Maryland Code
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-804 (2026)
§ 12-804
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MD-GAmgaleg.maryland.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§12–804.
(a) A mortgage broker may charge a finder’s fee not in excess of 8 percent of the amount of the loan or advance.
(b) In addition to a finder’s fee, a mortgage broker may charge a borrower for the actual cost of:
(1) Any appraisal, credit report, condominium document, or subordination agreement document obtained by the mortgage broker at the written request of the borrower; and
(2) Any other good or service, as specified in regulations adopted by the Commissioner, that is required to complete a loan application process and that, at the written request of the borrower, is paid by the mortgage broker to a third–party provider of the good or service.
(c) A mortgage broker obtaining a mortgage loan with respect to the same property more than once within a 24–month period may charge a finder’s fee if the fee is not in excess of 8% of the initial loan amount when combined with the finder’s fee charged on the initial loan and on any other finder’s fee collected during that 24–month period.
(d) The provisions of this section do not apply to:
(1) The charging of fees and charges otherwise permitted under this title; or
(2) Attorney’s fees unless the attorney is functioning as a mortgage broker.
(e) A mortgage broker may not charge a finder’s fee in any transaction in which the mortgage broker or an owner, part owner, partner, director, officer, or employee of the mortgage broker is the lender or an owner, part owner, partner, director, officer, or employee of the lender.
(a) A mortgage broker may charge a finder’s fee not in excess of 8 percent of the amount of the loan or advance.
(b) In addition to a finder’s fee, a mortgage broker may charge a borrower for the actual cost of:
(1) Any appraisal, credit report, condominium document, or subordination agreement document obtained by the mortgage broker at the written request of the borrower; and
(2) Any other good or service, as specified in regulations adopted by the Commissioner, that is required to complete a loan application process and that, at the written request of the borrower, is paid by the mortgage broker to a third–party provider of the good or service.
(c) A mortgage broker obtaining a mortgage loan with respect to the same property more than once within a 24–month period may charge a finder’s fee if the fee is not in excess of 8% of the initial loan amount when combined with the finder’s fee charged on the initial loan and on any other finder’s fee collected during that 24–month period.
(d) The provisions of this section do not apply to:
(1) The charging of fees and charges otherwise permitted under this title; or
(2) Attorney’s fees unless the attorney is functioning as a mortgage broker.
(e) A mortgage broker may not charge a finder’s fee in any transaction in which the mortgage broker or an owner, part owner, partner, director, officer, or employee of the mortgage broker is the lender or an owner, part owner, partner, director, officer, or employee of the lender.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2011–2020 · leading case: William Marshall v. James B. Nutter & Co., 758 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2014).
William Marshall v. James B. Nutter & Co., 758 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2014). “” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-804 (e). He alleged that “Savings First acted as both the mortgage broker and as the nominal mortgage lender,” while “Nutter table-fund[ed] the mortgage loan and act[ed] as the funding lender.”
Schlossberg v. Abell (In re Abell), 549 B.R. 631 (Bankr. D. Md. 2016). “The provision "imposes a duty only on mortgage brokers, and therefore only mortgage brokers are capable of violating it.”
Marshall v. James B. Nutter & Co., 816 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D. Maryland 2011). “See Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-804. Under the scheme described in the Plaintiffs Com *266 plaint, Nutter allegedly conspired with various mortgage brokers to violate the MFFA by table-funding mortgage loan transactions so that the brokers in question could collect finder’s fees…”
Bradley Petry v. Prosperity Mortg. Co., 758 F.3d 543 (4th Cir. 2014). “” Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-804(e). 1 But this provision is not irreconcilable with the statute’s definition of mortgage broker.”
Al-Sabah v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC (D. Maryland 2020). “at 539 (discussing Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-804 (e)). The court held that since the defendant was not a mortgage broker, but instead acted only as a “funding lender,” he had no “legal capacity” to conspire to violate the Finder’s Fee Act.”
— Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-804(e) — 4 cases
William Marshall v. James B. Nutter & Co., 758 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2014). “” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-804 (e). He alleged that “Savings First acted as both the mortgage broker and as the nominal mortgage lender,” while “Nutter table-fund[ed] the mortgage loan and act[ed] as the funding lender.”
Schlossberg v. Abell (In re Abell), 549 B.R. 631 (Bankr. D. Md. 2016). “The provision "imposes a duty only on mortgage brokers, and therefore only mortgage brokers are capable of violating it.”
Marshall v. James B. Nutter & Co., 816 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D. Maryland 2011). “See Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-804. Under the scheme described in the Plaintiffs Com *266 plaint, Nutter allegedly conspired with various mortgage brokers to violate the MFFA by table-funding mortgage loan transactions so that the brokers in question could collect finder’s fees…”
Bradley Petry v. Prosperity Mortg. Co., 758 F.3d 543 (4th Cir. 2014). “” Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 12-804(e). 1 But this provision is not irreconcilable with the statute’s definition of mortgage broker.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.