12 U.S.C. § 2610
Prohibition of fees for preparation of truth-in-lending, uniform settlement, and escrow account statements
No fee shall be imposed or charge made upon any other person (as a part of settlement costs or otherwise) by a lender in connection with a federally related mortgage loan made by it (or a loan for the purchase of a mobile home), or by a servicer (as the term is defined under section 2605(i) of this title), for or on account of the preparation and submission by such lender or servicer of the statement or statements required (in connection with such loan) by sections 2603 and 2609(c) of this title or by the Truth in Lending Act [15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.].
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Luis & Margaret Vega, Individually & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Detroit, 622 F.2d 918 (1st Cir. 1980).
Luis & Margaret Vega, Individually & on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Detroit, 622 F.2d 918 (1st Cir. 1980). “12 U.S.C. § 2610 . 9 In their complaint, the Vegas alleged that First Federal had improperly included the cost of preparing statements required by the Acts as an element of settlement costs.”
Cohen v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 498 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2007). “Indeed, RESPA provisions, such as the prohibition on charges for the preparation of truth-in-lending statements, see 12 U.S.C. § 2610 , go beyond the stated statutory goal to eliminate kickbacks and referral fees.”
McAnaney v. Astoria Fin. Corp., 357 F. Supp. 2d 578 (E.D.N.Y 2005). “12 U.S.C. § 2610 . For the same reasons as stated above, the Court finds that there is no' private right of action under § 2610.”
Da Silva v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 885 F. Supp. 2d 500 (D. Mass. 2012). “; and the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2610 et seq. 14 The court will not address the substance of these claims because each one is clearly time-barred.”
Madera v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co. (In Re Madera), 363 B.R. 718 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2007). “Count III alleges that the Defendant violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2610 , et seq. (“RESPA”), by failing to respond to the Plaintiffs’ “qualified written request” (“QWR”) for certain information about the loan and seeks damages and costs.”
Eddie Watt v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 457 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2006). “See 12 U.S.C. § 2610 ; see also 24 C.F.R. § 3500.”
Betancourt v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 344 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (D. Colo. 2004). “Their citation to 12 U.S.C. § 2610 , et seq., in support of the claim is unexplained.”
Vega v. First Fed. Sav. & L. Ass'n of Detroit, 433 F. Supp. 624 (E.D. Mich. 1977). “(4) Defendant has imposed a fee for the preparation and submission of the Disclosure Statement required by RESPA and TILA in violation of Title 12 U.S.C. § 2610 . Defendant here moves for summary judgment as to paragraphs 10,11,12,14,15, 16, and 17 of plaintiffs’ complaint…”
Au v. Repub. State Mortg. Co., 948 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (D. Haw. 2013). “§ 2609 and 12 U.S.C. § 2610 . While the Act does not expressly provide for such a causes of action, we believe, based on the legislative history, that Congress intended to create a private remedy for violations of the Act.”
Layell v. Home Loan & Inv. Bank, F.S.B., 244 B.R. 345 (E.D. Va. 1999). “Specifically, Layell relies on 12 U.S.C. § 2610 which provides that: Fee for preparation of truth-in-lending and uniform settlement statements — No fee shall be imposed or charge made upon any other person (as part of settlement costs or otherwise) by a lender in connection with…”
In Re Johnson, 384 B.R. 763 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008). “§ 2609 and 12 U.S.C. § 2610 . While the Act does not expressly provide for such a causes [sic] of action, we believe, based on the legislative history, that Congress intended to create a private remedy for violations of the Act.”
Munk v. Fed. Land Bank of Wichita, 791 F.2d 130 (10th Cir. 1986). “Since the Truth in Lending Act does not apply to this transaction, plaintiffs’ allegation that *132 the Bank illegally added a fee for compliance with the Act in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2610 is also without merit. Plaintiffs make the conclusional assertion that some defendants…”
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.