12 U.S.C. § 2608
Title companies; liability of seller
Section effective 180 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Chelsea Condo. Unit Owners Ass'n v. 1815 a St., Condo. Grp., LLC, 468 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D.D.C. 2007).
Chelsea Condo. Unit Owners Ass'n v. 1815 a St., Condo. Grp., LLC, 468 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D.D.C. 2007). “In addition, the defendants moved to dismiss the count alleging a violation of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2608 with respect to defendant National Title, and the counts alleging strict liability and violation of the D.”
Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 585 F.3d 753 (3rd Cir. 2009). “12 U.S.C. § 2608 (a). A section 9 violation results in damages “in an amount equal to three times all charges made for such title insurance.”
Nw. Title Agency, Inc. v. United States, 855 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2608 (a). We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that these contracts are not reasonably interpreted as forcing homebuyers to purchase title insurance from NWTA over another title insurer.”
Amina v. WMC Fin. Co., 329 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Haw. 2018). “§ 2607 prohibiting kickbacks for real estate settlement services; and (3) 12 U.S.C. § 2608 prohibiting sellers from requiring buyers to use a specific title insurer as a condition of its sale.”
Grant v. Shapiro & Burson, LLP, 871 F. Supp. 2d 462 (D. Maryland 2012). “§ 2607 ; 9 and (3) requiring a buyer to use a title insurer chosen by the seller, 12 U.S.C. § 2608 . See McKinney v. Fulton Bank, 776 F.”
Karen Allison, Suing Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Liberty Sav., 695 F.2d 1086 (7th Cir. 1982). “12 U.S.C. § 2608 (b). . Section 6 provided in relevant part: If any lender fails to provide a prospective borrower or seller with the disclosure as required by subsection (a), it shall be liable to such borrower or seller, as the case may be, in an amount equal to— (1) the…”
Moore v. Radian Grp., Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 819 (E.D. Tex. 2002). “After noting that another section of RE SPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2608 (a), expressly permitted the recovery of three times all charges made for title insurance, the court concluded that the more persuasive reading of sections 2607(a) and (b) only permitted the recovery of three times…”
McKinney v. Fulton Bank, 776 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D. Maryland 2010). “§ 2607 (prohibiting kickbacks and unearned fees); 12 U.S.C. § 2608 (prohibiting sellers from requiring the *104 buyer to purchase title insurance from a particular title company).”
Rendler v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., 182 F.R.D. 152 (E.D. Pa. 1998). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2608 (a) (1989). The evidence relating to when CMAC was named title insurer for plaintiffs is conflicting.”
Pedraza v. United Guar. Corp., 114 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (S.D. Ga. 2000). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2608 (a). Lenders, in turn, were required to “complete and ma[ke] available for inspection by the borrower at or before settlement” the form prescribed by the.”
Das v. WMC Mortg. Corp., 831 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “§ 2607 (a), (b); (2) requiring a buyer to use a title insurer selected by the seller, 12 U.S.C. § 2608 (b); and (3) the failure by a loan servicer to give proper notice of a transfer of servicing rights or to respond to a qualified written request for information about a loan,…”
Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 493 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Ohio 2007). “” 12 U.S.C. § 2608 (b) (emphasis added). The Morales court concluded that: Reading the two damages sections in pari materia, it is obvious that, in situations where Congress intended damages to be based on the entire amount of the settlement charge, it made such intention clear…”
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.