Update
Industry News
Legislation
Regulatory News
The Week in Washington
The TRID Journey
TILA News
 
 
RESPA News Monthly
June 2022
RESPA News Monthly
July 2022
RESPA News Monthly
August 2022
Archives
 
Enforcement Lessons
Mergers & Acquisitions
2022 State of the Industry
Co-Marketing in the Age of Fintech
CFPB Anniversary
Archives
 
 
Utilizing Tech for RESPA Compliance
Collaborating on eClosings
Economic Forecast Series
Archives
 
Subscriptions
Free Email Updates
Try a Free Edition
Library       RESPA Defined   About   Store
Affiliated Compliance
Case Law
CFPB Guidance Documents
Enforcement Documents
Federal and State Legislation
Federal Register Notices
HUD's FAQ's - General
HUD's RESPA final rule FAQs
 
 
Model Disclosure Forms
Other Guidance Documents
Position Papers
Proposed Disclosure Forms
Proposed Rules and Regulations
Settlement Agreements
Statements of Policy
Studies and Proposals
 
Timeline of revisions
Disclosure requirements
Prohibited practices
RESPA enforcement
Dodd-Frank Amendments
Current Issues
The RESPA Statute
 
RESPA News
Contact / Editors
Advertise
Social Media
Are You An Expert?
Subscriber Agreement
 
NS3 The Summit
Other Newsletters
The Title Report
The Legal Description
Valuation Review
Dodd Frank Upate
Copyright © 2005-2022 RESPA News
An October Research, LLC publication
3046 Brecksville Road, Suite D, Richfield, OH 44286
(330) 659-6101, All Rights Reserved
www.respanews.com | Privacy Policy
VISIT OUR OTHER WEBSITES
> Dodd Frank Update
> The Legal Description
> The Title Report
> Valuation Review
> The October Store


Loading... Loading...
12 USC Section 2605 or Section 6 is titled Servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts. It pertains to qualified written requests, notices of transfer of servicing and the administration of escrow accounts.
An arrangement that involves a person who is in a position to refer business as part of a real estate settlement service and who has an interest in a settlement services provider.

In the arrangement, the person, who has either an affiliate relationship with or a direct or beneficial ownership interest of more than one percent in a settlement services provider, directly or indirectly refers business to that provider or influences a consumer to select that provider.
An arrangement that involves a person who is in a position to refer business as part of a real estate settlement service and who has an interest in a settlement services provider.

In the arrangement, the person, who has either an affiliate relationship with or a direct or beneficial ownership interest of more than one percent in a settlement services provider, directly or indirectly refers business to that provider or influences a consumer to select that provider.
A mortgage disclosure that lists all estimated charges and fees associated with your loan. In addition to fees and charges, it will list your loan amount, mortgage rate, loan term and estimated monthly payment. Your escrows due at closing for insurance and taxes will also be outlined. Mortgage lenders are legally required to provide a GFE within three days of receiving your application.
A mortgage disclosure that lists all estimated charges and fees associated with your loan. In addition to fees and charges, it will list your loan amount, mortgage rate, loan term and estimated monthly payment. Your escrows due at closing for insurance and taxes will also be outlined. Mortgage lenders are legally required to provide a GFE within three days of receiving your application.
Under RESPA Section 2605(e)(1)(B), a qualified written request is a written correspondence that includes: 1) the name and account of the borrower, or has enough information to allow the servicer identify that information; and 2) a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.

A QWR cannot be written on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer.
Under RESPA Section 2605(e)(1)(B), a qualified written request is a written correspondence that includes: 1) the name and account of the borrower, or has enough information to allow the servicer identify that information; and 2) a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.

