«This step underscores that securities and resolution experts need to be on their toes in analyzing marketing service agreements,» ALTA CEO Diane Tomb said in a statement. «Section 8 of RESPA can be confusing and unclear. We appreciate the Bureau`s efforts to create compliance materials that will help the industry address these issues using specific facts. The Bulletin terminated a number of CFPB enforcement actions that indicated that it was very difficult to legally manage an MSA. Starting with the Agency`s highly controversial approval settlement against Lighthouse Title[3], the CFPB has effectively taken the position that certain types of agreements are themselves contrary to RESPA. As the Bureau stated in Lighthouse Title: «The assignment of a contract is [itself] a `matter of value` within the meaning of section 8, even if the fees paid under this contract have fair value for the goods or services delivered.» Second, the services required under the ADM must be effectively provided. The mere enumeration of the services envisaged is not enough. Marketing service agreements and affiliate builder relationships provide owners with cost savings and increased efficiency in the resolution process. [1] «RESPA», as used here, refers to two separate but related prohibitions in Section 8 of the Act. First, a person cannot agree to give another person a «value deal» for recommendations to the real estate settlement activity. [RESPA§ 8(a)) `referral` means any `act addressed to a person who has a positive influence on the choice of a billing service provider`; A recommendation also occurs when a «person who pays for a billing service. is required to use.

a particular supplier…. (12 CFR § 1024.14 (f)) The second RESPA prohibition prohibits parties from allocating a billing fee for which no service is provided or is provided only by nominal services, that is. An «undeserved tax» to be distributed. (RESPA§ 8 b). With respect to the «normal promotional and educational activities» that RESPA authorizes, some of the two negative requirements for such activities have been elaborated in the Gift FAQ, in particular that the offer of an item or activity cannot be subordinated to: (1) the transfer of a business; or (2) costs that would otherwise be incurred by a person who would be able to recommend a business. The Bureau noted that the requirement «is not due» in general to the breadth or narrowness of the offer of the object or activity. The wider the offer, the more likely it is that it is «not linked to recommendations». An example would be the offering of a promotional item to the «general public or to all resolution service providers who offer similar services at a given location.» The Board compared this scenario to one where an article or activity «is closely oriented towards previous, current or future sources of recommendations.» In short, section (8)(a) of respA prohibits bribes (defined as all valuables) for business recommendations of mortgage settlement services for residential real estate, for example.B. title insurance, real estate agents, flood insurance, loans or mortgage brokers.

Section 8(b) adds that the sharing or allocation of charges for services other than services actually provided is prohibited. Section 8(c) cites examples of eligible payments and these examples emphasize that these payments must be appropriate and apply to the services actually provided. According to the CFPB, the Bulletin «did not provide the necessary regulatory clarity on how to comply with RESPA and Regulation X.» Although there were no specific guidelines, the tone of the 2015 guidelines and the subsequent implementing measures showed that the CFP considered MSM to be a high risk between service providers under RESPA, as they can camouflage payments for recommendations as payments for marketing services. . . .