A QWR cannot be written on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer.
12 USC Section 2609 or Section 10 is titled Limitation on requirement of advance deposits in escrow accounts. It governs escrow accounts including notifications and statements to borrowers. Section 10 also sets out penalties for those who violate the section.
RESPA Section 3 provides that a thing of value includes any payment, advance, funds, loan, service or other consideration

Regulation X says thing of value includes: monies, things, discounts, salaries, commissions, fees, duplicate payments of a charge, stock, dividends, distributions of partnership profits, franchise royalties, credits representing monies that may be paid at a future date, the opportunity to participate in a money-making program, retained or increased earnings, increased equity in a parent or subsidiary entity, special bank deposits or accounts, special or unusual banking terms, services of all types at special or free rates, sales or rentals at special prices or rates, lease or rental payments based in whole or in part on the amount of business referred, trips and payment of another person’s expenses or reduction in credit against an existing obligation.
A form used by a settlement or closing agent itemizing all charges imposed on a borrower and seller in a real estate transaction. This form represents the closing transaction and provides each party with a complete list of incoming and outgoing funds. RESPA requires the HUD-1 to be used as the standard real estate settlement form in all transactions in the U.S. involving federally related mortgage loans.
Featuring:
  • Delivery 3X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • Comprehensive title insurance industry news
  • Recent acquisitions, mergers, real estate stats
  • Exclusive in-depth coverage of the industry's hottest stories
Featuring:
  • Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • Comprehensive Dodd-Frank coverage
  • The latest information from the CFPB
  • Full coverage of Congressional hearings
  • Updates on all agency actions
  • Analysis of controversial provisions
  • Release of newest studies and reports
Sign up today and...
  • Be one of the first to know where NS3 is being held
  • Learn about NS3 speakers and sessions
  • Save on registration with Super-Early Bird rates
  • Discover the networking opportunities NS3 offers
  • Find out if CE credits will be offered for your area
  • And much more
Featuring:
  • Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • Preview the latest RESPAnews.com Top Story
  • RESPA related headline news
  • Quote of the Week
Featuring:
  • Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • Legal, regulatory and legislative information impacting the settlement services industry
  • News from HUD, Congress, state legislatures and other regulatory agencies
  • Follow the lobbying efforts of all the major national real estate services organizations.
Featuring:
  • Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
  • The industry's only full-time newsroom
  • Relevant, up-to-date appraisal industry news
  • Covering the hottest stories and industry trends
NEWS BY TOPIC
NEWS BY EDITION
SPECIAL REPORTS
WEBINARS
LIBRARY
FREE EMAIL UPDATES
ABOUT
SUBSCRIBE
All Rise
Case Law
Enforcement Update
Industry News
Legislation
Regulatory News
This Week in Washington
The TRID Journey
TILA News
Current Edition
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
Archives
Real Estate Compliance Outlook
Best Practices
Enforcement Lessons
2022 State of the Industry
Mergers & Acquisitions
Archives
2022 Economic Forecast Series
CFPB Update
Evolving Consumer Relationships
Understanding Cyber Insurance
Utilizing Tech for RESPA Compliance
Collaborating on eClosings
Industry and Regulatory Outlook
Diversifying Your Office
Complying with the New CFPB
Webinar Archives
Executive Interview Series
eClosing Solutions Showcase
Affiliated Compliance
RESPA DEFINED
Case Law
Disclosure Forms
Enforcement
Federal and State Legislation
Guidance Documents
HUD's FAQ's - General
HUD's RESPA final rule FAQs
Position Papers and Studies
Rules and Regulations
Timeline of revisions
Disclosure requirements
Prohibited practices
RESPA enforcement
Dodd-Frank Amendments
RESPA Glossary
Current Issues
The RESPA Statute
Model Disclosure Forms
Proposed Disclosure Forms
Enforcement Documents
Settlement Agreements
CFPB Guidance Documents
Other Guidance Documents
Statements of Policy
Position Papers
Studies and Proposals
Federal Register Notices
Proposed Rules and Regulations
RESPA News
Contact Us
Advertise
Social Media
Are You An Expert?
Subscriber Agreement